We Are All Spaniards

Martin Hotze wrote:

well, I can afford medicamentation (can you?)

Yep and I actually pay for them directly instead of
laundering the money through a government.

another 33 countries to invade? ;-)

So many countries, so little time. Well, perhaps only a
dozen or so at a whack as we do have to keep up our
tradition of rebuilding aggressor countries in Europe,
Asia and now the Middle East.

(Wdtabor) wrote:

You, on the other hand, do have a gun. What are you going to do? Give him
first shot?

Am I able to hide? [1]

If not: very tough question. I can't sincerely answer it without being in the

situation.

#m

[1] might sound like a coward, but I can life with that
--

Can you live with him killing the next unarmed person he encounters if you
succeed in hiding?

I'm not sure I could.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Calling themselves Palestinians is like someone from Georgia calling
themself a "Southerner".


No, its like someone from Arizona calling himself a southerner. Technically
correct but culturally iff base.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Frank" wrote in message ...

Then why do these folks keep calling themselves Palestinians?


I believe the UN declared a Palestinian refugee to be anyone who had lived
in Palestine for two years or more prior to the Arab attack on the new state
of Israel in 1948 and had lost their homes and livelihood as a result of
that conflict. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees. The Arab states
refused to absorb the Arab refugees so they were left in camps in what would
have been the new Arab state in Palestine.



What was all that negotiating borders for?


Which negotiations?



Right, wrong or indifferent there are a lot
of people that feel they have a claim to something there. Even Israel
agrees with that in priniciple.


The Arabs claim all of the land, including the state of Israel.



I don't know, but it's my understanding that the people in the camps
and in the disputed areas aren't on either the Jordanian or the Israeli
voting roles.


Well of course they're not on Israeli voting rolls. Why would they be?
They're not citizens of Israel. Those that had property in Israel would be
on Israeli voting rolls if they hadn't abandoned their land.

I don't know if there are any Jordanian voting rolls.



They consider themselves Palestinians and they, apparently, have
various treaties/accords/agreements to support that notion.


They consider themselves Palestinians because they either lived in the
Palestine region before the war or are descendents of someone that lived
there. They are not citizens of Palestine, there is no nation of Palestine
and there never was one.



If I am wrong
and they _were_ able to vote for or against Sharon last election then I
will be suprised that they haven't been able to put up numbers that would
infuence the election.


Did you vote in the last Israeli election? If not, why not?



Israel has agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state, although they
certainly aren't happy about it.


Israel agreed to the creation of an Arab state in Palestine 57 years ago!
That is, the Jews in Palestine agreed to the partition plan that would have
created a second Arab state from the Palestine Mandate.



Understandable in that no one want's to
give up land. But they are in the driver's seat when it comes to the peace
process and dragging this out just causes too much pain and suffering on
both sides.

The Israelis aren't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. The
sooner Israel gives up trying to avoid actually handing over the promised
territory the better.


Arafat was offered over 90% of the "occupied territories" and control of
most of Jerusalem four years ago as a STARTING point in negotiations. He
turned it down. The Arabs aren't interested in peace, they're only
interested in the destruction of Israel.

In article , Martin Hotze
writes:

(Wdtabor) wrote:

Can you live with him killing the next unarmed person he encounters if you
succeed in hiding?

I'm not sure I could.

As I said befo I've never been close enough to a dangerous situation
forcing
me to make decisions about life and death.


Not referring only to the scenario in question, those sorts of decisions should
be made ahead of time, not in a moment of fear and stress. Such occasions are
not times for hesitation or indecision. I know what I would do, and I would do
it without hesitation or remorse.

It's sort of like flying through a cloud, if you trust in your procedure and
instruments you will come out the other side just fine, but if you go by your
feelings of the moment, you exit the cloud through the bottom.

Don



--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Martin Hotze wrote:
Rob Perkins wrote:


So why are there bus tours of seniors travelling to Canada buying their
medication?

He said there is insurance, not free drugs. You want free drugs go to a
socialist country.


Fewer
people suffer (materially) in the U.S. than anywhere else in the
world.


IBTD.

And you'd be wrong.

Notice the criteria the UN uses in their list.

I didn't bother to read it. Nothing the UN says could possibly matter.

Here is the pertinent quote from the article:

The index builds on three main factors: life expectancy, education and per
capita income in 173 countries

Of course, they ignore the dozens of other more important criteria, not the
least of which are "weather" and "freedom"...

And they don't explain how these stats are impacted by the difference
between a tiny, largely homogenous population versus a gigantic, wildly
diverse population. And, and, and...

The real measure of the world's opinion is this: How many people are
fighting and dying to get into FINLAND? You just don't see too many
people floating on inner-tubes for weeks to get there...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

No problem, there's obviously no point in arguing with you. One last
thing I would like to say, though. In this discussion you have shown
how far from being a Spaniard you are, inspite of your own subject
line.

Sorry, Alex. I completely misread the situation in Spain, and my feelings
of solidarity with them were clearly misplaced. If you had followed the
more recent thread "We are All Spaniards -- NOT", you would know how I feel
about this.

I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed the
terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way that
cannot be measured.

I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly evident
that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once ruled
the seas, and much of the world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53...
I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed the
terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way
that
cannot be measured.

I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly
evident
that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once
ruled
the seas, and much of the world.

And barely 200 years ago Spain was one of the three (Spain, England,
France), if not THE dominant power(s) and most prosperous nations in the
world. Today they're like a bunch of burned out old hags. They were never
really invaded, but the destroyed themselves from within. And so it goes...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53...
I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed
the
terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way
that
cannot be measured.

I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly
evident
that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once
ruled
the seas, and much of the world.

And barely 200 years ago Spain was one of the three (Spain, England,
France), if not THE dominant power(s) and most prosperous nations in the
world. Today they're like a bunch of burned out old hags. They were never
really invaded, but the destroyed themselves from within. And so it
goes...

You also have to remember that Spain is just one generation
removed from a fascist dictatorship. As such, its political
institutions are somewhat fragile and its political class is
immature. The socialists never really expected to win, and
are in a way caught up in their own rhetoric.

That said, the new governments position is certainly irresponsible.
No matter what one might think of Bush/Blair and how we got
there, the question that should be asked is "What would happen
if *all* troops pulled out?". Clearly, the result would be a civil war,
further instability, the possible restoration of the Ba'athist régime,
and the resumption of mass killings. As the new Spanish government
would prefer to analyze the situation by describing the occupation
as "a joke" (so ok, how would you make it better?) and by calling
Blair "a dick head", it is clear that they aren't ready for a place at
the top table.