Mark Stapleton

A very hazy couple of sentences. So are you implying that Palestinians don't want to live and work and create a community? What do you mean?

And the children (those who haven't already been killed or maimed by the IDF) would laugh and play with gumdrop smiles---just like they do in Iraq now, right? Please don't delete that post Bill. I want to show it to a few people.

If you're referring to the Camp David talks sponsored by Bill Clinton in 2000, then you've been misled Ron. Arafat turned it down because he had no choice. Besides not abiding with UNSC Resolution 242, it stank in many other ways. The Israelis demanded early warning stations inside the Palestinian state, control of Palestinian airspace and the right to deploy troops inside the Palestinian state in the event of 'emergency'. The Israelis also rejected the proposal that those Arabs expelled from their homes in 1948, about 700,000 in number, be entitled to return. It might alter the nature of Israel, the supremacist state maintained. It was peace only under Israel's strict terms, just like all the other peace negotiations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit Israel doesn't want peace. They're making that abundantly clear right now. They want war---or subjugation. Everything else they say is Zionist bullxxxx and spin.

Why can't the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be compared to the Holocaust? The two are so dissimilar that they cannot be compared in any meaningful way. The Holocaust was the attempt by the Nazis and their partners to kill all the Jews. In the Holocaust a sovereign nation harnessed all the apparatus of their state to the goal of the mass systematic murder of a specific people. More than anything else, the murder of the Jews stemmed from Nazi racial ideology. According to that ideology, the Jews were an evil race, whose very existence endangered Germany and all of human civilization. The Nazi crusade against the Jews was not focused on winning tangible gains, such as land and other wealth from the Jews. Its goal was to rid the world of the supposed pernicious influence of the Jews. The Nazis systematically murdered Jews in shooting actions and by gas in specially designed gas chambers in extermination camps. In the ghettos, camps and slave-labor installations under the Nazis, hundreds of thousands of Jews were also brutally worked to death. The end result was the murder of close to 6 million Jews. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not racial, but national; it is political and territorial. It is a struggle between two peoples for a small land. Throughout the decades this struggle has oscillated between violence and attempts to negotiate a settlement. As tragic as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be, there are no mass graves, no public executions of thousands of people, no gas chambers. It cannot be compared to the Holocaust. Using terms taken from the history of the Holocaust to describe the situation in the Middle East does more to obscure than to clarify the events and their consequences http://www1.yadvashem.org That's one of the most threadbare apologies for Zionist genocide I've heard. Gaza is a giant concentration camp, all sealed and blockaded from the outside world. Even international journalists are generally barred, except for the ones handpicked by Israel. How could you possibly claim it is a struggle between two peoples for a small land? One of those 'peoples' has cutting edge military technology and is using it with blatant disregard for civilians, the other has sticks, stones and homemade rockets. The rockets have reportedly killed 17 Israelis in the last 7 years--about 2.5 Israeli deaths per year. What a massive military threat that is. Hamas doesn't recognise Israel and nor should they. Why would you recognise a brutal occupier? The only redeeming feature of this disgusting genocide is that all the Zionist spin doctors on earth can't save Israel's image now. The attack on the UN schools yesterday was the last straw. They can prove Israel knew it was firing on UN schools. The current invasion is also cowardly. Palestine has barely any weapons at all. Let's see the brave IDF try the same thing on Iran. Of course, they've been wanting America to do it for them. The answer to this thead is easy. The state of Israel is above the law, for now anyway.

Three minutes and twenty five seconds into this clip a reporter asks Chief Curry, "Could you detail for us what led you to Oswald?" Curry begins to reply with the words "Not exact(ly)". The tape then cuts to the next question. Hmmm..

I say yea. Here's his 64th and last press conference--14 November '63--in three parts: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SmGiXshzOww http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuljkGBykY&...feature=related http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuljkGBykY&...feature=related In this press conference JFK is asked 27 questions, ranging from US/Soviet relations, Madame Nhu, the Honolulu Conference and the situation in Vietnam, foreign aid, Congressional gridlock of his reforms, the Civil Rights Bill (you know--the forerunner to the legislation which LBJ took the credit for), private citizens bills, the candidacy of Margaret Chase Smith, Nuclear Test bans and the theatre in Lafeyette Square, to name a few. JFK exhibits an extraordinary depth of knowledge and understanding on all issues, coupled with his trademark humility and humour. Compare and contrast with today's timid corporate sockpuppets masquerading as leaders. Towards the end of part one and the start of part two, JFK expresses his disappointment and frustration at being denied the major part of his foreign aid bill. This program, JFK said, was essential to the conduct of US foreign policy. It provided for aid to less wealthy countries in places like South America and the Middle East and was a tiny fraction of GDP. Of course, after JFK's death foreign aid took a surprising turn with aid to Israel rocketing from 40 million to over 300 million in three years, most of it military aid. Prior to his death, Congress wouldn't let JFK spend a penny on poor countries. Kinda gets you thinking................

