Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video


Posted by JudyS on 8/21/03 at 11:54 (127520)

When we start talking about things like deliberately killing women and children to prevent terrorism that might be a sign that the current political conversation is becoming a bit too aggressive and I'd sure hate to see a repeat of last spring's political fiasco here.

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Ed Davis, DPM on 8/21/03 at 12:17 (127527)

I would like to see some of our posters consider the tone of their posts. I think some of the content is hyperbolic and don't think that some are necessarily saying what they mean. There is a strong emotional response to the horrendous terrorist acts that have occurred and we do owe posters some latitude in that area.

I beleive that their hearts are in the right place though. Moderation in tone is important to avoid inflaming passions but honesty in expression is ultimately more admirable. Some issues are so critical that they are not solved by moderation. The above quote is from one of the greatest Americans, Barry Goldwater. Read his acceptance of the 1964 Republican nomination to gain inspiration for today: follows in the next post...

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Ed Davis, DPM on 8/21/03 at 12:19 (127529)

Goldwater Remembered

The speech....

Goldwater's 1964 Acceptance Speech
The following is the text of Barry Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president. Provided by the Arizona Historical Foundation

To my good friend and great Republican, Dick Nixon, and your charming wife, Pat; my running mate and that wonderful Republican who has served us well for so long, Bill Miller and his wife, Stephanie; to Thurston Morton who has done such a commendable job in chairmaning this Convention; to Mr. Herbert Hoover, who I hope is watching; and to that great American and his wife, General and Mrs. Eisenhower; to my own wife, my family, and to all of my fellow Republicans here assembled, and Americans across this great Nation.

From this moment, united and determined, we will go forward together, dedicated to the ultimate and undeniable greatness of the whole man. Together we will win.

I accept your nomination with a deep sense of humility. I accept, too, the responsibility that goes with it, and I seek your continued help and your continued guidance. My fellow Republicans, our cause is too great for any man to feel worthy of it. Our task would be too great for any man, did he not have with him the heart and the hands of this great Republican Party, and I promise you tonight that every fiber of my being is consecrated to our cause; that nothing shall be lacking from the struggle that can be brought to it by enthusiasm, by devotion, and plain hard work. In this world no person, no party can guarantee anything, but what we can do and what we shall do is to deserve victory, and victory will be ours.

The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free-not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bully of communism.

Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways-- not because they are old, but because they are true. We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom - freedom made orderly for this nation by our constitutional government; freedom under a government limited by laws of nature and of nature's God; freedom - balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the slavery of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle.

Now, we Americans understand freedom. We have earned it, we have lived for it, and we have died for it. This Nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world. We can be freedom's missionaries in a doubting world. But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our own homes.

During four futile years, the administration which we shall replace has distorted and lost that faith. It has talked and talked and talked and talked the words of freedom. Now, failures cement the wall of shame in Berlin. Failures blot the sands of shame at the Bay of Pigs. Failures mark the slow death of freedom in Laos. Failures infest the jungles of Vietnam. And failures haunt the houses of our once great alliances and undermine the greatest bulwark ever erected by free nations - the NATO community. Failures proclaim lost leadership, obscure purpose, weakening wills, and the risk of inciting our sworn enemies to new aggressions and to new excesses. Because of this administration we are tonight a world divided - we are a Nation becalmed. We have lost the brisk pace of diversity and the genius of individual creativity. We are plodding at a pace set by centralized planning, red tape, rules without responsibility, and regimentation without recourse.

Rather than useful jobs in our country, people have been offered bureaucratic 'make work,' rather than moral leadership, they have been given bread and circuses, spectacles, and, yes, they have even been given scandals. Tonight there is violence in our streets, corruption in our highest offices, aimlessness among our youth, anxiety among our elders and there is a virtual despair among the many who look beyond material success for the inner meaning of their lives. Where examples of morality should be set, the opposite is seen. Small men, seeking great wealth or power, have too often and too long turned even the highest levels of public service into mere personal opportunity.

