Sunday, December 31, 2006
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Ture Story : What I want for New Year’s 2007
Ture Story : What I want for New Year’s 2007
Is always a bad time of year for me around Christmas and New year, I look back upon the year passed and try and see what I have accomplished and every year it is the same answer. My dream has still not been accomplished yet, it’s the same crap every year. I just haven’t tried hard enough , my dream is give back to the people that had given to my family when I was little and was stricken with a illness that no one hears about anymore, encephalitis (sleeping sickness), it was a disease that usually happens in animals not humans, and it was a killer disease. I was one of a few that back in the fifties that lived. This year it took on more importance because of the accident and death of my cousin Alan Staller. I wanted to start a web site for him to run and create a source of income for him and others who could not get the help they need with their spinal injures. I am almost there but just a little to late to help Alan. I am not trying to make anyone fell sorry for me because I feel that we are given opportunities in life and it is up to us to either take them or let them pass us by. I had many opportunities that I let slip out of my hands. You must keep in mind that when you are ready to take a chance to do something and others tell you no, it is because they are afraid to take chances in their lives. That will let opportunities go by strictly out of fear and not because they feel they can’t, it is what happens if the fail. Fear is an attitude that keeps many people form reaching there dream.
Right now I do not have employment to help me get my dreams of the ground but it has given me time to research on how to create and build an affiliate website. Now I just have to find a job and get started. It maybe another excuse or not, because it takes money to get it running the right way. And when I open another site I what it to be profitable. I would like to give away at least 40% of the profits to different charitable organizations, but majority going to stem cell research since it can cure so many things. I just read an article that if you save baby teeth for your child it could be used some day in the future if they need it. It’s amazing what science it discovering. They are also discovering how to fix the spin so people can walk and get back to there life again,. It maybe to Late for Alan but not for others that will come after him. The internet malls that I will hopefully be put up will be a tribute to my cousin Alan Staller and the many that are going through the suffering that he did.
Through him and Christopher Reeves let us continue the battle they had started.
On my site I have links to Christopher Reeve Org, Michael Fox Org, St Jude’s Children’s hospital, Ronald Mc Donald House, Brest cancer research and site to give donations to our flood victims who are still not receiving the help they should from our government.
I have placed a link below to go to my website that I have bought a while ago. Clink on link, if that dose not work cut and past it into your address bar and click go.
Thank you
Herb A Krantz
http://homeshoppingcentermall.com
Is always a bad time of year for me around Christmas and New year, I look back upon the year passed and try and see what I have accomplished and every year it is the same answer. My dream has still not been accomplished yet, it’s the same crap every year. I just haven’t tried hard enough , my dream is give back to the people that had given to my family when I was little and was stricken with a illness that no one hears about anymore, encephalitis (sleeping sickness), it was a disease that usually happens in animals not humans, and it was a killer disease. I was one of a few that back in the fifties that lived. This year it took on more importance because of the accident and death of my cousin Alan Staller. I wanted to start a web site for him to run and create a source of income for him and others who could not get the help they need with their spinal injures. I am almost there but just a little to late to help Alan. I am not trying to make anyone fell sorry for me because I feel that we are given opportunities in life and it is up to us to either take them or let them pass us by. I had many opportunities that I let slip out of my hands. You must keep in mind that when you are ready to take a chance to do something and others tell you no, it is because they are afraid to take chances in their lives. That will let opportunities go by strictly out of fear and not because they feel they can’t, it is what happens if the fail. Fear is an attitude that keeps many people form reaching there dream.
Right now I do not have employment to help me get my dreams of the ground but it has given me time to research on how to create and build an affiliate website. Now I just have to find a job and get started. It maybe another excuse or not, because it takes money to get it running the right way. And when I open another site I what it to be profitable. I would like to give away at least 40% of the profits to different charitable organizations, but majority going to stem cell research since it can cure so many things. I just read an article that if you save baby teeth for your child it could be used some day in the future if they need it. It’s amazing what science it discovering. They are also discovering how to fix the spin so people can walk and get back to there life again,. It maybe to Late for Alan but not for others that will come after him. The internet malls that I will hopefully be put up will be a tribute to my cousin Alan Staller and the many that are going through the suffering that he did.
Through him and Christopher Reeves let us continue the battle they had started.
On my site I have links to Christopher Reeve Org, Michael Fox Org, St Jude’s Children’s hospital, Ronald Mc Donald House, Brest cancer research and site to give donations to our flood victims who are still not receiving the help they should from our government.
I have placed a link below to go to my website that I have bought a while ago. Clink on link, if that dose not work cut and past it into your address bar and click go.
Thank you
Herb A Krantz
http://homeshoppingcentermall.com
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Sunday, December 17, 2006
In memory of those who died in World War II.doc
In memory of those who died in World War II, a War that no one wanted to get into
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six millionJews, 20 million Russians,10 million Christians and 1900 Catholic priests, who were murdered,Massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking theother way! Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be"a myth," it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets. This e-mail is intended to reach forty million people worldwide! Join us and be a link in the memorial chain and help us distribute it aroundthe world. Please send this e-mail to 10 people you know and ask them to continue thememorial chain. Please don't just delete it. It will only take you a minute to pass thisalong - Thanks!
Commentary by Herb A Krantz
This was an email that was sent to me right after the article I posted on my blog about it’s time for the world to wake up. This email points out the fact that there was not only Jews killed but 40 million other people of different faiths that were killed. What we face today is no different; if you do not believe in Islam you will be killed as an infidel. Not much different then the Nazi's. It’s time for us all to wake the hell up. Let not turn our face away just because it Jews, it will happen to you too.
The is a famous saying which I do not know if I saying it right but the jest it the same. They came for my Friend I said not a word, then they came for my brother, Again I said nothing. Once more they came and took another friend away and not a peep did I say, then they came for me! Hopefully you will get the meaning of these words. This fight was already brought to our land on 911 and it will not go away till we win, so we can no contain to place efforts where it will not do the most.
I have place a link for you to listen to. Cut and past it into your address bar and hit go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN_LxmkTSX4
Saturday, December 16, 2006
It's time for the world to wake up!!!
It’s time for the Jews to wake up
By Caroline Glick
Guaranteeing our survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear.
When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.
With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islam fascism and for democracy and freedom, the war became reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US's sworn enemies in the interests of stability, and at the expense of America's allies.
Baker and his associates claim that the US cannot win the war in Iraq and so the US must negotiate with its primary enemies in Iraq and throughout the world -- Iran and Syria -- in the hopes that they will be persuaded to hold their fire for long enough to facilitate an "honorable" American retreat from the country.
Like his unsupported assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq, Baker also asserts -- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- that Iran and Syria share America's "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." Because of this supposed shared interest, Baker maintains that with the proper incentives, Iran and Syria can be persuaded to cooperate with a US withdrawal from Iraq ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries.
The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.
Baker believes that Iran will agree to temporarily hold its fire in Iraq in exchange for US acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power and an American pledge not to topple the regime. Syria will assist the US in exchange for US pressure on Israel to hand over the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea and Samaria to Hamas.
Obviously, if implemented, the Baker-Hamilton group's recommendations will be disastrous for Israel. Just the fact that they now form the basis for the public debate on the war is a great blow. But it isn't only Israel that is harmed by their actions. The US too, will be imperiled if their views become administration policy.
