Best hope for peace

[sushi]

doesn't seem to have a chance.

In the Pew Research Center's global opinion survey released last June, which polled more than 15,000 people in 21 countries, no less significant were the responses to the question whether the US is too supportive of Israel. In 20 of the 21 countries surveyed (notably INCLUDING) Israel, most of those polled said "yes."

"Israel's support for this proposition should not come as a complete surprise. Israelis have to live there. While their lives ...have not been the living hell experienced by the Palestinians, they have still become unpleasant, insecure and stressful."

"Those Israelis who feel that America is too supportive of Israel presumeably can see that America's involvement since 1967 has not advanced the cause of peace but, rather, has blocked it,..."

"No American national interest is served by Israel's continuing occupation. American supporters of the occupation tend to be Christian fundamentalists concered about being personally 'raptured' up to heaven...,Jews who feel personally guilty to be living...in America rather than having emigrated to Israel/Palestine, or politicians interested only in preserving or furthering their personal careers by not offending the other two groups."

"The best hope for peace would be total American disengagement--and the sooner the better...Having never been an 'honest broker,' the US would at least become an honest bystander."

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1600

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. This being America

and not 21 other countries, too bad.

Israel is our ally and has been through some of the darkest days of the modern era (the Cold War). We will continue to stand by them.

[Darranar]

2. What national interest do they serve to the US?

I'm been thinking about this, but it semes that the biggest benefit they have is aiding PNAC's plans of reworking the Middle East. when it comes to that, the less help they have, the better.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. National interest

Actually, it would probably be better for us to totally abandon Israel, kiss ass with the Arabs and have oil flow into the U.S. like mad.

Of course, that would be morally bankrupt and all of the nations of the world would know that we screw our friends.

Israel remains the most free nation in the Mideast and far and away our best ally in that region.

We stand by our friends.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Uh-huh...

Of course, that would be morally bankrupt and all of the nations of the world would know that we screw our friends.

Some of us already know the US does that. Mind you, in the case of Israel, stopping the funding of a brutal military occupation isn't exactly 'screwing our friends'...

Violet...

[Darranar]

6. The US already is morally bankrupt...

and nations have interests, not friends - which is a needed lessonn when it comes to foreign policy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Not even close

Sure, the U.S. has done some stupid things, it's also done some great things.

But it sticks by its friends and allies. Israel is both.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. But...

Saddam was its friend and ally. Iraq was both. There goes yr argument, Muddle...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Not hardly

Saddam was part of the great global game of politics. Never a true friend and never an ally.

[Darranar]

23. Great things?

Only three come to mind in the past century: Intervening in World War II, forcing the foundation of the UN, and the Marshall plan. Every one of those three were severely flawed, but they were good things, all in all.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Flawed?

Intervening in WWII was flawed? The Marshall Plan flawed?

What about centuries of innovation? What about civil rights? What about women's suffrage? What about stopping communism? What about freeing Kuwait?

[Darranar]

54. Yes, WWII was flawed...

There was intense targeting of innocent civilians that could have, and should have, been avoided.

"Centuries of innovation" has nothing to do with the government's actions.

Stopping atrocities (ie Civil rights) committed by the US itself doesn't count.

"Stopping communism" is a load of junk. The US only "stopped communism" supposedly by bombing a third-world country to bits, killing thousands of innocent civilians, and creating domestic problems that continue to today - let alone stregthen terrorists like Osama Bin Laden. And that's ignoring the fact that the threat of Communism was greatly exxagerated, and that Communism was doomed to stop itself ever since totalitarian fools took over the movement from idealistic intellectuals.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Point by point

WWII -- Well, we won. We saved the world from the worst threat it ever faced. I'd be a little reluctant to criticize if I were you.

"Centuries of innovation" -- of course has EVERYTHING to do with government actions from immigration laws to spurring development to tax breaks, etc. Take a look around the world and you won't see the same result.

Civil rights -- Of course they matter. They matter until every nation does the same thing. Most have not.

"Stopping communism" -- This sure as hell mattered. Ask those in the Gulag. Ask those in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union was a horrific monster of a nation. The U.S. stopped it in its tracks.