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=11392 The Failed Logic of Supporting the Troops by Remi Kanazi Global Research, December 14, 2008 In the United States, a growing number of leftists are voicing their opposition to the Israeli occupation. They condemn the demolition of homes, the jailing of Palestinians without charge, and the confiscation of Palestinian land for settlements. They don't support the Israeli troops or their mission, nor do they give a free pass to those who are just "doing what they are told." Nonetheless, many of these same individuals support the US troops in Iraq. Dangerously, most Americans put forth the notion that the troops' intrinsic heroism provides them with the impunity to destroy any bogeymen who stand in their way, cultivating a code of silence that strongly discourages dissent. It is under this premise that we support our "brave" and "noble" soldiers: we know their stories well, they miss their families, they are "just like us," and we should respect their service. While one may comprehend the mindset of the troops, this understanding does not validate support for them. If the invasion of Iraq, the mission, and the occupation as stated policy are all wrong, then support for the armed forces carrying out the mission must also be wrong. US soldiers are not a monolith and nearly everyone would argue that the majority of the troops are "good people." Yet, our emotional inclinations and the societal norm that tells us troops are good like bumper sticker slogans shouldn't serve as justification for supporting them and, by extension, the mission they are carrying out. We are led to believe that a soldier can either serve out the rest of his tour or be branded a disgrace and imprisoned for becoming a conscientious objector. In reality the choice is much starker: a soldier can refuse to serve or contribute to the death of a million Iraqis. When people invoke the hardships our troops face, I think of the dead Iraqi mother, the splattered torsos painting the pavement, and the .50 caliber bullets that have hollowed out the bodies of Iraqi children. Each American has a distinct face and a tale that chokes us up, but our government and media have systematically dehumanized another people, whittling their presence in the world down to a nuisance that drains our budget, as though Iraq is a welfare state that strips our society of health care, education, and gas for cross country vacations. Iraq is not Lehman Brothers pillaging our economy. Yet, even many self-described progressives deride the Iraqi people for their $79 billion surplus but make no mention of the fact that they lack proper access to electricity; Baghdad is still one of the most dangerous city in the world, and stability is nowhere in sight. Furthermore, a growing number among the mainstream left discuss Iraq in terms of "our" interests, criticizing the so-called ineptness of Iraqis and their unwillingness to embrace democracy (democracy that was never truly offered), all while five million have been made refugees, Baghdad has been cleansed of Sunnis, and each child, father, and mother live with horror stories we wouldn't wish upon our worst enemies. This is the result and reality of US occupation. The assertion that troops are "just following orders" and that it is impossible to refuse once enlisted rings hollow. The US has not implemented a draft; on the contrary, each soldier chooses to fight in Iraq on behalf of the American government. This should not be applauded, nor should it be respected. Real courage would be abandoning this war—against orders, against the US administration—as a number of US soldiers have done (a phenomenon ignored by the mainstream media). Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia is a well known conscientious objector who served nine months in prison for refusing to return to Iraq. In a 2005 article on AlterNet, Mejia wrote: "I say without any pride that I did my job as a soldier. I commanded an infantry squad in combat and we never failed to accomplish our mission. But those who called me a coward, without knowing it, are also right. I was a coward not for leaving the war, but for having been a part of it in the first place. Refusing and resisting this war was my moral duty, a moral duty that called me to take a principled action. I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier." Perhaps most importantly, many people fail to make the connection that supporting the troops enables the war and presents people who are against the occupation with a false reality: the ability to support the troops while rejecting the mission. Standing in solidarity with the troops facilitates funding for the occupation; it redresses the "intrinsic nobility" of the soldier, which further weakens congressmen who rhetorically reject the war, but support it through their votes. Occupation is dirty, and so too are the people who employ it. Following orders should not replace humanitarian law, and the excuse shouldn't serve to satisfy our consciences. We are asked to support US troops when logic is absent. We look at the troops as victims who are forced to do things they would not otherwise do; we give them immunity and their crimes become unseen collateral damage. Yet, Iraqis are not monsters; they are the victims that face the gun's barrel. We should only support the troops as much as we support this war. Anything less supports the victimizer and not the victim. Remi Kanazi is a Palestinian-American writer, poet, and editor living in New York City. He is editor of the recently released collection of poetry, spoken word, hip hop and art, Poets For Palestine. For more information, please visit www.PoetsForPalestine.com. Remi Kanazi is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Remi Kanazi