Although Baker -- and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served on his commission until Bush announced his appointment last month -- believes that there is a deal to be done that will end Iranian and Syrian aggression against the US, its vital interests and its allies, the fact of the matter is that there is no such deal. Contrary to what the Baker report argues and what Gates said in his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, Iran is not analogous to the Soviet Union and the war against the global jihad is not a new cold war.
Even if the US were to somehow get them to agree to certain understandings about Iraq, there is no reason to believe that the Iranians and Syrians would keep their word. Not only would the US be approaching them as a supplicant and so emboldening them, but to date the US has never credibly threatened anything either Syria or Iran value. Indeed, through supporting negotiations between the EU and Iran, empowering the UN to deal with Iran's nuclear program, and forcing Israel to accept a cease-fire with Hizbullah last summer that effectively gave victory to the Syrian and Iranian proxy, the US has consistently rewarded the two countries' aggression.
Worse than that, from a US perspective, although Gates admitted Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, he ignored the fact that Iran -- whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad daily calls for the destruction of the US -- may also attack the US with nuclear weapons.
Gates admitted in his Senate hearing that Iran is producing many bombs -- not just one.
Since it is possible to destroy Israel with just one bomb, the Americans should be asking themselves what Iran needs all those other bombs for. There are senior military sources in the US who have been warning the administration to take into consideration that the day that Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear bomb, 10 cities in the US and Europe are liable to also be attacked with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, no one is listening to these voices today.
It is particularly upsetting that Washington has chosen now of all times to turn its back on the war. Ahmadinejad hinted Monday that Iran has completed the nuclear fuel cycle and so has passed the point of no return on its nuclear program. He also made a statement indicating that Iran will have its nuclear arsenal up and running by March - just four months away.
Serious disagreement exists in Washington over the status of the Iranian program. Some claim that Iran is four or five years away from nuclear weapons capabilities. Others maintain that Iran has recently experienced serious technical setbacks in their uranium enrichment activities and that the North Korean nuclear bomb test in October, in which Iranian officials participated, was a failure.
But there are also engaged officials who agree with Ahmadinejad's assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. Those officials maintain first that the North Korean-Iranian test in October was successful and should be taken as a sign that Iran already has a nuclear arsenal. Second, they warn that the US and Israel have six months to act against Iran's nuclear installations and to overthrow the regime or face the prospect of the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of several US cities as a result of an Iranian nuclear offensive.
Obviously, Israel cannot risk the possibility that the last group of officials is correct. And since Washington has decided to go to sleep, it is up to Israel alone to act.
What must Israel do? First, it must plan an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities and regime command and control centers. To pave the way for such an attack, the IDF must move now to neutralize second order threats like the Palestinian rocket squads and the Syrian ballistic missile arsenals in order to limit the public's exposure to attack during the course of or in the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran. Second, Israel must work to topple the Iranian regime. As the Defense Minister's advisor Uri Lubrani told Ha'aretz last week, the regime in Iran is far from stable today and ripe for overthrow.
The overwhelming majority of Iranians despise the regime. There are rebellious groups in every ethnic group and province in the country - Azeris, Kurds, Ahwazi Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen and even Persians - that are actively working to destabilize the regime. Every day there are strikes of workers, women and students. Every few weeks there are reports of violent clashes between anti-regime groups and regime forces.
Recently, oil pipelines were sabotaged in the oil-rich Khuzestan province in the south where the Ahwazi Arabs are systematically persecuted by the regime. Westerners who recently visited Iran claim that Israel operating alone could overthrow the regime by extending its assistance to these people.
Thirdly, in his testimony in the Senate on Tuesday, Gates casually mentioned that Israel has nuclear weapons. In so doing, he unceremoniously removed four decades of ambiguity over Israel's nuclear status. While his statement caused dismay in Jerusalem, perhaps Israel should see this as an opportunity.
With the threat of nuclear destruction hanging over us, it makes sense to conduct a debate about an Israeli second strike. While such a discussion will not dissuade Iran's fanatical leaders from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it could influence the Iranian nation to rise up against their leaders.
Moreover, such a debate could influence other regimes in the region like Saudi Arabia which today behave as if Israel's annihilation will have no adverse impact on them. Americans like Baker, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their European friends need to understand that as goes Israel so go the Persian Gulf's oil fields. Such an understanding may influence their willingness to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Next Thursday, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations Malcolm Hoenlein and former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold will hold a press conference in New York where they will call for the US to indict Ahmadinejad under the International Convention Against Genocide for his call to annihilate Israel. This is doubtlessly a welcome initiative. But it is insufficient.
In a few months, Iran may well be in possession of nuclear weapons which it will use to destroy the Jewish state. With the US withdrawing from the war and Israel in the hands of incompetents, the time has come for the Jewish people to rise up.
Guaranteeing our survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear.
Either the Iranian regime is toppled and its nuclear installations are destroyed or Israel will be annihilated. The Jews in the Diaspora must launch mass demonstrations and demand that their governments take real action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The citizens of the State of Israel must also take to the streets. The government that led us to defeat in Lebanon this summer is leading us to a disaster of another order entirely. All citizens must demand that Olmert, his ministers and the generals in the IDF General Staff make an immediate decision. They now hold the responsibility for acting against Iran. They must either act or resign and make way for others who will.
America just abdicated its responsibility to defend itself against Iran and so left Israel high and dry. Nevertheless, the Jewish people is far from powerless. And the State of Israel also is capable of defending itself. But we must act and act immediately
This article originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post.
Commentary by Herb A Krantz
It seams that most of the wars that were and are fought are over religion and most of the time if no all against the Jews. We are the worlds favorite scrape goat.
Well if you believe in the bible any bible the last war that will be fought will be in the Middle East and bring on the end of days. Therefore as long as the Jewish state is alive so is the world as we know it.
If you look back in modern time at all the wars the USA and most of Europe jumped into them when it was almost to late. We as people of the world can’t wait that long this time. The mad man of Iran is getting stronger and will strike when he is ready. As the article says he will strike Israeli first then us in the United States. You thing 911 was bad wait till we are hit with a nuclear bomb.
I am reading and interesting book right now. It is about Abraham (father of many). It’s funny he is the father to the only two legitimate religions. I know that the Christians will get pissed at me but so be it. Abram had two sons Isaac and Ishmael. He told Ishmael mother not to worry about being out in the desert because he God would take care of her and Ishmael because Ishmael would be the father of many. When Abraham went out to kill his son Isaac he was told to spare him for Abraham would be the father of many because he did not question God but did as he asked. He would have more ancestors then the eye could see. Why did god do this? Because Abraham believed in one god, the god who guided him to a new land. Abraham did this all on blind faith. God promised him nothing before he got there
My point is we, the Jews and Arabs believe in one god. We both believe that Abraham was our father and if you believe the Koran and the Old Testament then you have to believe that we worship the same God. So you can say that we are truly brothers. Like brothers we must come together in the name of our father and make him proud of us as his children. But most of all we must not take his name, his teachings, he god name in vain. There has to be a way to find peace within ourselves and for ourselves and God.
