>Mark,
>
>>>Despite what the administration says, the cause of terrorism isn't their jealousy of our freedoms. It is our presence in Arab countries, and our support of Israel to the exclusion of the Palestinians< sp? >.
>>
>>Yep. Although what do expect us and the rest of our Allies to do when Arafat and his goons continually failed to live up to the agreements they signed? Not that the Israelis have been culpable and peaceniks either, but at least their attacks have not been people walking into public areas and blowing themselves up. They used their military to initiate direct attacks.
>
>First of all, we must realize that there's a difference between the PLO and Hamas.

With Arafat as leader, I am not sure there was/is much difference.

>Second, I think that Sharon has taken the first steps for peace in the in region with the decision to pull the settlers out of Gaza and the West Bank.

The history here, IMO, has been Israel taking te initiative to concede something, the Palestinians taking full advantage of it, reneging on their end of the bargain whatever it may have been, then renegotiating through terroristic tactics.

>Personally, I feel that Jerusalem should be a free city with access to all faiths.

Amen to that.

>>My problem with Kerry is he will not take a position on anything and he has failed miserably to run on his record much less defend it. While he may have served honorably, he was anything but right after his discharge. His inflammatory and vicious "testimony" before Congress about Vietnam "attrocities" allegedly commited by US soldiers did cause many POWs to suffer unmercifully at the hands of the North Vietnamese. At least Bush is not running from his record, although it may hang him in the end.
>
>My friend, I have a number of friends (and lost some too) who are combat veterans of VietNam. Kerry's statement that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 rings true. I know a vet who says in was there in January of the same year.
>
>As for the atrocities, he says that is true also. We saw it then with Lt. Calley, we've seen it again in Iraq with an attempt to circumvent the Geneva Convention.

I do not really question anything about his actual service or what he witnessed/did. I do not accept everything he says on blind faith either. AFAIAC, his and Bush's service records are irrelevant. It's his actions afterward that are bothersome to me.

>I think that what Kerry did back then was totally responsible and courageous. He pointed out that if this country doesn't live up to the underlying principals on which it was founded, then we're hypocritcs.

I think there were better ways to do this than in a highly publicized and a deliberately politically motivated forum.

>What many people overlook, both then and now, is that the peace movement doesn't undermine or doesn't support the brave men and women who serve. To the contrary, we do. What isn't being supported is the government that orders these actions.
>
>I'm reminded of something that I was taught in school back in the late 1950's and early 1960's. It's called "The good German soldier" analogy. According to this, the "good German soldier" followed, without question, the orders of his superiors. It didn't matter whether it was going into battle, or leading Jews into the gas chambers. The "good German soldier" simply followed those orders without question.
>
>I (we) were taught that as Americans it was our right, if not our responsibilty, as patriots to question, if not reject, those orders. John Kerry symbolizes that in his testimony before Congress. OTOH, George Bush and the "right-wing" tell us we're traitors. I, for one, am not a "good German soldier" and, regardless of the consequences, will never be.

While I do not condone or support anyone commiting attrocities to POWs, innocent bystanders, etc., I feel what Kerry and others did before Congress after his service was reckless. Those conducting hearings in Congress are to blame here as well. Anything that inflammatory should have been done behind closed doors. Since this testimony was done in a highly publicized and politically motivated manner, I would have to say BOTH Congress and Kerry had ulterior agendas to promote. If Kerry had any integrity or cared about POWs and those still on active duty, he could have insisted on testifying off camera. How can you not know that what you are about to say is inflammatory and fuel for our enemies? His actions were speaking so loudly, no one could here what he was saying.

It's too bad our political process has not allowed for the type of discourse you and I are taking here. This is where the debate forums and news media fail miserably.

Vote Libertarian, you might find it liberating. :)