[Darranar]

63. Point by Point...

WWII -- Well, we won. We saved the world from the worst threat it ever faced. I'd be a little reluctant to criticize if I were you.

We'd win the war on terrorism, too, if we nuked the entire world. That doesn't make it right.

"Centuries of innovation" -- of course has EVERYTHING to do with government actions from immigration laws to spurring development to tax breaks, etc. Take a look around the world and you won't see the same result.

Which invention was invented in the US that would not have happened sooner or later somewhere else?

Civil rights -- Of course they matter. They matter until every nation does the same thing. Most have not.

I was mainly talking about foreign policy, anyway. And civil rights still have ways to go - especially when it comes to civil liberties.

"Stopping communism" -- This sure as hell mattered. Ask those in the Gulag. Ask those in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union was a horrific monster of a nation. The U.S. stopped it in its tracks.

AS I said, Communism would have stopped itself, regardles of whether the US slaughtered thousands in Vietnam or not, or whether it dumped money into the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein or not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. One hell of a comparison

We not only freed the world from fascism, but also fixed up our former enemies and turned those nations into democracies.

Sooner or later? The innovations not only happened, but got implemented by the ton in the U.S. and popularized around the world. Do you deny this?

Civil rights ALWAYS could be better, but humans are flawed.

You and I are not talking about Vietnam. The U.S. stopped communism about 1,000 ways, mostly economic. Though actions like JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis or Berlin Airlift also helped stem the tide. You make it sound like an easy or inevitable victory. It was neither.

[Darranar]

70. Yah, yah, yah...

more junk.

We not only freed the world from fascism, but also fixed up our former enemies and turned those nations into democracies.

Sooner or later? The innovations not only happened, but got implemented by the ton in the U.S. and popularized around the world. Do you deny this?

And that has to do with something, doesn't it? I'm just not sure what. Why does it appear that you're ignoring my points and simply repeating the old rhetoric over and over again?

You and I are not talking about Vietnam. The U.S. stopped communism about 1,000 ways, mostly economic. Though actions like JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis or Berlin Airlift also helped stem the tide. You make it sound like an easy or inevitable victory. It was neither.

I repeat: Yes, communism's defeat was inevitable. Socialism combined with totalitarianism always fails, because if a powerful government has no one to answer to, everything falls apart.

Quite a lot of the US's actions that "defended against communism" did nothing of the sort, and only created and wrosened problems for the next generation.

[sushi]

8. Why does it have to be

the other extreme? The US should go on protecting Israel so that nobody dares to attack, but at the same time the US should demand that Israel abandons the settlements, and help create a Palestinian state that is acceptable to the Palestinians.

I also think the nations of the world know that if it is in the US' interest it will screw its friends.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Since when have you become the Voice Of America?

Guess what? Opinions of other nations does matter. You seem to think the US resides in some vacuum where what it does doesn't have any effect on it's relations with other nations, and if it does, well, too bad....

Here's the link to the Pew Research Centre. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185 Some of those other countries that you so quickly write off with a 'too bad' are allies of both Israel and the US, and if you think alliances throughout the Cold War mean anything (btw, at one point during the Cold War Israel was shopping around for super-power protection), check out some of those nations in the list. I spotted one that's sent troops to fight in every conflict the US has been involved with last century...

Standing by an ally doesn't mean blindly supporting everything they do, no matter how bad it is. The problem with US foreign policy is many times they try to white-wash the bad things that are done so the public doesn't know how bad things are, which is what they did when their loyal ally Saddam Hussein was gassing Kurds....

Violet...

[Cassandra]

32. We all know you're not the Voice of America

or have you moved?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Huh?

Want to explain what that had to do with what was being discussed?


Violet..

[sushi]

7. It is just possible, Muddle

just possible, that when everything else has been tried, the US might try disengagement.

"If the Pew poll is to be believed, many Israelis would be relieved--and finally see light at the end of the tunnel. With the US out of the picture, the occupation would become, and be recognized to be, unsustainable."