Radical people on both sides must be stopped by any means so men and women can put their heads together and stop this craziness. We must all honor Abraham’s and God’s dream.
Amen
By Caroline Glick
Guaranteeing our survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear.
When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.
With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islam fascism and for democracy and freedom, the war became reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US's sworn enemies in the interests of stability, and at the expense of America's allies.
Baker and his associates claim that the US cannot win the war in Iraq and so the US must negotiate with its primary enemies in Iraq and throughout the world -- Iran and Syria -- in the hopes that they will be persuaded to hold their fire for long enough to facilitate an "honorable" American retreat from the country.
Like his unsupported assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq, Baker also asserts -- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- that Iran and Syria share America's "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." Because of this supposed shared interest, Baker maintains that with the proper incentives, Iran and Syria can be persuaded to cooperate with a US withdrawal from Iraq ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries.
The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.
Baker believes that Iran will agree to temporarily hold its fire in Iraq in exchange for US acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power and an American pledge not to topple the regime. Syria will assist the US in exchange for US pressure on Israel to hand over the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea and Samaria to Hamas.
Obviously, if implemented, the Baker-Hamilton group's recommendations will be disastrous for Israel. Just the fact that they now form the basis for the public debate on the war is a great blow. But it isn't only Israel that is harmed by their actions. The US too, will be imperiled if their views become administration policy.
Although Baker -- and incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who served on his commission until Bush announced his appointment last month -- believes that there is a deal to be done that will end Iranian and Syrian aggression against the US, its vital interests and its allies, the fact of the matter is that there is no such deal. Contrary to what the Baker report argues and what Gates said in his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, Iran is not analogous to the Soviet Union and the war against the global jihad is not a new cold war.
Even if the US were to somehow get them to agree to certain understandings about Iraq, there is no reason to believe that the Iranians and Syrians would keep their word. Not only would the US be approaching them as a supplicant and so emboldening them, but to date the US has never credibly threatened anything either Syria or Iran value. Indeed, through supporting negotiations between the EU and Iran, empowering the UN to deal with Iran's nuclear program, and forcing Israel to accept a cease-fire with Hizbullah last summer that effectively gave victory to the Syrian and Iranian proxy, the US has consistently rewarded the two countries' aggression.
Worse than that, from a US perspective, although Gates admitted Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, he ignored the fact that Iran -- whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad daily calls for the destruction of the US -- may also attack the US with nuclear weapons.
Gates admitted in his Senate hearing that Iran is producing many bombs -- not just one.
Since it is possible to destroy Israel with just one bomb, the Americans should be asking themselves what Iran needs all those other bombs for. There are senior military sources in the US who have been warning the administration to take into consideration that the day that Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear bomb, 10 cities in the US and Europe are liable to also be attacked with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, no one is listening to these voices today.
It is particularly upsetting that Washington has chosen now of all times to turn its back on the war. Ahmadinejad hinted Monday that Iran has completed the nuclear fuel cycle and so has passed the point of no return on its nuclear program. He also made a statement indicating that Iran will have its nuclear arsenal up and running by March - just four months away.
Serious disagreement exists in Washington over the status of the Iranian program. Some claim that Iran is four or five years away from nuclear weapons capabilities. Others maintain that Iran has recently experienced serious technical setbacks in their uranium enrichment activities and that the North Korean nuclear bomb test in October, in which Iranian officials participated, was a failure.
But there are also engaged officials who agree with Ahmadinejad's assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. Those officials maintain first that the North Korean-Iranian test in October was successful and should be taken as a sign that Iran already has a nuclear arsenal. Second, they warn that the US and Israel have six months to act against Iran's nuclear installations and to overthrow the regime or face the prospect of the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of several US cities as a result of an Iranian nuclear offensive.
Obviously, Israel cannot risk the possibility that the last group of officials is correct. And since Washington has decided to go to sleep, it is up to Israel alone to act.
What must Israel do? First, it must plan an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities and regime command and control centers. To pave the way for such an attack, the IDF must move now to neutralize second order threats like the Palestinian rocket squads and the Syrian ballistic missile arsenals in order to limit the public's exposure to attack during the course of or in the aftermath of an Israeli attack on Iran. Second, Israel must work to topple the Iranian regime. As the Defense Minister's advisor Uri Lubrani told Ha'aretz last week, the regime in Iran is far from stable today and ripe for overthrow.
The overwhelming majority of Iranians despise the regime. There are rebellious groups in every ethnic group and province in the country - Azeris, Kurds, Ahwazi Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen and even Persians - that are actively working to destabilize the regime. Every day there are strikes of workers, women and students. Every few weeks there are reports of violent clashes between anti-regime groups and regime forces.
Recently, oil pipelines were sabotaged in the oil-rich Khuzestan province in the south where the Ahwazi Arabs are systematically persecuted by the regime. Westerners who recently visited Iran claim that Israel operating alone could overthrow the regime by extending its assistance to these people.
Thirdly, in his testimony in the Senate on Tuesday, Gates casually mentioned that Israel has nuclear weapons. In so doing, he unceremoniously removed four decades of ambiguity over Israel's nuclear status. While his statement caused dismay in Jerusalem, perhaps Israel should see this as an opportunity.
With the threat of nuclear destruction hanging over us, it makes sense to conduct a debate about an Israeli second strike. While such a discussion will not dissuade Iran's fanatical leaders from attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, it could influence the Iranian nation to rise up against their leaders.
Moreover, such a debate could influence other regimes in the region like Saudi Arabia which today behave as if Israel's annihilation will have no adverse impact on them. Americans like Baker, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their European friends need to understand that as goes Israel so go the Persian Gulf's oil fields. Such an understanding may influence their willingness to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Next Thursday, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations Malcolm Hoenlein and former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold will hold a press conference in New York where they will call for the US to indict Ahmadinejad under the International Convention Against Genocide for his call to annihilate Israel. This is doubtlessly a welcome initiative. But it is insufficient.
In a few months, Iran may well be in possession of nuclear weapons which it will use to destroy the Jewish state. With the US withdrawing from the war and Israel in the hands of incompetents, the time has come for the Jewish people to rise up.
Guaranteeing our survival begins with each of us deciding that we are willing to fight to survive. And today the challenge facing us is clear.
Either the Iranian regime is toppled and its nuclear installations are destroyed or Israel will be annihilated. The Jews in the Diaspora must launch mass demonstrations and demand that their governments take real action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The citizens of the State of Israel must also take to the streets. The government that led us to defeat in Lebanon this summer is leading us to a disaster of another order entirely. All citizens must demand that Olmert, his ministers and the generals in the IDF General Staff make an immediate decision. They now hold the responsibility for acting against Iran. They must either act or resign and make way for others who will.
America just abdicated its responsibility to defend itself against Iran and so left Israel high and dry. Nevertheless, the Jewish people is far from powerless. And the State of Israel also is capable of defending itself. But we must act and act immediately
This article originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post.
Commentary by Herb A Krantz
It seams that most of the wars that were and are fought are over religion and most of the time if no all against the Jews. We are the worlds favorite scrape goat.
Well if you believe in the bible any bible the last war that will be fought will be in the Middle East and bring on the end of days. Therefore as long as the Jewish state is alive so is the world as we know it.