Now, certainly, simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government. We find it in most. Republicans demand it from everyone. They demand it from everyone no matter how exalted or protected his position might be. The growing menace in our country tonight, to personal safety, to life, to limb and property, in homes, in churches, on the playgrounds, and places of business, particularly in our great cities, is the mounting concern, or should be, of every thoughtful citizen in the United States.

Security from domestic violence, no less than from foreign aggression, is the most elementary and fundamental purpose of any government, and a government that cannot fulfill that purpose is one that cannot long command the loyalty of its citizens. History shows us - demonstrates that nothing - nothing prepares the way for tyranny more than the failure of public officials to keep the streets from bullies and marauders.

Now, we Republicans see all this as more, much more, than the rest: of mere political differences or mere political mistakes. We see this as the result of a fundamentally and absolutely wrong view of man, his nature and his destiny. Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people. And, so help us God, that is exactly what a Republican president will do with the help of a Republican Congress.

It is further the cause of Republicanism to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the illusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression - and this is hogwash.

It is further the cause of Republicanism to remind ourselves, and the world, that only the strong can remain free, that only the strong can keep the peace.

Now, I needn't remind you, or my fellow Americans regardless of party, that Republicans have shouldered this hard responsibility and marched in this cause before. It was Republican leadership under Dwight Eisenhower that kept the peace, and passed along to this administration the mightiest arsenal for defense the world has ever known. And I needn't remind you that it was the strength and the unbelievable will of the Eisenhower years that kept the peace by using our strength, by using it in the Formosa Straits and in Lebanon and by showing it courageously at all times.

It was during those Republican years that the thrust of Communist imperialism was blunted. It was during those years of Republican leadership that this world moved closer, not to war, but closer to peace, than at any other time in the three decades just passed.

And I needn't remind you - but I will - that it's been during Democratic years that our strength to deter war has stood still, and even gone into a planned decline. It has been during Democratic years that we have weakly stumbled into conflict, timidly refusing to draw our own lines against aggression, deceitfully refusing to tell even our people of our full participation, and tragically, letting our finest men die on battlefields (unmarked by purpose, unmarked by pride or the prospect of victory).

Yesterday it was Korea. Tonight it is Vietnam. Make no bones of this. Don't try to sweep this under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the President, who is Commander-in-Chief of our forces, refuses to say - refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory. And his Secretary of Defense continues to mislead and misinform the American people, and enough of it has gone by.

And I needn't remind you, but I will; it has been during Democratic years that a billion persons were cast into Communist captivity and their fate cynically sealed.

Today in our beloved country we have an administration which seems eager to deal with communism in every coin known - from gold to wheat, from consulates to confidence, and even human freedom itself.

The Republican cause demands that we brand communism as a principal disturber of peace in the world today. Indeed, we should brand it as the only significant disturber of the peace, and we must make clear that until its goals of conquest are absolutely renounced and its rejections with all nations tempered, communism and the governments it now controls are enemies of every man on earth who is or wants to be free.

We here in America can keep the peace only if we remain vigilant and only if we remain strong. Only if we keep our eyes open and keep our guard up can we prevent war. And I want to make this abundantly clear - I don't intend to let peace or freedom be torn from our grasp because of lack of strength or lack of will - and that I promise you Americans.

I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. This is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot.

It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see - and all free men must thrill to - the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge - we pledge that human sympathy - what our neighbors to the South call that attitude of 'simpatico' - no less than enlightened self'-interest will be our guide.

I can see this Atlantic civilization galvanizing and guiding emergent nations everywhere.

I know this freedom is not the fruit of every soil. I know that our own freedom was achieved through centuries, by unremitting efforts by brave and wise men. I know that the road to freedom is a long and a challenging road. I know also that some men may walk away from it, that some men resist challenge, accepting the false security of governmental paternalism.