And for America there will be huge beneficial side-effects:
"...anti-American rage would diminish to the vanishing point and the consequent threat of further terrorist attacks on Americans and American interests, and there would no longer be any need to continue the series of wars agaisnt Israel's enemies...

As for "standing by its allies," the US has stood by allies in the past and then pulled out. After all, the US has to take care of its own interests first. I'm wondering if Israel is preparing for that, or for a reduction in aid.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. That sounds right to me...

It makes sense that many Israelis would be relieved if the US wasn't in the picture the way it is. From what I've read, many Israelis want the occupation to end and for there to be peace. It doesn't surprise me that a majority of Israelis polled see the US as too supportive of Israel. Unfortunately that attitude doesn't extend to many US 'supporters of Israel', who seem to insist there must be a tied-at-the-hip relationship with Israel and that US foreign policy is Israeli foreign policy and visa-versa. I wish Israel would give the US the big heave-ho because the US has done nothing but cause instability and carnage in that region of the world...

Violet...

[sushi]

10. You know, I suspect

most of the "Israel can do no wrong" people here on DU don't live in Israel. They can afford to be "hardcore." It must be different when you live in Israel. It doesn't surprise me either that the majority of the citizens of Israel want LESS US support. They must be ready to compromise for peace.

I agree that it's US policy of unconditional support that's making the conflict go on.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Of course Israel can do wrong

But by comparison, it is the clear choice.

Yes, I don't live in Israel, but I have been there and keep in touch with friends there.

As for the study, I'm pretty sure I could manufacture a study to say just about anything, that doesn't make it true.

[sushi]

14. That is what people say

when they don't like a study! It would be interesting if you would tell us the opinions of your friends who live in Israel. Are they in the minority?

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Depends on what the minority is

And neither you nor I know that answer.

I do know they want all the U.S. support they can get, both tangible and intangible.

[sushi]

17. According to the Pew Research Center

most of those polled, INCLUDING in Israel, think the US is too supportive of Israel. That means your friends must be in the minority.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yr claiming that poll was rigged?

I'm sure you could manufacture a study to say just about anything to suit yr purposes, but that's not what this particular poll did. If you have some reason to believe it wasn't a legitimate poll carried out by a research organisation, then explain why instead of just making accusations about it...

Violet...

[Darranar]

24. Well, I think Muddle is right...

trusting polls is like labeling all the Palestinians as members of Hamas. Polls are almost always biased, and they are politically manufactured to a large amount, even those carried out by legitimate research institutions. There are dozens of factors that could change a poll's results that have very little to do with people's thoughts on the matter, and even if the poll was taken by honest people, those factors could come into play.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I don't think so...

He's talking about concocting up a fake poll. And if you took a look at this poll he made the accusations about, the range of questions about globalisation, the image of the US, etc, doesn't lead me to believe it wasn't a legitimate poll carried out by a legitimate research institution. Is there anything in the poll that makes you think the results are skewed? There's a difference between acknowledging that there is an error of margin in all polls as opposed to manufacturing results to suit an agenda...

Violet...

[Darranar]

26. The results of this particular one make sense to me...

that leads me to believe, based on other polls and other evidence, that this isn't made-up junk.

Heck, I have an unfavorable opinion of the US government, I oppose the war on terror, and I think the US supports Israel too much - and I live here!

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Did you get to see 'What The World Thinks Of America?'

It was pretty interesting. My fave was the question where an overwhelming majority of Americans polled thought that everyone else was falling all over themselves to live in the US, and every other country showed a tiny number of people polled wanted to live anywhere else but where they were :)

Violet...

[Darranar]

28. That whole thing...

about how the whole world looks at America as a place with streets paved with gold is outdated propaganda. I've talked with a few people who believe that they're smart who keep on repeating that point when I show them how the right-wing isn't only messing up the world, but also our own country.

