At what point will air travel become unaffordable

js wrote:
John wrote:

I repeat:

Before Bush became president the US tried to move the peace process
forward in the middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians
Bush does not care to be a peacemaker He would rather be a war
monger..


Another situation where someone has a political bias and a fallable
memory:

In March of 1997 the UN Security Council, specifically, France,
Portugal, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain, at the request of
certain Mideast states floated this resolution which in part stated:

"Calls upon the Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or
measures, including settlement activities, which alter the facts on the
ground, preempting the final status negotiations, and have negative
implications for the Middle East Peace Process;

The vote was 14-1.

This was the second of three US vetos during the tenure of Bill
Clinton.

Must make you proud to be an American.

B;

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:30:59 +0200, Dave Frightens Me
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:14:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:50:46 +0200, Dave Frightens Me
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:39:07 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:55:42 -0400, nobody
wrote:

What about due legal process ? What about respect for the law, respect
for treaties that you signed/ratified ? What about fair treatment ? Are
these values no longer held by americans ? If so, then perhaps have the
courage to pass a law officially renegging on all the commitmentys
(national and international) the USA had made. In essence, if you want
to support the current administion's goals, you'll need to agree to
change your constitution, especially the part about due legal process.
(and of course, include that exemption to allow Austrian born governors
of California to run for presidency).

I have no idea what the governor of California has to do with the
Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. Is that something you just felt
compelled to throw in to show your lack of seriousness?

I am finding it hard to believe you are serious about the US vetos on
behalf of Israel.

I find it hard to believe you think the governor of California
gets a veto.

*sigh*

Dave, you are being oddly very silly about this whole deal.

I'm not the one who said "(and of course, include that exemption
to allow Austrian born governors of California to run for
presidency)." I'm just wondering why it even came up.



************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
The United States
always looks after its own interests, and I wouldn't have it any
other eay. But Bush seems not to be aware of exactly where the
USA's best interests lie. But I attribute that to something other
than honesty.

How do you decide what constitutes the USA's best interests? Is it in
the USA's best interests that sick children come to spend their last
years? Or that thousands of people die under bombs marked "Made in
America". Or what?

B;

On 8 Sep 2006 11:32:47 -0700, wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
The United States
always looks after its own interests, and I wouldn't have it any
other eay. But Bush seems not to be aware of exactly where the
USA's best interests lie. But I attribute that to something other
than honesty.

How do you decide what constitutes the USA's best interests? Is it in
the USA's best interests that sick children come to spend their last
years?

There seems to be something missing from that sentence.

Or that thousands of people die under bombs marked "Made in
America". Or what?

You did see where I said, "But Bush seems not to be aware of
exactly where the USA's best interests lie," didn't you?

BTW, between 1941 and 1945 thousands and thousands of people died
under bombs marked "Made in the USA" and I tend to think it to
have been in the United States' best interests. Or did you have
something else in mind?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:

You did see where I said, "But Bush seems not to be aware of
exactly where the USA's best interests lie," didn't you?

In that, he is in the tradition of the American presidency.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Hatunen wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006 11:32:47 -0700, wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
The United States
always looks after its own interests, and I wouldn't have it any
other eay. But Bush seems not to be aware of exactly where the
USA's best interests lie. But I attribute that to something other
than honesty.

How do you decide what constitutes the USA's best interests? Is it in
the USA's best interests that sick children come to spend their last
years?

There seems to be something missing from that sentence.

Or that thousands of people die under bombs marked "Made in
America". Or what?

You did see where I said, "But Bush seems not to be aware of
exactly where the USA's best interests lie," didn't you?

Yes I did, but I didn't understand what it means. Are you talking about
the short term material interests of Americans, or the long term
benefits of living in a moral world, or what? How you define the
question determines what you get as a response.

I'm reminded of someone famous - I can't remember who, though no doubt
someone will help - who was asked what he had done for the defence of
America, and responded that his work made it worth defending.

B;

nobody wrote:
wrote:
Absolutely - recall the French threatened to veto a UN "declaration of
war" on Iraq, the difference being that the US has the resources to
ignore the UN and go it alone if the vote goes the wrong way.


The French, German, Chinese and Russians were ready to veto the USA/UK
request for the right to invade.

True. But that was *after* they had already given their permission in a
previous resolution. Why the change?

The fact that USA/UK wanted a
resolution is solid enough evidence that they did not already have the
right to invade,

No, it's evidence that the US was trying to do what Bush Sr had done in
getting the whole world on board. We failed to do that primarily
because the French were making money from Saddam and didn't want to
lose the profits. But that doesn't alter the wording of the previous
resolution that was approved nor does it alter the US' right to protect
itself from threats.

js wrote:
John wrote:

I repeat:

Before Bush became president the US tried to move the peace process
forward in the middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians
Bush does not care to be a peacemaker He would rather be a war
monger..


Another situation where someone has a political bias and a fallable
memory:

In March of 1997 the UN Security Council, specifically, France,
Portugal, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain, at the request of
certain Mideast states floated this resolution which in part stated:

"Calls upon the Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or
measures, including settlement activities, which alter the facts on the
ground, preempting the final status negotiations, and have negative
implications for the Middle East Peace Process;

The vote was 14-1.

This was the second of three US vetos during the tenure of Bill
Clinton.

The US has always had a policy of insisting that any resolutions about
the Israeli/Palestinian situation be 2 sided. They will not support any
resolution that condemns one side and ignores the other. They will veto
any resolution that does that. They will (and have many, many times)
support resolutions that are even handed.

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
Hatunen wrote:

You did see where I said, "But Bush seems not to be aware of
exactly where the USA's best interests lie," didn't you?

In that, he is in the tradition of the American presidency.

Despite the hopes of many Europeans to the contrary, the best interests
of the US are *NOT* defined as "do what ever Europe wants so that
Europe feels good about itself".

wrote:
Yes I did, but I didn't understand what it means. Are you talking about
the short term material interests of Americans, or the long term
benefits of living in a moral world, or what? How you define the
question determines what you get as a response.

I'm reminded of someone famous - I can't remember who, though no doubt
someone will help - who was asked what he had done for the defence of
America, and responded that his work made it worth defending.

A worthy goal. Unfortunately what for most of us makes a country "worth
defending" in the eyes of others (such as Islamic fascists) also makes
it worth *attacking*. And that means we need to defend it with more
than just morality.

Example: Supporting the right of a free nation to exist in peace
without being constantly attacked by its neighbors (Israel). That makes
us worth defending.