And I pledge that the America I envision in the years ahead will extend its hand in health, in teaching and in cultivation, so that all new nations will be at least encouraged to go our way, so that they will not wander down the dark alleys of tyranny or to the dead-end streets of collectivism. My fellow Republicans, we do no man a service by hiding freedom's light under a bushel of mistaken humility.

I seek an American proud of its past, proud of its ways, proud of its dreams, and determined actively to proclaim them. But our example to the world must, like charity, begin at home.

In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room for deliberation of the energy and talent of the individual - otherwise our vision is blind at the outset.

We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunity for the creative and the productive. We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions.

I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.

This Nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we, as individual citizens, can and should do. During Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations - a Nation where all who can will be self-reliant.

We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man, and we see the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.

We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.

We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy and enforcing law and order. Thus do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creativity within a stable order, for we Republicans define government's role where needed at many, many levels, preferably through the one closest to the people involved.

Our towns and our cities, then our counties, then our states, then our regional contacts - and only then, the national government. That, let me remind you, is the ladder of liberty, built by decentralized power. On it also we must have balance between the branches of government at every level.

Balance, diversity, creativity - these are the elements of Republican equation. Republicans agree, Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications, but we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are Republicans.

This is a party, this Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists.

Back in 1858 Abraham Lincoln said this of the Republican party - and I quote him, because he probably could have said it during the last week or so: 'It was composed of strained, discordant, and even hostile elements' in 1858. Yet all of these elements agreed on one paramount objective: To arrest the progress of slavery, and place it in the course of ultimate extinction.

Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of preserving and enlarging freedom at home and safeguarding it from the forces of tyranny abroad is great enough to challenge all our resources and to require all our strength. Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those who do not care for our cause, we don't expect to enter our ranks in any case. And let our Republicanism, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

The beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution. Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world.

Ours is a very human cause for very humane goals.

This Party, its good people, and its unquestionable devotion to freedom, will not fulfill the purposes of this campaign which we launch here now until our cause has won the day, inspired the world, and shown the way to a tomorrow worthy of all our yesteryears.

I repeat, I accept your nomination with humbleness, with pride, and you and I are going to fight for the goodness of our land. Thank you.

Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

Back to the top

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

JudyS on 8/21/03 at 12:37 (127532)

Thanks Dr. Ed - well said.
But I think that the more passionate of this kind of discussion really belongs on a political message board. I think that was a big part of the problem with the last passionate discussion we had here - folks with sore feet were put off and I worry about that happening again - or even about having more 'regulars' end up leaving. Passion is passion and it has no predictability except that it makes people react in highly sensitive manners.
Having said that, I know that Scott is very adament about freedom of speech here and I sure support that just as much as he does. You'd be surprised at the number of fairly innocous or tame statements people have emailed me about asking me to delete.
I'm with Scott - it's got to get pretty serious before I'm willing to delete something and that's not what I'm about right now. I'm just concerned that people will get far too angry and reactive again and you know what happened last time.
Yes, you're right, some issues need to be addressed passionately (I like your concept there) - but perhaps a different kind of message board is a better place for the more aggressive of that passion. Or perhaps not - it's all in the eye of the poster I suppose.
For the record, I've been very interested in the discussion so far - what an intriguing amount of ideas and history voiced here!

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Ed Davis, DPM on 8/21/03 at 12:50 (127537)

The 'social' board has become sort of the multipurpose posting area for non-specific medical, social and political concerns.