[sushi]

29. Glad you brought that up

Most people are happy where they are, near their family. Those who are desperate to leave don't all want to go to America. Europe, Australia, Canada are also on their list of destinations. If/when there's more equality in the world and people in underdeveloped countries can have better lives less people will want to move, and western countries don't have to feel swamped.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Based on my own experience

I am suspicious about ALL polls -- their methodology, their wording, etc. The more complex they are (international vs. national), the more likely it is that the wording is biased in some way because of language differences.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. When "everything" has been tried

Everything except of course for the Palestinians actually trying to stop terror you mean?

Sorry, Americans like standing by the little guy. It's why we won't abandon Israel to hundreds of millions of Arabs and why we won't abandon Taiwan to communist China.

[sushi]

16. No, I didn't mean that at all!

Stopping suicide bombing and dismantling settlements should happen simultaneously. This has been discussed in another thread.
Problem is Israel wants the Palestinian extremists to stop bombing first, and then "they might consider...," "probably in the future..." That is the problem.

Israel is sitting on this massive pile of WMD and you call it "the little guy?" The only things that are "little" about Israel are its land size and its population. I can understand why it wants more land! And do you think the US won't abandon little Taiwan because you all love the Taiwanese so much?

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. One at a time

The Palestinians have zero credibility with Israel at this point. They have never gone after the terrorists in all the time of this conflict. Until they do, Israel will have no partner in peace.

You make it sound like Israel HAS to do something. It does not. The Palestinians are the ones who want a nation. Till they agree to some terms that are acceptable to Israel, it won't happen.

Yes, little guy. Nukes are a last resort. For everything else, every single day, Israel remains the little guy. Smaller population, vastly smaller resources, fewer worldwide friends because of those resources and because there are hundreds of millions of Muslims and only about, what? 19 million Jews?

And yes, the U.S. won't abandon Taiwan. China wants us to, but it won't happen.

[sushi]

57. For two parties to come to an agreement

both sides have to do some thing(s). Not only do the Palestinians want a nation, the whole world, including the US(!), wants them to have one. Only Israel is dragging its feet. For there to be peace both sides have to agree to terms that are acceptable to both. Otherwise both sides go on suffering. That seems to be what you want.

You can put whatever spin you want on it. Your "little guy" is mighty aggressive.
The US won't abandon Taiwan because it's in its interest not to do so. It's also in its interest to review its Israel policy.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Standing by the little guy?

Okay, since when blind support of the world's most powerful military that's carrying out a brutal occupation of territory that doesn't belong to it been 'standing by the little guy'? If the US had a thing about standing by the real little guy in this conflict and gave a shit about humanitarian concerns, it's support would be for the Palestinian people...

The problem is that there's way too many US self-proclaimed 'supporters of Israel', who any time they see a call for the US to be more fair-handed (which a mediator should be) or for a reduction or ceasing of all that aid which enables the occupation to continue, they take an all or nothing stance on it and try to act like there's nothing in between. They try to claim that cutting aid = destruction of Israel which will be over-run by those nasty Ayrabs, who of course in yr mind are all anti-semitics who are just champing at the bit to 'push Israel into the sea' and of course don't think or act like normal people who'd be greviously pissed off about the occupation, when in fact cutting aid would mean that Israel would no longer be able to sustain the occupation and would have to make a choice between keeping it going or using the funds that would have gone there to keep Israel afloat economically....

Hey, try telling the East Timorese that the US likes standing by the little guy. They'd get a good laugh out of that one...

Violet...

[sushi]

21. Yes, Muddle is wrong

In the I/P conflict "standing by the little guy" has only one meaning --- standing by the Palestinians. However, there's no need to go to the other extreme. Support for Israel doesn't have to stop, as long as there's also a proper home for the Palestinians. That would bring peace to the area, but we all know that it would also mean Israel can't go on grabbing more land.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Not a prayer

The Palestinians have hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims standing behind them on top of an enormous ocean of oil. THEY have the upper hand both economically and politically. In fact, they could have had a nation long ago if Arafat had any kind of skill.

A home for Palestinians brings peace only to the Palestinians who live there. The Israelis still get war as the Palestinian terror groups have vowed the destruction of Israel.

No peace agreement (including going after the terror groups), then no nation either.

