Posted on 03/10/2002 9:40:55 AM PST by Happygal
Yeah, Expansionism, as in the Arabs attack Israel with the intent to utterly destroy Israel, LOSE territory instead, and then all they can do is blame it on the evil Jews for the rest of eternity. Go Israel!
To your examples I would add an older one. Sylvester, one of the greates mathematicians of the XIX centuries could graduate from Oxford: although he fullfilled all other requirements, the very last one was the test of "rudimentary intelligence" --- a public acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior. This is the only requirement that Sylvester failed.
He moved to... Dublin, to Trinity: clearly no less Christian than the English schools, Trinity was more open-minded.
Paranthetically I could add that troubles of that kind have kept up with Sylvester throughout his life until, at the end of it, he was invited to chair the first mathematics deprtment on the American soil. One more time the European loss became our gain: Sylvester founded the first Mathematics Department -- at Jogn Hopkins -- that graduated its first flock in 1870 or so (to wit).
Wow...
Let me clue you in on something important. Bush has the approval he does because he came out and said we are going to flush these terrorists out, hunt them down and kill them.
He didn't whine. He didn't say everyone hates Americans.He acted like a man. And he got respect he deserved.
Get the point?
Of course you are correct on both counts.
I do not think the article was written from an American perspective, however. If you visited Europe recently, you may know how venerably "post-Christian," anti-American and anti-Israeli it has become. That's what the author sees.
Yeah, it was all peace and love before 1967. I pray for everyone that lives on Islam's borders. The Cold War borders at least had a degree of stability. The people that live in Chechnya or in Kashmir or in Sudan live their lives under the gun. They are all truly brave folks.
We kept saying that we would wipe out commies from Vietnam. For years. Yet the nation chose to betray its military there.
We talked about terrorism for decades. True, Regan bombed Gaddafi, but he did literally nothing to avenge hudreds of our boys whom he had sent to Lebanon. We knew who did it, we knew were they were, and the Sixth Fleet was ready. He did not move a finger --- on the advice of Powell, I hear.
Remember that marine who was beaten to death in mid-1980s during an airplane hijacking by the Arabs? A decade later we named a warship after him --- truly, a severe punishment to terrorists.
So, you and I may give all the support to the President. Let us see whether the rest of the country will do so for more than a few months.
Of the 29 armed resurgencies in the world, 26 involve Muslims fighting agains someone else --- Israelis, Hindus, Serbs, Russians, Georgians, Phillipinos --- you name it.
Sharon is fine with me (althought I don't know why today he let Arafat off the hook). Bibi is better though. I was referring to the endless series of whining aritcles we see posted on FR daily.
My guess is the endless bashing Sharon has taken affected him. See the same thing in Ashcroft. Getting savaged by liberals does take a toll.
You seem to be the one dropping stuff out of the toilet. Is this your opinion or did the JDL give you some really old material?
We might be in the process of trading Iron Curtain borders for Iron Veil ones. Amazing to think that the new enemy has already killed more Americans directly than the Soviets ever did (I'm excluding American casualties at the hands of Soviet and Chicom weapons in the hands of North Vietnam, of course).
I guess it all depends on your personal thoughts about the firepower of heaven. Some of Israel's greatest victories happened long before any real American support as far as weaponry, unless you count old re-gunned Shermans from WWII as help. Like I said, a lot depends on what takes place in your heart and soul and how you think that affects men in the heat of battle. Its the aspect of military history that I think is the hardest to decipher and comprehend.
Well, could you clarify something for us?
When was Israeli settlement in the West Bank "illegal"? When it occurred during the original Mandate? When Israel owned the West Bank before the Arab Legion took it for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan? After Israel took it back in the Six-Day War?
Just when are we talking about?
Oh, and is Jewish settlement in Palestine "illegal" because the Mohammedans say it is, and because they call it "the Hijaz", and insist that unbelievers not be allowed to soil it? One wonders, have they cleared that policy with the Emperor Justinian? With the Emperor Constantine? With Pompey the Great? How about Antiochus III, or Alexander himself? With Darius III Codomannus? Just who has "sovereignty" over the West Bank? The deal on Palestinian statehood isn't done -- Yassir Arafat, the Great Greasy Human Rat, kicked over the table and shot out the lights. So who is going to say that the Israeli settlements are "illegal"? Arafat?
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.