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Peter R on 8/21/03 at 15:03 (127554)

I meant every word of what I said- Kill off the breeders and the future terrorists,destroy them in their hovels, lay waste to them in the most horrific manner man has ever devised, make them the new victims of a holacaust that will cause all others in the history of the world pale in comparison. Were not there Israeli women and babies murdered on that bus- are they of a lesser value than the breeders of terrorists and their sick offal? Do the mothers of the dead Israeli children encourage them to strap bombs to their bodies and kill Palastinians- do they weep at the death of their children or do they celebrate and dance in the streets.
These are sick people- they are a danger to innocent people all over the world- we forgot very quickly how we were the victims of terrorists who strapped themselves into flying bombs on Sept 11 and killed thousands of innocent Americans. HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN SO QUICKlY- I THINK YOU HAVE AND SHAME ON YOU ALL-

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Dr. Z on 8/21/03 at 15:31 (127560)

Here is something that I am going to say and will probaby get alot of ###$
for this. There are times that I have no sympathy for Israel. It they take it and don't go out there and destroy the plo then they deserve what they get. Fool me once shame on you . Fool me twice shame on me. There should be a TOTAL WAR on the PLO. TOTAL DEFEAT.

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/21/03 at 15:49 (127566)

Judy I think this just turned into another political thread. I kinda liked John's idea about discussing politics once a month. That way these guys and gals can get it out of their system and then melo out.

John are you listening.....do you remember that idea?

best wishes marie

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Ed Davis, DPM on 8/21/03 at 15:52 (127567)

The problem here is that we are not in a classic war where we are fighting a country as a recognizable entity. Terrorists hide among the innnocent so going in and mass bombing an area with the hope that the terrorists are going to be among those killed may not have the results you desire.

Ultimately, I don't see how it is possible to intermingle two distinct countries as the 'roadmap' is trying to do especially when one of those entities is hostile. Those calling for relocation of the Arab population have been chastised but it is the only long term solution. Again, England and other European countries have contributed tremendously to the mess and should bear some of the costs.

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

BGCPed on 8/21/03 at 17:26 (127578)

Very good Dr Ed. Funny that was 40 years ago and much of it applies today.

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

JudyS on 8/21/03 at 17:40 (127579)

Right you are again, Dr. Ed. We just need to remember that, while the term 'social' can be an umbrella for many subjects, the term 'support' is just as critical. If a heated discussion is chasing away foot-sore or good-hearted folks than we're not meeting the definition of the word.

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

JudyS on 8/21/03 at 18:08 (127583)

Peter, if I were a new, frustrated PF patient and I came to this message board looking for what it's title infers, support, I'd take one look at what you've written here and never, never come back. I'd be scratching my head and wondering if I'd stumbled on to the wrong website while searching for some TLC.

I mean really, don't we all have some kind of responsibility for those in pain who come here looking for, well, support?

And no, my friend, not one person here has 'forgotten'. You go too far but I suspect you know that. We just know when and where to have your kind of......discussion.

Re: moderation?

Dr. Z on 8/21/03 at 19:26 (127587)

This is my first time getting involved with the political discussions. So are we getting out of hand ?

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/21/03 at 19:36 (127589)

The topic is ok but you guys are getting a little excited. I know that most of it is just in the spirit of the conversation but others may find it to much. John made a suggestion of one spirited political discussion a month, which I thought was a good idea. Maybe the discussion could be tabled until next month. It's nice to see the guys come on board and chat so please don't take it personally. Politics doesn't offend me at all so I think moderate discussion on the topic is always interesting. But I am not the boss of you guys so please make your own decisions.

Re: moderation?

BGCPed on 8/21/03 at 21:35 (127601)

I dont think it is getting excited. I think the difference is maybe a male v female thing. Most men want to fix things and we are hard-wired to do it fast and simple as possible. That is both a good trait and a bad trait but it is a trait regardless.

One can easily read the tone of each post and see that this is true. There may be a 30 response post on what style of birk sandals looks good and it is all females. A post about material uses for orthotics is usually all men. I really think that unless a person gets nasty or really out of hand towards an individual it should be open forum.

We are all adults and we know a specific thread is not about a subject we want to hear about then skip it. I am not naming any person but I got tired of the post police so I was awol from here for a while. It was not the typical 'I dont like what I read so I am leaving' issue, I just got tired of a few people saying the social board is for one type of thread.

I also stayed away for a while cause of the longgggggggggggg fight on the eswt board regarding the debate on what machine could do what and what it was labeled for and the pricing etc.

We can all read and if it looks like a thread that may have a controversial tone then skip it and you will be ok

me dos centavos

Re: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Dorothy on 8/22/03 at 03:13 (127625)

Recall if you will, those days of yore, when Hillary was a 'Goldwater Girl'....

If you enjoy reading true conservative views, are you familiar with Russell Kirk? He is considered the philospher behind much of 'true' conservatism. I am only marginally familiar with his views, but he is considered a clear, intelligent writer and worth reading, whether one is a conservative or not. He represents what is now uncommon: a conservative intellectual - in contrast to the kind of jingoistic, silly stuff that is passed out as 'conservative' now, in my humble opinion. There was a time when Republican and Democrat stood for something and they were different from each other and you could tell the difference. Recall, if you will, those days of yore...

Re: moderation?

JudyS on 8/22/03 at 11:21 (127657)

Well Richard, I'm a woman and I clearly wanted to 'fix' the current political discussion before it got too extreme and we had a repeat of last spring's mess. A simple inquiry about moderation is reasonable.

The social board is not for one 'type' of thread. But it's also not just a social board - it's also a support board. If heated or insensitive discussions drive people away, as it did in the spring, then we're being irresponsible. Moderation is a good compromise.

IMHO, statements favoring the deliberate murders of women and children are examples of irresponsibility in what is supposed to be a friendly discussion and supportive environment. I wonder, how would we feel if a Palistinian came here with the same kind of statement - after all, that is the terrorist philosophy - insane as it is - they don't want any more Israelis being born - the elimination of Jews appears to be their major goal no matter where the land boundaries are. We'd tell the guy to shut up go away because this message board is a 'friendly, caring environment that doesn't support his kind of remark'.

I have not said the social board should be limited in topic - there's nothing wrong with talking about politics or anything else. But I have said that when it gets extreme a more effective place for it is a political website. And I have not said that the current discussion was extreme - I said it looked like it might be headed that way and made an inquiry about moderation- which most, if not all, participants have respected with or without the inquiry.

New people, in pain, may not yet have learned how to distinguish one thread from another - they certainly don't know how to distinguish one personality from another.

And there's also a bottom line - Scott makes part of his living off people who come here looking for info and seeing his sponsors' products.

No, I'm not saying that we're driving people away in droves, but who knows how many take one look at something like 'deliberately murder the women and children' and decide not to linger. And there was, in fact, a time in the spring when one, maybe two, new posters did tell us they'd decided not to linger because of the angry discourse at the time.

And every now and then we have a poster who delights in stirring things up just for his/her own gratification because it's a challenge to them to impose nastiness on an otherwise friendly spot.

There's a reason that what you refer to as 'post police' exist here. There's a reason Scott decided to create that role.

Re: moderation?

john h on 8/22/03 at 12:09 (127668)

Yes Marie dear I do remember that idea and I thought it had floated off into outer space. When you get a group the size of this board you can never get consenus.

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/22/03 at 16:31 (127707)

How right you are! ;)

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/22/03 at 16:36 (127708)


Hey I have been around you guys long enough to know that at least half of what you say is 'manly bravado'. B-) It really doesn't bother me. I guess I would like to just point out that John and Judy are moderators and I think a gentle 'Wo' is ok. Like I said I am not the boss of you so it's really up to you. Glad to see your back. Hope you have been well and have had an enjoyable summer.

Re: moderation?

Dr. Z on 8/22/03 at 18:51 (127722)

Does this mean we can't kill Hamas this week. I understand what you are saying if it were so easy as just killing everyone in site it would have been done already. Still think there are about 800 hamas terrorists out there and if these animals were removed things would be alot better in the middle east. It is a few making it terrible for the rest

Re: moderation?