[Darranar]

42. *barely stiffled laughter*

Yah, I know! The Palestinians have tanks and bombers and AK-47s and the highest military technology in the world! They're blasting the IDF to bits in every engagement! They're occupying all of Tel Aviv and proper Israel, and abusing its populace!

Your worldview is rather strange.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Wars take more than just force of arms

They take all of the things I listed.

Your worldview is rather strange.

[Darranar]

55. Let's say alll that is true...

and the Palestinians rule the world through economic and poltiical strength.

Now, why would the world's greatest superpower give billions of dollars to Israel annually if that was true?

I repeat: Your worldview is rather strange.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. You are deliberately misreading

I merely said that the Palestinians have extensive support from the Arab world that far outweighs the same support for Israel.

We give money to Israel because Israel is a friend and ally -- going back to the Cold War.

[Darranar]

64. So?

Israel has tremendous support from the US - which outweighs the support of anyone else when it comes to foreign policy.

[rini]

58. Muddleoftheroad

Once again you make sense. BTW, lies, damn lies, and statistics!

[sushi]

59. This poll

is not THAT kind of poll, Rini. There are polls, and then there are polls!

[sushi]

66. If that is the way

you want to see it, then Israel has the strongest nation in the world with the largest pile of WMD behind it. This conflict is between Israelis and Palestinians.

Let's not go back to the past. We'd just waste tons of time. Arafat wanted a better deal and Israel didn't agree. No reason why they can't talk again, is there? Unless, Israel is worried that following the roadmap it has to give up settlements!

[Violet_Crumble]

22. quick very belated edit...

Israel's the world's 4th most powerful military...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Not a prayer

Unless you are doing it man for man (woman for woman).

Major militaries include: China, U.S., UK, North Korea, South Korea, India, Germany, France.

Do you think Israel could win a war with any of those nations?

To rank a military, you have to include all sorts of lovely things like logistics. It is a military maxim that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics.

[Darranar]

43. Okay, let's see...

South Korea doesn't have nukes. Neither does Germany. Wipe them both off the list. That leaves six nations.

North Korea's and China's militaries are both outdated. China could probably win a war with israel on numbers alone, but North Korea couldn't. Knock them off the list. That leaves five nations.

Britian and France only fare well because their troops are highly supplemented by US forces. Wipe them off the list. That leaves three nations.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Laughable

Nukes are a last resort. If you count nukes equalizing, then no nuclear nation can truly best another. That means ALL of the nuclear nations could equal Israel. Pakistan and India and possibly NK as well.

Israel lacks the ability to express power into any other region than its own. Even its missiles are of limited range. Israel's navy is almost non-existent. It is highly dependent on other nations for spare parts and trade.

It has a strong core military, but could not fight a war against any major power.

[Darranar]

56. In a war, yes....

but Violet was talking about military strength, not fighting in a war.

What nation did I knock off that has a better ability to express power into a any region in the world than Israel?

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Military Strength

Equates to the ability to fight a war -- nothing less.

As for your question, any nation with a viable saltwater navy -- Britain, France, Germany, etc. -- has the ability to express power elsewhere.

Anyhow, back to the original point. It is ridiculous to say that Israel is the fourth strongest military power. To simply say Israel is the strongest military power in the Mideast should suffice. But it does not equate to the powers of Europe or Asia.

[Darranar]

65. No, actually it doesn't...

but that doesn't matter. Between a nation with nukes and a nation without, if a war is fought the nation with nukes would win. Between a nation with nukes and another nation with nukes, in order to actually test military strength the respective nukes would have to cancel each other out.

Israel has a navy, albeit a small one - because it doesn't need a larger one. If it did, it would happen.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Not blind support

I don't see very many U.S. soldiers in Israel. I don't see America striking down terrorists throughout the Mideast, though God knows they are there. In short, I don't see U.S. blind support. I see U.S. support -- mostly financial and political.

Humanitarian concerns? Ask the victims of the latest bombing about that one. This is a war. The Israelis target the terrorists. The terrorists target civilians. It's not even. It's not equivalent.