Dorothy Kilgallen's last appearance on What's My Line--November 7, 1965--Arlene Francis and Tony Randall are also on the show. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfjkQE-l2Ho&...feature=related http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PSTgYIABk6w&...feature=related http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=6gn6jS1UK78&...feature=related The show's host begins the following week's show with the announcement of her death: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ASeMN0XRef8&...feature=related

big wet heavy leather balls to you Mr Stapleton In the 1970s leather footballs were coated with a special polyurethane preparation, which eliminated water absorption during games. That is why the cases of MND in football who played with the new balls is causing so much concern. Being leather they were a dammed sight heavier than the balls used today - is there a correlation between disease incidence and position played? I would imagine that players who regularly headed one of those things experienced a trauma not dissimilar to be being punched on the head. What about cases where there's been no head trauma? Not everyone who contracts MND is a soccer player. How does it explain the spike in Guam?

Evan, I don't claim to be an expert but my guess is that it isn't related to getting knocked on the head. I haven't heard of many boxers contracting MND, although Ali's severe Parkinson's disease is almost certainly related to the welter of blows he took late in his career, and I think Parkinson's is related to MND. As far as I know, the only Rugby League player who has contracted MND was Scott Gale, the ex-Balmain pivot. The spike of MND in the soccer players was caused by something else, imo, but I don't know what it was. It's the worst of any disease imaginable. I would never consider enduring it. Luckily it's rare. The last figure I read was that it strikes 6-7 people per 100,000. About 15,000 to one. I would hate those odds to shorten.

That is indeed frightening. I was unaware of the spike in cases in Italian and English footballers. This dreaded affliction has for many years been noticeable in Guam, the Kii Peninsula in Japan and tribes in New Guinea. I have read that the incidence of all forms of MND on Guam is 15 times higher than that of the rest of the world. The use of cycad seed to make flour in Guam was identified as a possible cause. Bats also eat the seed and the cycad is stored in high concentrations in bat flesh, which was a traditional food of Guam. The bat cannery is now closed, I believe. If you google MND and Guam, many pages appear detailing this strange phenomenon.

The issue of the massive aid recieved by Israel is yet further proof that the lobby has Congress tied around its finger. These figures cited by Terry are disturbing enough for US taxpayers when it is considered that Israel has a high standard of living, soon perhaps higher than the USA. In addition, there are also the billions given to Israel by the wealthy Jewish diaspora. Australia's richest man, Frank Lowy, under investigation by tax officials, told a recent US Senate Committee hearing that $68 million held in a Leichtenstein bank account was distributed for charitable purposes in Israel: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2307289.htm There's no justification for such taxpayer largesse any more, especially since it just serves to lubricate the US and Israeli weapons industries.

I'm not the only one critical of America and its policies. America's foreign policy is owned by Israel. Destabilisation its regional neighbours is Israel's aim, via US foreign policy. Iran has every right to a nuclear capability. Israel's nuclear capability was obtained by deception, which you would acknowledge if you were better informed. No IAEA rules and guidelines burden Israel, because they have effectively placed themselves outside the regulatory structure. The inflammatory rhetoric in the western media aimed at Iran is merely cowardly warmongering and intimidation. America has a long and disgraceful record of intervention in sovereign nations. Israel is engaged in ethnically cleansing Palestine. The US, while sometimes paying lip service to peace plans, continues to support Israel financially, militarily and diplomatically. You're a very long way from setting me straight, precious.

I think it will be easier to predict Mark Stapleton's opinions than it will be US foreign policy. BK And Bill Kelly's are very predictable.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10857 Worth reading.

Yes Bill, I did say I thought Obama might try galvanizing global opinion in order to make changes regarding Palestine but because of the Emanuel appointment I don't think this will happen now. Instead, it's now more probable that the US will increase commitments in Aghanistan (I notice Obama is using his shiny new mandate to politely ask for a little more help from other countries) and Pakistan. We'll get inflamed rhetoric about Iran possibly followed by a bitter war with countless dead. It could all be avoided if Obama would address the central foreign policy problem in the Middle East. This would make America's other problems in the region all but dissolve, imo. Of course, Israel doesn't like that idea.

Tzipi Livni is not Israeli PM yet, but here she is telling America what the new US administration's foreign policy will be: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10831 Israel said today US president-elect Barack Obama's stated readiness to talk to Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness in efforts to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear programme. "We live in a neighbourhood in which sometimes dialogue -- in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and you then shift to dialogue -- is liable to be interpreted as weakness," foreign minister Tzipi Livni said, asked on Israel Radio about policy change toward Tehran in an Obama administration. Her remarks sounded the first note of dissonance with Mr Obama by a senior member of the Israeli government since the Democrat's sweeping victory over Republican candidate John McCain in the US presidential election on Tuesday. Asked if she supported any US dialogue with Iran, Ms Livni replied: "The answer is no." Ms Livni, leading the centrist Kadima party into Israel's February 10th parliamentary election, also said "the bottom line" was that the United States, under Obama, "is also not willing to accept a nuclear Iran".[/b] A senior Iranian official today called on Mr Obama to show goodwill and remove sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Mr Obama has said he would harden sanctions but has also held out the possibility of direct talks with the United States to solve problems, including the dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. "Through the lifting of the past government's cruel sanctions against Iran, Barack Obama can demonstrate his goodwill to the Iranian people," Prosecutor-General Ayatollah Qorban-Ali Dori-Najafabadi said. "Calling for forgiveness and remorse for the past U.S. government's deeds by the new government can bring about the great Iranian nation's forgiveness," he was quoted as saying in the northwestern city of Tabriz. The United States cut diplomatic ties with Iran after its Islamic Revolution in 1979 and is spearheading a drive to isolate the country over its nuclear activities. Mr Obama, like current US President George W. Bush, has not ruled out military action although he has criticised the outgoing administration for not pushing diplomacy and engagement with Iran. Iranian officials have said his election victory on Tuesday showed the American people's desire for fundamental change in domestic and foreign policy from the policies of Mr Bush, who labelled Iran part of an "axis of evil". The head of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy commission said any change in Iran's strategy towards Washington would depend on a change in the US approach, the official IRNA news agency reported. "As long as the US policy toward Iran stays the way it currently is, negotiations with that country will have no meaning," Alaeddin Boroujerdi said in the city of Mashad. The West believes Iran's nuclear enrichment programme is aimed at building atomic weapons, an allegation the Islamic Republic denies. Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has said Iran's nuclear programme is a threat to its existence and that it was keeping all options on the table to stop it. Reuters. © 2008 irishtimes.com