BGCPed on 8/22/03 at 19:02 (127725)

I was not talking about you Marie, your ok with me. remember late last winter you came a few degrees to the dark side and semi-embraced a few of my right leaning concepts. I didnt mean to rat you out. Dont worry there is room in the tent us big headed concervatives dont take up all the room

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/22/03 at 21:20 (127734)

It is sad that we have put this kind of energy into what a small group of individuals. Of course I am sure their numbers are more than what we may even imagine....just as peace has come so close it is lost again. It makes me mad but I am not sure that showing more power and might is going to help Israel. What a dilema. How sad we are to loose what we have certainly waited a lifetime to see. I am beginning to wonder if the problem between Israel and the PLO will outlive our generation. I hope that our children can find the answer to the sorrow of Israelees and the Palestinians. If we can teach our children the value of a good heart perhaps they can share their fortune with the world.


Re: moderation?

Dr. Z on 8/24/03 at 13:00 (127823)

The problem is the Arabs aren't teaching their children anything but lies, hating and giving their lives to suicide bombing.
Enough is enough. Just recently Bush froze the assests of top hamus leaders.( killers) JUST. !!! They have been on the State departments list of killers for years. What gives here?
Israel must only realize that they must be what they have to do by themselves. Friends who needs friends when they support your enemies.

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/24/03 at 14:30 (127834)

This is my humble theory. Israel has not won sympathy from other countries because they too have made many errors. Israel should rfrain from all retaliation during the peace talks. I know that amy seem unthinkable to many. But they will win the upper hand and the respect of their neighbors. Hamas is evil but when Israel retaliates they also kill some of the innocents. They should continue to build the wall and refuse entry to all Palestinians until Hamas stops. Basically holding the holy land hostage. More countries will alli with Israel. Just my theory....kill with love.


Re: moderation?

Dr. Z on 8/24/03 at 16:24 (127845)

Here is my theory The entire problem is that those other countries hate Jews. This is just a continuation of WW two and another attemp to destroy the jewish race.

Israel must realize this and they must destroy their enemies before they destroy them.
Those other countries didn't anything when Jordon held the Holy Land hostage
The only way Israel will win the upper hand is to show the world it won't take it not from the Arabs, not from Europe and not from the USA.
It is a disgrace especially after 911 that George Bush is NOW freezing Hamas monies in the the USA. Wait a minute. Now. George Bush talks the talk
but where is the walk.
I still remember George Bush you are either with us or against . Oh except for the Jews
Trust me there is a saying in the Arab world after the killing all the Saturday people so we can finally kill the Sunday people.
Wake up. This is a religious world. Always has been and always will be.

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/24/03 at 19:46 (127866)

Your comments are very intuitive. I too was surprised that G.B. is just now freezing Hamas funds. The Jews have been persecuted throughout history. I do like your idea of relocating them. I don't understand the hatred that has been the plight of their religion. I still think Israel should hold off on retaliating in the midst of Peace talks. They have to gain the trust of the Palestinians who want peace....and there many. Arrest the thugs who commit the crimes but no attacks.

It is my religion that guides me. Faith.

best wishes marie

Re: moderation?

Dr. Z on 8/24/03 at 20:55 (127873)

Ok. Here I am going out on a limb.. Why the hatred of jews. How about this one for though. Its really is simple which my or maybe be true. If the jews are correct and there is only one g-d the g-d of abraham etc etc. Then the Christians are wrong and so are the followers of Islam. Humans hate to be wrong but deep down inside they fear that just maybe the jews are right. I know the flip side of the coin that it is because of the jews being held responsible for the death of Christ. That doesn't make sense because if it were true it was a group of people two thousand years ago. Why would hatred travel for so long over one person he no one knew was the son of G-d at that time. Anyway it was the Romans who did the killing so why don't we all hate Italians.
As for the palestinians leadership that doesn't want peace because with peace you have to now provide services for your country. War and terrorism are very easy to handle. All you do is kill kill kill. You don't worry about schools, food, water, building, tax, leadership.
75% of the palestinians believe that suicide bombing is ok. That isn't a
people who want peace. They want war. It is very easy to destroy but it takes character to build nations and leader a country in peace.
It is time to either leave or take control. Israel must destroy its enemy
and do it now. The entire PLO present leadership must be arrested, or killed. Israel needs to declare war on these people and remove all of its
of the killers. There is not that many . The leadership is about 1000
terrorist. It can be done. Yes the world will turn on Israel but the USA must stand up for Israel on this one or terrorism will spread like fire for years to come. Some time you have to take a stand. George Bush lets see if you are the Christian you claim to be

Re: moderation?

Dorothy on 8/25/03 at 00:55 (127878)

I don't understand that hatred either. All of these hatreds are irrational. They are insane. All of this violence is insane.

I think there should be a much heavier leaning on surrounding countries - Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, most particularly - to make a home for the Israeli Arabs, the 'Palestinians', and that international aid should increase to settle them and that international aid should cease if they all continue to foment violence and obstruct resettlement.

I read a recent issue of the Christian Science Monitor with an excellent article on the building of the wall/fence in Israel. In the article, there was reference to Jordan's objecting to the efforts to form a new government in Iraq in the form of the Council that was put together by the U.S. essentially. Jordan's king said that Jordan wants to see free and open elections for representative government in Iraq. I repeat: Jordan's KING said he can't support the new Council because he wants to see free elections in Iraq!The KING said that. Not an ELECTED king, you know. And, by the way, the American born Queen Noor, widow of King Hussein of Jordan and mother to this current King, she being of either Lebanese or Palestinian parentage? while in the U.S. touring to sell her book made repeated statements that sounded pretty anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. So is Jordan simply trying to survive or is Jordan doing something more insidious.

There is no pure answer to any of this because it has gotten so muddled and messed over the years, so the international 'forces' either exert force by resettlement and rehabilitation or we will all continue to see these periodic waves of violence.

In the meantime, our own country has daily waves of violence - 44 people murdered every single day in the U.S. - and every element of our society needs a lot of improvement. I want that persistent violence to end for the sake of the people who live in that part of the world, but also for our own country. We need to bring our attention and efforts to the very, very, very serious problems in this country as well. I mean no disrespect to ANYONE but an almost 230 year old democracy is a kind of holy land itself and needs to be revered and protected and preserved.

Re: moderation?

john h on 8/25/03 at 08:29 (127888)

As Americans it is really hard for us to get inside the minds of people who are perpetually poor,hungary, and sick. Life in some of the 3rd world nations is almost beyond our ability to comprehend and so life becomes cheap. Some people welcome death and in particular when their belief system promises them a much better life. The Jews are not going to move anywhere. Many could simple leave if they wanted to. We probably have more Mexican immigrants every few years than are in the entire country of Israel. Probably more people have died in the name of religion in world hirstory than from anyother cause. At this point I really do not see a good outcome in the middle east. Both sides are fighting not only about land, economics, and hatred but also in the name of God.

Re: moderation?

Dr. Z on 8/25/03 at 08:43 (127892)

When I see the pictures in Gaza City at the Hamas funerals I don't see poverty. I was amazed at what was called poverty in Jennin.
Yes our country's problems need to come first.
There are alot of problems in the Middle East and I know we won't resolve them in one day but you are for either terrorism or against it.

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/25/03 at 16:16 (127945)

Today Senator Lugar asked that American Troops be sent to Israel. What do you think about that?

Re: moderation?

Dr. Z on 8/25/03 at 19:55 (127974)

No Way !!!!! That isn't the solution. Israel should handle this themselves.

Re: moderation?

marie on 8/25/03 at 21:50 (127999)

I agree. We barely have enough troops to handle our committments now. There is discussion of calling up 9 more divisions of the national guard.

I would like to find out why Lugar thinks we should send troops. He has been pretty outspoken about Iraq. Not they we shouldn't have gone in but that the President has not been up front about the cost and the time frame.