Personally, I think cutting U.S. aid could have drastic consequences. Who knows what a desperate, back-to-the-wall Israel would have to do to survive.

I want a peaceful settlement that leads to a nation for the Palestinians. The problems is, the Palestinians aren't willing to do anything to get it.

[sushi]

68. Oh, good!

"I want a peaceful settlement that leads to a nation for the Palestinians."

I'm glad to read that, Muddle, but Israel's attitude, that you support, is not exactly helping it come about, is it?
I don't know how many times it should be said that they have to sit down and negotiate and do things simultaneously.
That's the only way. You've said yourself, in another thread, that "that's what this will ultimately become---a negotiation." So how many more have to die before they sit down and talk?

Yes, Israel targets terrorists but they know very well that usually innocents get killed also, and I certainly don't agree with bombing a terrorist's home. He's got his family living there who migh not know what he's done.

Edit: typing errors

[rini]

30. I am sorry to say

that the Yelow Times is an extremely well diquised and well written anti-american and anti-semitic paper. I have friends in the media who told me this after I mentioned an article I read.

[Darranar]

31. "Anti-semitic?"

Do you have any evidence to support that?

On edit: And here's some evidence against it: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1046

Any website that posts that can't be very anti-semitic.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Don't you start splitting hairs here, Darranar!

What other evidence do you need apart from being told that rini has friends in the media who told her? Case shut! And that so-called 'evidence' of yrs against it? Don't you see that's just more of that cleverly diquised anti-semitism rini's media friends pointed out to her? ;)

Violet...

[sushi]

36. Have just read that article

by Marc Sirois. I hope Rini reads it too and not only listen to her friends. I have read many Yellowtimes articles, and I think its writers don't insult my intelligence.

[rini]

44. I read a few more articles

As I mentioned, it is well written and holds one's attention. However, as you must know from college, there are plots and sub plots, themes and sub themes. I stand by my statement. The sub themes and sub plots are anti-American (though to be fair I agree with some of the points about Shrub, it's the sub theme that gets me) and there is definately anti-semitism disquised as anti-Zionist rhetoric.

It was not banned because of it's ideas. As a matter of fact it is a much better read than most papers as far as writing goes. It is now back on Google.

http://www.unknownnews.net/yt.html

[Darranar]

45. Links?

That one showed me nothing. Show me links that have "anti-semitic" sub-plots.

[rini]

46. There are no links

some things takes knowledge and knowing what's what. Do you think they post "these are the anti-semitic sub themes"? I don't think so.

Also your statement reminds me of a college professor lauding a pick your own garden, fun, nice people etc. An African-American man in the class spoke up and said "no, there was an under current of racism and perjudice there." He went on to tell the prof "as a blond blue eyed white man it was not aimed at you and so you wouldn't know it unless it bit you." I believe those of us who are minorities usually pick up these things without being bitten.

[Darranar]

47. Well, guess what...

I'm Jewish, if you don't already know. So, you see, I am a minority. And my ancestors have been from two other minorities.

I don't deny racism. I just don't assume it. Anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism. "Anti-Americanism", as you call it (in other words legitimate complaints against aggressive, foolish, and pro-corporate foreign policy that causes tremendous harm throughout the world) isn't anti-semitism, either. Since you can provide NO evidence whatsoever to support your claim, I must assume that it is junk.

[rini]

52. Actually

no, I didn't know you were Jewish. I use the past tense on purpose. So what?

[Darranar]

53. You claimed...

through a very roundabout way, that because I wasn't part of a minority I couldn't understand racism.

But that isn't the point. I have yet to see any evidence from you whatsoever that supports your claim.

[sushi]

67. Nobody can stop you

"reading between the lines," Rini. I do like reading Yellowtimes and missed it when it was banned. I read a wide variety and don't believe everything.

To be honest, I'm STILL fuzzy about what exactly is considered anti-semitism. Who judges this?

[sushi]

34. Your friends in the media

told you that, after you mentioned an article you read (ONE article?) and you just believe it? I suggest you read more and then make up your own mind.

Edit: hate typing errors.

[Lithos]

71. Locking

Subject does not equal article title.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground