Or they know will they get fired for being late to work :o)

>Mike,
>
>>>We (the US) do not always 'follow' international law.
>>
>>Whats your point?
>
>That international law is toothless. Remember 'law' always contains an implied "or else" and there's no international body that has any real teeth.
>
>
>>
>>>>The land that they "won" does not belong to them.
>>>Sure it does. The arabs shouldn't have invaded.
>
>Well, I suppose after you or I get a speeding ticket that we would both agree that "we shouldn't have been speeding", but that's after the fact and doesn't change what has happened. Or, if you gamble in Las Vegas and lose everything you don't have the right to get it back. Too late now and a lot of crying over spilt milk IMO.
>
>>
>>What war are we talking about? I thought the 6day way in 1967. Israel was teh agressor in that conflict.
>
>You should look at a timeline of Israel's existence. They have had wars since the very day of their existance.
>
>
>>
>>>I suppose we should all leave the US and go somewhere else and just give it back to the Indians. Or perhaps California and part of Texas should be just given back. Pick a thousand other examples if you'd like.
>>
>>These occured before the law was made. Yes, it wasn't right to wipe out the Native Americans, but since then I'd like to think that we've made progress. I'd like to think that we can look at the matter at hand, with the rules and laws we have today that are rellevant, and stop making excuses to kill each other.
>
>Any country that has been attacked has the right to defend itself. Maybe Israel thinks that by keeping these lands and positions they are continuing their defense. You may not know that immediately after Israel let the PLO in and gave them some new territories to live in that the rockets started arriving from those areas. Land for peace is a big fat huge lie and it's only accomplishment IMO has been to give the knuckleheads who tout it 'cover' for the absolutely guaranteed failure. Since the Oslo accord the PLO attacks have gone up, not down.
>
>>
>>>I don't like the fact that this world is governed by the use of force but to deny this fact is also unrealistic IMO.
>>
>>So, do you think the UN is a big waste of time?
>
>Not necessarily. I'm always a believer that folks should talk and be open to talking. I do NOT think though that the UN should be any kind of enforcer. I am also a big believer in the soverignity of nations - even those who we consider 'bad.
>
>> Do think its not even worth trying to create a safer, better world because of the way we used to act hundreds of years ago is unchangeable.
>
>I have no quarrels with this goal. I hold it too. However, I think the difference would be in approaches. I know without a shadow of a doubt that unless and until someone wants to change no change will be forthcoming. However, ultimately man cannot change without God's help so those who reject His help can struggle all they want and while they may figuratively put a new coat of paint on the barn the same old mule lives inside. <g>
>
>> You think that instead of looking at all the progress we've made to become peaceful we should revert back to fighting it out, something that humans inherited from primitive animals, because you think its more "realistic"? Thats too bad.
>
>Mike.. Let me give you a simple course in human nature. The next time you are driving a car and are the first in line at a stoplight, when the light changes just sit there. How long will it take before those behind you will get mad? That it the length of time between the so-called 'sophisticated' man and the barbarisn. Try it out and you will admit I am right. Why don't those behind you just sit patiently? Answer: They can't and they choose not to be patient.