If you look back in modern time at all the wars the USA and most of Europe jumped into them when it was almost to late. We as people of the world can’t wait that long this time. The mad man of Iran is getting stronger and will strike when he is ready. As the article says he will strike Israeli first then us in the United States. You thing 911 was bad wait till we are hit with a nuclear bomb.
I am reading and interesting book right now. It is about Abraham (father of many). It’s funny he is the father to the only two legitimate religions. I know that the Christians will get pissed at me but so be it. Abram had two sons Isaac and Ishmael. He told Ishmael mother not to worry about being out in the desert because he God would take care of her and Ishmael because Ishmael would be the father of many. When Abraham went out to kill his son Isaac he was told to spare him for Abraham would be the father of many because he did not question God but did as he asked. He would have more ancestors then the eye could see. Why did god do this? Because Abraham believed in one god, the god who guided him to a new land. Abraham did this all on blind faith. God promised him nothing before he got there
My point is we, the Jews and Arabs believe in one god. We both believe that Abraham was our father and if you believe the Koran and the Old Testament then you have to believe that we worship the same God. So you can say that we are truly brothers. Like brothers we must come together in the name of our father and make him proud of us as his children. But most of all we must not take his name, his teachings, he god name in vain. There has to be a way to find peace within ourselves and for ourselves and God.
Radical people on both sides must be stopped by any means so men and women can put their heads together and stop this craziness. We must all honor Abraham’s and God’s dream.
Amen
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Majority Predicts History Will Judge Bush Harshly
December 13, 2006
Majority Predicts History Will Judge Bush Harshly
Critics of Bush's job performance nearly uniform in giving a negative prognosis for his legacy
by Lydia Saad
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- That ticking sound in the Oval Office may seem louder to President George W. Bush now that there are only two years left on the timer for his presidency. Focusing on his legacy may be more satisfying than dealing with the newly elected Democratic Congress, but a new USA Today/Gallup poll suggests it won't be any easier. According to the Dec. 8-10, 2006 survey, more than half of Americans predict Bush will go down in history as a "below average" or a "poor" president. Only 19% think history will judge him as exemplary (as either "outstanding" or "above average").
The poll asked about the six most recent presidents, from Gerald Ford through George W. Bush.
Fifty-four percent of Americans believe history will consider Bush a below average or poor president. The closest any of the previous five presidents comes to that level is Bill Clinton, with 25% of Americans expecting history to judge him harshly.
Few Americans predict that either Gerald Ford or George H.W. Bush will be remembered as stellar presidents. Their 23% and 32% outstanding/above average scores, respectively, are not that much better than the current president's 19%. But, rather than predicting history to be critical of Ford and the elder Bush as they do for the current Bush, half or more of Americans believe Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush will be remembered as "average."
George W. Bush's ratings are nearly the inverse of the most lauded of recent presidents -- Ronald Reagan. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe Reagan will go down in history as an outstanding or above average president; only 10% believe he will be judged harshly.
Legacy vs. Job Approval
According to the new poll, 38% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president while 59% disapprove. Thus, there is nearly a one-to-one correspondence between the percentage disapproving of Bush and the percentage saying he will be remembered as a subpar president (59% vs. 54%, respectively). Two years ago, there was a bigger gap between these figures (49% disapproval vs. 38% subpar rating).
What has happened is that people who disapprove of the job Bush is doing have grown more intense in their feelings. In June 2004, only 62% of those disapproving of his job performance said he would go down in history as subpar. Today that figure is 85%.
Bush's supporters are much less extreme in their predictions about Bush's legacy than his opponents are in theirs. Only 46% of those who approve of Bush's job performance say he will be remembered as a superior president. The rest of his supporters mostly believe he will be remembered as just average.
This indication of the intensity of anti-Bush sentiment is different from the pattern with most other recent presidents. With presidents Ford, Reagan, and the elder Bush, the percentages saying each would be remembered as below average or poor were generally much lower than the percentages disapproving of their job performance at the points in time the two dimensions of opinion were measured. However, like Bush, Clinton's job disapproval and negative legacy ratings were also very similar.
A Troublesome Comparison
Bush's current image ratings appear to be similar to those of former president Richard Nixon who resigned
in disgrace in 1974 over his role in the Watergate affair. Gallup last measured public opinion about Nixon's legacy in June 2004, at which time 14% of Americans thought he would be considered an outstanding or above average president, 34% said he would be considered average, and 51% predicted he would be remembered as below average or poor.
Whether Bush's current legacy ratings would be similar to Nixon's if the two were rated in the same poll is, however, unclear. It is possible that each president's ratings are affected by the context of other presidents included on the list, thus making the evaluations more relative in nature, rather than absolute.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,009 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 8-10, 2006. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
3. How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor? [RANDOM ORDER]
2006 Dec 8-10(sorted by "outstanding/above average")
Outstanding/Above average Average Belowaverage/Poor
Ronald Reagan 64 26 10
Bill Clinton 45 29 25
Jimmy Carter 38 38 22
George H.W. Bush 32 50 18
Gerald Ford 23 60 12
George W. Bush 19 27 54
FULL TRENDS:
A. The current president, George W. Bush
Reagan passed away on June 5, 2006. Interviewing from June 3-4 showed 12%giving him an outstanding rating, 41% above average, 33% average, 8% belowaverage, and 5% poor.
Less than 0.5%
Commentray By Herb Krantz
As you can see by the artical above that it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see what I have been saying for along time about our president,he is a complete moron. Even most of the jerks that voted for him regret it now.
I can't see how a man who couldn't run a business or speak english be the leader of the greatest country of the free world, but I guess that's what makes our country great.
We all know that he won because of one issue and that he and his backers stood for. They didn't care if the rest of the country disagreed. Let us all remember how they went after the people that disagreed with them and next time look at all the issues infront of us that are important.
This man has put the lives of everyone in this world not just Americans in jeopardy. He gave the terrorist a reason to call to arms all moslums to stand up and fight. And they all beleave it.
If they don't the USA will take over their countries and inslave them.
It will come out in years to come that there was no reason to go to Iraq, but we will still be fighting the war bush started.
Majority Predicts History Will Judge Bush Harshly
Critics of Bush's job performance nearly uniform in giving a negative prognosis for his legacy
by Lydia Saad
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- That ticking sound in the Oval Office may seem louder to President George W. Bush now that there are only two years left on the timer for his presidency. Focusing on his legacy may be more satisfying than dealing with the newly elected Democratic Congress, but a new USA Today/Gallup poll suggests it won't be any easier. According to the Dec. 8-10, 2006 survey, more than half of Americans predict Bush will go down in history as a "below average" or a "poor" president. Only 19% think history will judge him as exemplary (as either "outstanding" or "above average").
The poll asked about the six most recent presidents, from Gerald Ford through George W. Bush.
Fifty-four percent of Americans believe history will consider Bush a below average or poor president. The closest any of the previous five presidents comes to that level is Bill Clinton, with 25% of Americans expecting history to judge him harshly.
Few Americans predict that either Gerald Ford or George H.W. Bush will be remembered as stellar presidents. Their 23% and 32% outstanding/above average scores, respectively, are not that much better than the current president's 19%. But, rather than predicting history to be critical of Ford and the elder Bush as they do for the current Bush, half or more of Americans believe Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush will be remembered as "average."
George W. Bush's ratings are nearly the inverse of the most lauded of recent presidents -- Ronald Reagan. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe Reagan will go down in history as an outstanding or above average president; only 10% believe he will be judged harshly.
Legacy vs. Job Approval
According to the new poll, 38% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president while 59% disapprove. Thus, there is nearly a one-to-one correspondence between the percentage disapproving of Bush and the percentage saying he will be remembered as a subpar president (59% vs. 54%, respectively). Two years ago, there was a bigger gap between these figures (49% disapproval vs. 38% subpar rating).
What has happened is that people who disapprove of the job Bush is doing have grown more intense in their feelings. In June 2004, only 62% of those disapproving of his job performance said he would go down in history as subpar. Today that figure is 85%.
Bush's supporters are much less extreme in their predictions about Bush's legacy than his opponents are in theirs. Only 46% of those who approve of Bush's job performance say he will be remembered as a superior president. The rest of his supporters mostly believe he will be remembered as just average.
This indication of the intensity of anti-Bush sentiment is different from the pattern with most other recent presidents. With presidents Ford, Reagan, and the elder Bush, the percentages saying each would be remembered as below average or poor were generally much lower than the percentages disapproving of their job performance at the points in time the two dimensions of opinion were measured. However, like Bush, Clinton's job disapproval and negative legacy ratings were also very similar.
A Troublesome Comparison
Bush's current image ratings appear to be similar to those of former president Richard Nixon who resigned
in disgrace in 1974 over his role in the Watergate affair. Gallup last measured public opinion about Nixon's legacy in June 2004, at which time 14% of Americans thought he would be considered an outstanding or above average president, 34% said he would be considered average, and 51% predicted he would be remembered as below average or poor.
Whether Bush's current legacy ratings would be similar to Nixon's if the two were rated in the same poll is, however, unclear. It is possible that each president's ratings are affected by the context of other presidents included on the list, thus making the evaluations more relative in nature, rather than absolute.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,009 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 8-10, 2006. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
3. How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history -- as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor? [RANDOM ORDER]
2006 Dec 8-10(sorted by "outstanding/above average")
Outstanding/Above average Average Belowaverage/Poor
Ronald Reagan 64 26 10
Bill Clinton 45 29 25
Jimmy Carter 38 38 22
George H.W. Bush 32 50 18
Gerald Ford 23 60 12
George W. Bush 19 27 54
FULL TRENDS:
A. The current president, George W. Bush
Reagan passed away on June 5, 2006. Interviewing from June 3-4 showed 12%giving him an outstanding rating, 41% above average, 33% average, 8% belowaverage, and 5% poor.
Less than 0.5%
Commentray By Herb Krantz
As you can see by the artical above that it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see what I have been saying for along time about our president,he is a complete moron. Even most of the jerks that voted for him regret it now.
I can't see how a man who couldn't run a business or speak english be the leader of the greatest country of the free world, but I guess that's what makes our country great.
We all know that he won because of one issue and that he and his backers stood for. They didn't care if the rest of the country disagreed. Let us all remember how they went after the people that disagreed with them and next time look at all the issues infront of us that are important.
This man has put the lives of everyone in this world not just Americans in jeopardy. He gave the terrorist a reason to call to arms all moslums to stand up and fight. And they all beleave it.
If they don't the USA will take over their countries and inslave them.
It will come out in years to come that there was no reason to go to Iraq, but we will still be fighting the war bush started.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
THE NEW UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL- WORSE THAN EVER
THE NEW UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: WORSE THAN EVER
Dear HonestReporting Subscriber:
In June 2006, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan inaugurated the new United Nations Human Rights Council. The new Council is the successor to the now defunct Human Rights Commission, which was often criticized for its membership of some of the world's worst human rights abusers. There were high hopes that the new body would become the world's leading protector of human rights. At the opening ceremony, Annan said:
"This Council represents a great new chance for the United Nations, and for humanity, to renew the struggle for human rights."
Despite these high hopes, however, the Council quickly focused on singling Israel out for condemnation while ignoring the worst cases of human rights abuses around the world. The media often holds international bodies such as the UNHRC to be a reference and a guiding moral light. Therefore, HonestReporting recognizes the importance of exposing this new body's unbalanced and politicized agenda.
THE UNHRC'S FIRST MEETING, JUNE 2006
At the first session of the UNHRC, only one nation was singled out for criticism – Israel. The Council decided that Israel was abusing human rights and, to validate their predetermined conclusion, they ordered an investigation. The Council was very clear in what it expected the investigation to conclude. The Council
...decided to undertake substantive consideration of the human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.
The resolution authorized a special session of the UNHRC to focus solely on Israel and that the issue should be on the agenda of all subsequent UNHRC meetings.
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL IGNORES ABUSE IN DARFUR
As Eye on the UN points out:In Darfur, there are three quarters of a million people beyond humanitarian reach, 2.5 million people displaced by the violence, 385,000 people in immediate risk of starvation, and over two million dead in twenty-two years of violence and deprivation. But there are no plans for the UN's lead human rights agency to have a special session on Darfur.
THE UNHRC MEETS FOR A SECOND TIME: JULY 6, 2006.
Unsurprisingly, at the special session called for by the earlier resolution, Israel was singled out for vehement attack. The Council approved Resolution S-1/1: Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This resolution, without any mention of historical context, terrorism, or Israeli peace proposals:
Expressed deep concern at violations of international law by Israel;
Demanded that Israel end military operations in the occupied Palestinian territories; and
Urged Israel to release members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (who were also members of the Hamas terrorist organization)
UNHRC IGNORES ABUSE IN GUINEA
On the same day that the Council met to discuss Israel, a report by Human Rights Watch noted:
In response to a nationwide strike protesting increases in the prices of rice and fuel, Guinea's security forces committed murder, rape, assault and theft against demonstrators and bystanders alike.
To date, the Council has taken no action on human rights abuses in Guinea.
ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION: AUGUST 11, 2006
In August, following Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Israel, the UNHRC decided to host another special session. Yet, the Council was not interested in how the conflict started. Instead, it created a commission of inquiry to review the situation but expressly forbid this commission from investigating the actions of Hezbollah. Resolution S-2/1 authorizing the investigation mandated that only certain aspects of the conflict would be examined. These aspects were defined as:
"1) investigating the systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel in Lebanon; (b) examining the types of weapons used by Israel and their conformity with international law; and (c) assessing the extent and deadly impact of Israeli attacks on human life, property, critical infrastructure and the environment."
The report noted that:
It is not for the Commission to comment on the political-legal context of the adoption of resolution S-2/1, nor to make judgment on the content of its mandate. It is clear that the mandate of the Commission has limits...and does not allow for a full examination of all of the aspects of the conflict....The Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe it as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel. To do so would exceed the Commission’s interpretative function and would be to usurp the Council’s powers.
The UNHRC deliberately prevented a fair examination of the conflict. Any reasonable investigation would have noted that:
The conflict was initiated when Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped on Israeli soil.
Thousands of rockets were deliberately fired at civilian areas in Israel.
The toll in terms of lives, destroyed homes, and damage to the Israeli economy due to the war was immense.
While ignoring any information from the government of Israel, the UNHRC accepted as fact a list of 56 "massacres by the Israeli army" from the Lebanese government. (Annex VI).
The full report is available online here.
THE UNHRC HOLDS YET ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION, NOVEMBER 15, 2006
On November 15, 19 Palestinian civilians were killed when an Israeli artillery shell veered off course, missing its intended military target. As HonestReporting pointed out, this terrible tragedy occurred due to an unintended accident. The government of Israel apologized immediately and pointed out that if the Palestinians had stopped firing rockets on Sderot, this accident could not have taken place. Yet, that same day, the UNHRC leapt into action to hold yet another special session and pass another resolution condemning Israel. Once again, there was no mention at all of the constant firing of rockets on Israeli civilian areas. There was no mention of Gilad Shalit, still held captive in Gaza. The Council provided no context at all to describe the incident.
The Council "expressed its shock at the horror of Israeli killing of Palestinian civilians in Beit Hanoun and called for bringing the perpetrators thereof to justice". The Council decided to send a fact finding mission to "make recommendations on ways and means to protect Palestinian civilians against further Israeli assaults." No mention was made of protecting Israeli civilians from further assault.
UNHRC IGNORES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE IN SRI LANKA
While the Council was meeting, the Toronto Star reported on a study by Human Rights Watch that:
There is "clear and compelling evidence" that Sri Lankan government forces are helping guerrillas to kidnap boys and young men to turn them into child soldiers.
To date, over 65,000 people have been killed in this conflict. The Human Rights Council has never discussed the government abduction of children or the ongoing mass murder in Sri Lanka.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has been in existence for just over six months. During that time, it has ignored terrible human rights abuses around the world. It has become an organization dedicated solely to condemning and vilifying the State of Israel. As such, it lacks credibility and should not be seen by the media as a credible source on the subject of human rights. If you see your media referring to the Council without some background, let them know the facts.
Thank you for your help in fighting media bias.
HonestReporting. Com
Commentary By Herb Krantz
I have said for a long time that the UN was a waste of our time money and effort and should disbanded A.S.A.P... We host these jerks from other countries that have nothing better to do than to try and undermined the USA in every thing we do. They have not real power throughout the world. The could care about human rights or anything that goes against their interest.
It almost sounds like most of the congress and senators we have. The difference is that our congress does not won’t to see the down fall of the USA or Israeli.
We have NATO to help fight and keep peace screw the UN. It seem the love to Israeli bash. The people below have been forgotten. These are the people who have suffered from not having any human right. They have no rights, their oppressors are getting awa with genocide, Where is the UN?. The same place they were when this was happing in Bosnia. Turning their head.
They should all be thrown out of the USA and Then shoot. Below are some of the faces of the forgotten that Needs the help the most. Not terroist!
Dear HonestReporting Subscriber:
In June 2006, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan inaugurated the new United Nations Human Rights Council. The new Council is the successor to the now defunct Human Rights Commission, which was often criticized for its membership of some of the world's worst human rights abusers. There were high hopes that the new body would become the world's leading protector of human rights. At the opening ceremony, Annan said:
"This Council represents a great new chance for the United Nations, and for humanity, to renew the struggle for human rights."
Despite these high hopes, however, the Council quickly focused on singling Israel out for condemnation while ignoring the worst cases of human rights abuses around the world. The media often holds international bodies such as the UNHRC to be a reference and a guiding moral light. Therefore, HonestReporting recognizes the importance of exposing this new body's unbalanced and politicized agenda.
THE UNHRC'S FIRST MEETING, JUNE 2006
At the first session of the UNHRC, only one nation was singled out for criticism – Israel. The Council decided that Israel was abusing human rights and, to validate their predetermined conclusion, they ordered an investigation. The Council was very clear in what it expected the investigation to conclude. The Council
...decided to undertake substantive consideration of the human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.
The resolution authorized a special session of the UNHRC to focus solely on Israel and that the issue should be on the agenda of all subsequent UNHRC meetings.
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL IGNORES ABUSE IN DARFUR
As Eye on the UN points out:In Darfur, there are three quarters of a million people beyond humanitarian reach, 2.5 million people displaced by the violence, 385,000 people in immediate risk of starvation, and over two million dead in twenty-two years of violence and deprivation. But there are no plans for the UN's lead human rights agency to have a special session on Darfur.
THE UNHRC MEETS FOR A SECOND TIME: JULY 6, 2006.
Unsurprisingly, at the special session called for by the earlier resolution, Israel was singled out for vehement attack. The Council approved Resolution S-1/1: Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This resolution, without any mention of historical context, terrorism, or Israeli peace proposals:
Expressed deep concern at violations of international law by Israel;
Demanded that Israel end military operations in the occupied Palestinian territories; and
Urged Israel to release members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (who were also members of the Hamas terrorist organization)
UNHRC IGNORES ABUSE IN GUINEA
On the same day that the Council met to discuss Israel, a report by Human Rights Watch noted:
In response to a nationwide strike protesting increases in the prices of rice and fuel, Guinea's security forces committed murder, rape, assault and theft against demonstrators and bystanders alike.
To date, the Council has taken no action on human rights abuses in Guinea.
ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION: AUGUST 11, 2006
In August, following Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Israel, the UNHRC decided to host another special session. Yet, the Council was not interested in how the conflict started. Instead, it created a commission of inquiry to review the situation but expressly forbid this commission from investigating the actions of Hezbollah. Resolution S-2/1 authorizing the investigation mandated that only certain aspects of the conflict would be examined. These aspects were defined as:
"1) investigating the systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel in Lebanon; (b) examining the types of weapons used by Israel and their conformity with international law; and (c) assessing the extent and deadly impact of Israeli attacks on human life, property, critical infrastructure and the environment."
The report noted that:
It is not for the Commission to comment on the political-legal context of the adoption of resolution S-2/1, nor to make judgment on the content of its mandate. It is clear that the mandate of the Commission has limits...and does not allow for a full examination of all of the aspects of the conflict....The Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe it as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel. To do so would exceed the Commission’s interpretative function and would be to usurp the Council’s powers.
The UNHRC deliberately prevented a fair examination of the conflict. Any reasonable investigation would have noted that:
The conflict was initiated when Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped on Israeli soil.
Thousands of rockets were deliberately fired at civilian areas in Israel.
The toll in terms of lives, destroyed homes, and damage to the Israeli economy due to the war was immense.
While ignoring any information from the government of Israel, the UNHRC accepted as fact a list of 56 "massacres by the Israeli army" from the Lebanese government. (Annex VI).
The full report is available online here.
THE UNHRC HOLDS YET ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION, NOVEMBER 15, 2006
On November 15, 19 Palestinian civilians were killed when an Israeli artillery shell veered off course, missing its intended military target. As HonestReporting pointed out, this terrible tragedy occurred due to an unintended accident. The government of Israel apologized immediately and pointed out that if the Palestinians had stopped firing rockets on Sderot, this accident could not have taken place. Yet, that same day, the UNHRC leapt into action to hold yet another special session and pass another resolution condemning Israel. Once again, there was no mention at all of the constant firing of rockets on Israeli civilian areas. There was no mention of Gilad Shalit, still held captive in Gaza. The Council provided no context at all to describe the incident.
The Council "expressed its shock at the horror of Israeli killing of Palestinian civilians in Beit Hanoun and called for bringing the perpetrators thereof to justice". The Council decided to send a fact finding mission to "make recommendations on ways and means to protect Palestinian civilians against further Israeli assaults." No mention was made of protecting Israeli civilians from further assault.
UNHRC IGNORES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE IN SRI LANKA
While the Council was meeting, the Toronto Star reported on a study by Human Rights Watch that:
There is "clear and compelling evidence" that Sri Lankan government forces are helping guerrillas to kidnap boys and young men to turn them into child soldiers.
To date, over 65,000 people have been killed in this conflict. The Human Rights Council has never discussed the government abduction of children or the ongoing mass murder in Sri Lanka.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has been in existence for just over six months. During that time, it has ignored terrible human rights abuses around the world. It has become an organization dedicated solely to condemning and vilifying the State of Israel. As such, it lacks credibility and should not be seen by the media as a credible source on the subject of human rights. If you see your media referring to the Council without some background, let them know the facts.
Thank you for your help in fighting media bias.
HonestReporting. Com
Commentary By Herb Krantz
I have said for a long time that the UN was a waste of our time money and effort and should disbanded A.S.A.P... We host these jerks from other countries that have nothing better to do than to try and undermined the USA in every thing we do. They have not real power throughout the world. The could care about human rights or anything that goes against their interest.
It almost sounds like most of the congress and senators we have. The difference is that our congress does not won’t to see the down fall of the USA or Israeli.
We have NATO to help fight and keep peace screw the UN. It seem the love to Israeli bash. The people below have been forgotten. These are the people who have suffered from not having any human right. They have no rights, their oppressors are getting awa with genocide, Where is the UN?. The same place they were when this was happing in Bosnia. Turning their head.
They should all be thrown out of the USA and Then shoot. Below are some of the faces of the forgotten that Needs the help the most. Not terroist!
Phila basekball Fan-See YS A.I. don't let the door hiTYA
All the Basketball fans in Phila know A.I. all to well. Either you love him or hate him. Whichever you know what I have to say it true. He maybe a good player but his antics off the boards always seemed to get in the way of the team. In my option he has caused to many go coaches to pass the 76er’s by. No one wanted to put up with his crap
AI complains that he hasn’t won the big game; the ring is not on his finger. I guess he never thought he was part of the problem, not the cure.
Everyone else had to show up at practice, not him he’s to good for that. He doesn’t need practice. He a little shrimp with a big head, bigger than his talent. Don’t get me wrong I will give AI his do. He is a very talented player and when he does play he plays with his hart. He should play more as a team player though instead of hogging the ball. Their are other players on the 76er’s that can play almost as good as him.
I said it a long time ago that it was time to get rid of Alan Iverson, he was nothing but trouble. Every time he would start gaining my respect again he would pull more crape to remind me that he was trouble.
I often wondered if he was really injured all those time or just a way of getting out of practicing. I just hop that the 76’er get a very good young player for him, not like the Eagles and Phillies who always seem to get the old players that are at the end of their careers. We finally have a chance to get rid of the thorn in the side of this team, lets get some one who can not only fill his place but also be a team player, so we finally win the championship.
Good-by AI don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of town. You will finally be some one else’s problem child.
See YA.
Herb Krantz
AI complains that he hasn’t won the big game; the ring is not on his finger. I guess he never thought he was part of the problem, not the cure.
Everyone else had to show up at practice, not him he’s to good for that. He doesn’t need practice. He a little shrimp with a big head, bigger than his talent. Don’t get me wrong I will give AI his do. He is a very talented player and when he does play he plays with his hart. He should play more as a team player though instead of hogging the ball. Their are other players on the 76er’s that can play almost as good as him.
I said it a long time ago that it was time to get rid of Alan Iverson, he was nothing but trouble. Every time he would start gaining my respect again he would pull more crape to remind me that he was trouble.
I often wondered if he was really injured all those time or just a way of getting out of practicing. I just hop that the 76’er get a very good young player for him, not like the Eagles and Phillies who always seem to get the old players that are at the end of their careers. We finally have a chance to get rid of the thorn in the side of this team, lets get some one who can not only fill his place but also be a team player, so we finally win the championship.
Good-by AI don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of town. You will finally be some one else’s problem child.
See YA.
Herb Krantz
Thursday, December 07, 2006
President Bush, admitting that "it's bad in Iraq-But does he realy see it?
WASHINGTON -
President Bush, admitting that "it's bad in Iraq," acknowledged Thursday that the United States
needs a new approach in the unpopular war and promised to unveil details in an upcoming speech.
Bush said he was disappointed in the progress in Iraq, but continued to oppose direct U.S. talks with Iran or Syria and remained steadfastly committed to spreading democracy across the Middle East.
"I do know that we have not succeeded as fast as we wanted to succeed," Bush said, standing alongside British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his chief ally in the war. "I do understand that process is not as rapid as I had hoped." Bush's meeting with Blair came a day after the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton issued a stinging report saying the Bush policies in Iraq had failed and a major course correction was needed, including beginning to withdraw combat troops.
Bush said the study group's report would be an important part of his considerations. He said he was awaiting results of internal reviews being done at the Pentagon, State Department and the White House and would deliver a speech to the nation on Iraq in coming weeks after he decides on a new course.
The study group concluded that a stable, democratic Iraq was still possible, but Baker said: "We do not know if it can be turned around." Bush was more upbeat, but gave no hints about whether he was contemplating a major policy shift. At the same time, Bush said that he didn't think Baker and Hamilton "expect us to accept every recommendation."
"It makes sense to analyze the situation and to devise a set of tactics and strategies to achieve the objective that I have stated," Bush said. "And so, if the present situation needs to be changed, it follows that we'll change it if we want to succeed."
The report, which warns that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating," contains 79 separate recommendations. They call for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces during the next year to ramp up the training of Iraqi security forces. There are currently some 135,000 US soldiers and 7,100 British soldiers serving in Iraq.
Both Bush and Blair said that supporting the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was central to efforts to help Iraq defend, govern and sustain itself. They both urged al-Maliki to do more to assert control and quell violence. Bush was asked whether he thought the study group suggested that he did not appreciate the extent of the violence in Iraq.
"It's bad in Iraq. That help?" retorted Bush." You know, in all due respect, I've been saying it a lot," Bush continued. "I understand how tough it is and have been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is."
Another recommendation from the study group calls for enlisting diplomatic help from Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria — not only to resolve problems in Iraq but to find an end to the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. One of the study group's central recommendations was for the administration to reach out to Syria and Iran for help in stabilizing Iraq, a course Bush has rejected in the past and confronted skeptically on Thursday.
"Countries that participate in talks must not fund terrorism, must help the young democracy survive, must help with the economics of the country," Bush said. "If people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn't bother to show up."
For his part, Blair suggested that Iran's support for Shiite militants in southern Iraq presented a problem. "Iran has been ... basically arming, supporting, financing terrorism," the visiting British leader said.
Blair said he welcomed the Baker-Hamilton report despite its depiction of a failed policy that both he and Bush had previously embraced.
"It offers a strong way forward. I think it is important now we concentrate on the elements that are necessary to make sure that we succeed — because the consequences of failure are severe," Blair said.
Bush appeared to endorse the bipartisan panel's conclusion that any resolution of the Iraq conflict is tied to reducing tensions between Israel and the Palestinians and across the broader Middle East — a position Blair has long held.
"It's a tough time and it’s a difficult moment for America and Great Britain and the task before us is daunting," Bush said as members of the bipartisan commission testified about their report on Capitol Hill.
Blair said the terrorists' threat in Iraq is part of an old pattern that is region-wide. Terrorism "has basically come out of the Middle East" and must be addressed in a way that includes a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he said.
Commentary by Herb A Krantz
Finally our so called president has seen the light.
We are in trouble in Iraq. It is a no win war.
As far as I am concern it was a war caused by Bush, and only to get back because of the treats against he father’s life.
This president is either the dumbest person or the most arrogant person in modern political history of our time.
He said that he was disappointed in the way the war is going, but he did not have a plan going in! He just wanted to invade. He refuses to talk with Iran and Syria. If there is going to be any movement we have to deal with the devils,( I have no love for either of them especially being a Jewish American), Bush gave us no alternative. It’s time he realizes that.
He has two more years to deal with this problem. This problem will be around to be solving for the next ten presidents.
Bush will have to brake down and asks the United Nations for help, (even thought I think that origination should be dissolved). We can not do it all ourselves. We do not have the people power to keep it up without a draft and maybe not even then.
Bush still doesn’t seeing the whole picture when he said we are not going as fast as he hoped but still not as bad as what others say. He is waiting for other reports which will still be as bad as this one.
What the hell is this asshole waiting for? Every day he keeps his blinders on more of our troop's die in vain with no real purpose in there mission except to keep themselves alive.
Bush we can not leave these young men and woman dangling there while you scratch your head and decide what to do.
As I have said many times before give this war over to the military and let them fight this war. Maybe then we will have a chance of winning or accomplishing something.
Hire some retired general like Powel to handle the negations between all parties involved.
You need someone with respect of the USA and the world to achieve a successful end to this war.
Let’s face it there is no one here or overseas that really has a lot of faith or trust in you bush.
Your thoughts on my Commentary are welcome Please leave or email me. I will respond.
President Bush, admitting that "it's bad in Iraq," acknowledged Thursday that the United States
needs a new approach in the unpopular war and promised to unveil details in an upcoming speech.
Bush said he was disappointed in the progress in Iraq, but continued to oppose direct U.S. talks with Iran or Syria and remained steadfastly committed to spreading democracy across the Middle East.
"I do know that we have not succeeded as fast as we wanted to succeed," Bush said, standing alongside British Prime Minister Tony Blair, his chief ally in the war. "I do understand that process is not as rapid as I had hoped." Bush's meeting with Blair came a day after the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton issued a stinging report saying the Bush policies in Iraq had failed and a major course correction was needed, including beginning to withdraw combat troops.
Bush said the study group's report would be an important part of his considerations. He said he was awaiting results of internal reviews being done at the Pentagon, State Department and the White House and would deliver a speech to the nation on Iraq in coming weeks after he decides on a new course.
The study group concluded that a stable, democratic Iraq was still possible, but Baker said: "We do not know if it can be turned around." Bush was more upbeat, but gave no hints about whether he was contemplating a major policy shift. At the same time, Bush said that he didn't think Baker and Hamilton "expect us to accept every recommendation."
"It makes sense to analyze the situation and to devise a set of tactics and strategies to achieve the objective that I have stated," Bush said. "And so, if the present situation needs to be changed, it follows that we'll change it if we want to succeed."
The report, which warns that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating," contains 79 separate recommendations. They call for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces during the next year to ramp up the training of Iraqi security forces. There are currently some 135,000 US soldiers and 7,100 British soldiers serving in Iraq.
Both Bush and Blair said that supporting the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was central to efforts to help Iraq defend, govern and sustain itself. They both urged al-Maliki to do more to assert control and quell violence. Bush was asked whether he thought the study group suggested that he did not appreciate the extent of the violence in Iraq.
"It's bad in Iraq. That help?" retorted Bush." You know, in all due respect, I've been saying it a lot," Bush continued. "I understand how tough it is and have been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is."
Another recommendation from the study group calls for enlisting diplomatic help from Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria — not only to resolve problems in Iraq but to find an end to the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. One of the study group's central recommendations was for the administration to reach out to Syria and Iran for help in stabilizing Iraq, a course Bush has rejected in the past and confronted skeptically on Thursday.
"Countries that participate in talks must not fund terrorism, must help the young democracy survive, must help with the economics of the country," Bush said. "If people are not committed, if Syria and Iran is not committed to that concept, then they shouldn't bother to show up."
For his part, Blair suggested that Iran's support for Shiite militants in southern Iraq presented a problem. "Iran has been ... basically arming, supporting, financing terrorism," the visiting British leader said.
Blair said he welcomed the Baker-Hamilton report despite its depiction of a failed policy that both he and Bush had previously embraced.
"It offers a strong way forward. I think it is important now we concentrate on the elements that are necessary to make sure that we succeed — because the consequences of failure are severe," Blair said.
Bush appeared to endorse the bipartisan panel's conclusion that any resolution of the Iraq conflict is tied to reducing tensions between Israel and the Palestinians and across the broader Middle East — a position Blair has long held.
"It's a tough time and it’s a difficult moment for America and Great Britain and the task before us is daunting," Bush said as members of the bipartisan commission testified about their report on Capitol Hill.
Blair said the terrorists' threat in Iraq is part of an old pattern that is region-wide. Terrorism "has basically come out of the Middle East" and must be addressed in a way that includes a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he said.
Commentary by Herb A Krantz
Finally our so called president has seen the light.
We are in trouble in Iraq. It is a no win war.
As far as I am concern it was a war caused by Bush, and only to get back because of the treats against he father’s life.
This president is either the dumbest person or the most arrogant person in modern political history of our time.
He said that he was disappointed in the way the war is going, but he did not have a plan going in! He just wanted to invade. He refuses to talk with Iran and Syria. If there is going to be any movement we have to deal with the devils,( I have no love for either of them especially being a Jewish American), Bush gave us no alternative. It’s time he realizes that.
He has two more years to deal with this problem. This problem will be around to be solving for the next ten presidents.
Bush will have to brake down and asks the United Nations for help, (even thought I think that origination should be dissolved). We can not do it all ourselves. We do not have the people power to keep it up without a draft and maybe not even then.
Bush still doesn’t seeing the whole picture when he said we are not going as fast as he hoped but still not as bad as what others say. He is waiting for other reports which will still be as bad as this one.
What the hell is this asshole waiting for? Every day he keeps his blinders on more of our troop's die in vain with no real purpose in there mission except to keep themselves alive.
Bush we can not leave these young men and woman dangling there while you scratch your head and decide what to do.
As I have said many times before give this war over to the military and let them fight this war. Maybe then we will have a chance of winning or accomplishing something.
Hire some retired general like Powel to handle the negations between all parties involved.
You need someone with respect of the USA and the world to achieve a successful end to this war.
Let’s face it there is no one here or overseas that really has a lot of faith or trust in you bush.
Your thoughts on my Commentary are welcome Please leave or email me. I will respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