Emanuel is a hardline Zionist, John. His appointment merely affirms that Israel is the proud owner of US foreign policy and this is not going to change: http://www.counterpunch.org/ Weekend Edition November 7 / 9, 2008 CounterPunch Diary Hail to the Chief of Staff By ALEXANDER COCKBURN The first trumpet blast of change ushers in Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s chief of staff and gate keeper. This is the man who arranges his schedule, staffs out the agenda, includes, excludes. It’s certainly as sinister an appointment as, say, Carter’s installation of arch cold-warrior Zbigniev Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor at the dawn of his “change is here” administration in 1977. Emanuel, as Ralph Nader points out in my interview with him below, represents the worst of the Clinton years. His profile as regards Israel is explored well on this site by lawyer John Whitbeck. He’s a former Israeli citizen, who volunteered to serve in Israel in 1991 and who made brisk millions in Wall Street. He is a super-Likudnik hawk, whose father was in the fascist Irgun in the late Forties, responsible for cold-blooded massacres of Palestinians. Dad’s unreconstructed ethnic outlook has been memorably embodied in his recent remark to the Ma’ariv newspaper that "Obviously he [Rahm] will influence the president to be pro-Israel… Why wouldn't he be [influential]? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." Working in the Clinton White House, Emanuel helped push through NAFTA, the crime bill, the balanced budget and welfare reform. He favored the war in Iraq, and when he was chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 he made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates. On this site in October and November, 2006, John Walsh documented both the efforts and Emanuel’s role in losing the Democrats seats they would otherwise have won. In 2006 Emanuel had just published a book with Bruce Reed called The Plan: Big Ideas for America, with one section focused on “the war on terror”. Emanuel and Reed wrote, “We need to fortify the military's ‘thin green line ‘around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. …Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5.” Recall that Obama has been calling throughout his recent campaign for an addition of 92,000 to the US Army and US Marine Corps. Emanuel and Reed had fond words for the mad-dog Peter Beinart, neocon warrior theoretician for the Democrats, roosting Marty Peretz's The New Republic, and author of The Good Fight where Beinart explained why a tough new national security policy is as essential to the future of of progressive politics as a united front against totalitarianism and communism was to the New Deal and the Great Society. Emanuel and Reed also commended Anne-Marie Slaughter's proposal for "a new division of labor in which the United Nations takes on economic and social assistance and an expanded NATO takes over the burden of collective security." In other words, let NATO shoot the natives and the UN clean the floors. Walsh took a hard look at the 2006 Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which had elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. In 2004 Cegelis, who iwas only mildly antiwar, ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44 per cent in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in the November poll, in 2006. Enter Rahm Emanuel, who promptly dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq. Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District. Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a primary victory by a measly four percentage points. To win the House, the Dems had to win 15 seats from the Republicans. Walsh identified 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents. Of these, nine adopted a US “must win” in Iraq position and only one of Rahm's candidates was for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. Then, after the election, Walsh assessed Rahm’s supposed brilliance in winning back the House. “Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, “ Walsh wrote, “we find that 13 were defeated [including Duckworth], and only 8 won! And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60 per cent according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar.

They should at least rename themselves the white racist party. Truth in advertising is important.

Interesting post, Peter. Further disturbing news today is that Obama will ask Australia for more troops in Afghanistan. From Jeffrey Bader, China expert for the Brookings Institution and advisor to the Obama campaign: "Given that Afghanistan-Pakistan is at the top of the foreign policy agenda.........we would be looking to have different allies to make a contribution". A report in today's SMH also claims that the US Ambassador to Japan called on Tokyo to make "a greater contribution" to military operations in Afghanistan as the President-elect takes office. It looks like the new Administration will step up activities in the Afghan--Pakistani theatre, while scaling down in Iraq. How stupid do they think people are? The war on terror is a fraud--most informed people know this. Now it looks like America will be looking to other countries for a greater contribution towards America's folly. Incredible.

I have read that the bulk of Republican candidates who were swept away in Obama's win were moderates. This is a bad sign for the future of the GOP because all that remains is a dried out husk of religious and economic conservative hardliners. The GOP was irrelevant to the bulk of Americans before the elections, so how irrelevant will they be now?

The Democrats are already guaranteed to win the next election, providing America still exists in its present form in four years. The stench from the Bush era will last much longer than four years, imo.

That's your opinion. I would be interested to know what other Americans think, but I realise this can be a sensitive issue for Americans. As for me trying to inflame anti-American passions, America does that quite effectively itself---look at its tattered reputation around the globe.

On August 22, 2008, US forces led by the 7th special forces group (airborne) were conducting a midnight raid to apprehend Mullah Siddiq, a Taliban Commander. When they encountered initial resistance, they called in reinforcements and the resultant massacre left 91 dead----61 of them children. The attack took place near Azizabad, Herat province, Afghanistan. Here's a list of the dead, with photos and comments from survivors: http://www.uruknet.de/?s1=1&p=46866&s2=02 How many survivors of this war crime will now hate America? All of them, imo. How many will in turn become martyrs for the cause? Unknowable, but I would suggest plenty. Bill Kelly says this is a hundred year war. How many Americans really want to be part of this insanity?

This is pretty poor form from a respected researcher like you, Bill. I'm a little surprised. You well know I made no such comment about killing babies from helicopters. US forces have killed civilians is what I said, and it's quite true. You seem to think this is justified. I think that's sad. You also can't see the folly of this never ending cycle of violence, whereas John and Ron (and I assume other readers) can. That's sad, too. So you want to exercise your ""God given right"" (evidence, please) to bear arms and overthrow the Government, eh. Well I agree the current political system in the US has failed but I'm having trouble reconciling your contempt for the system with your support for its disastrous foreign policy agenda. I think I'm just about through trying to figure out Americans.