Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,490 
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
July 26th, 2004, 01:52 AM
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM305A.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, National Security Adviser and daughter of a Presbyterian minister, Condoleezza Rice, recently expanded upon her Christian Zionist ideology. "I first visited Israel in 2000. I already then felt that I am returning home despite the fact that this was a place I never visited. I have a deep affinity with Israel. I have always admired the history of the State of Israel and the hardness and determination of the people that founded it."
While Rice does not elaborate on this "hardness and determination," or provide specifics, we can safely assume she is talking about Israel's relationship with the Arabs, both Palestinian and those surrounding the Zionist state. "Israel was a state who in the beginning was not given a chance to survive," Rice explained. "She survived mainly because of the hardness of the Israelis and their readiness to sacrifice their lives for the state."
Read complete article at: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM305A.html
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM305A.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, National Security Adviser and daughter of a Presbyterian minister, Condoleezza Rice, recently expanded upon her Christian Zionist ideology. "I first visited Israel in 2000. I already then felt that I am returning home despite the fact that this was a place I never visited. I have a deep affinity with Israel. I have always admired the history of the State of Israel and the hardness and determination of the people that founded it."
While Rice does not elaborate on this "hardness and determination," or provide specifics, we can safely assume she is talking about Israel's relationship with the Arabs, both Palestinian and those surrounding the Zionist state. "Israel was a state who in the beginning was not given a chance to survive," Rice explained. "She survived mainly because of the hardness of the Israelis and their readiness to sacrifice their lives for the state."
Read complete article at: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NIM305A.html
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 26th, 2004, 08:19 AM
Yeah, what does SHE know...?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.
In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.
At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.
From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C.
Yeah, what does SHE know...?
Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.
In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.
At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.
From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C.
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 26th, 2004, 08:58 AM
Research, Rice's CV is hardly proof that her view should be left unquestioned, is it? An educated opinion is still just that, an opinion.
Research, Rice's CV is hardly proof that her view should be left unquestioned, is it? An educated opinion is still just that, an opinion.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 26th, 2004, 09:11 AM
Oh, I dont disagree at all.
Personally, I think shes very Eurocentric (no surprise there-- it is her area of expertise)-- not necesarily a bad thing, but something we need to keep in mind. In fairness to her, she is also surrounded by some very good people.
But whatever her views-- whether you or I agree with them or not-- cannot be dismissed simply because as the articles writer says, "We can safely assume..." and so on.
She has the background and the horsepower. She earned it by every conceivable standard of measurement. She cannot simply be dismissed because we may not agree with her.
You know, Im glad you posted on this, really.
It goes back to civil discourse-- and I cant tell you how much I appreciate that.
Civil discourse and debate promote understanding and growth. Between you and Rev Blair (my favorite mayor) I can honestly say I've mellowed in some ideas and sharpened others-- which is what good and honest debate is supposed to accomplish.
If nothing else, civil discourse forces me not to react reflexivly-- and that in itself makes any debate that much more substantive.
Hats off!
Oh, I dont disagree at all.
Personally, I think shes very Eurocentric (no surprise there-- it is her area of expertise)-- not necesarily a bad thing, but something we need to keep in mind. In fairness to her, she is also surrounded by some very good people.
But whatever her views-- whether you or I agree with them or not-- cannot be dismissed simply because as the articles writer says, "We can safely assume..." and so on.
She has the background and the horsepower. She earned it by every conceivable standard of measurement. She cannot simply be dismissed because we may not agree with her.
You know, Im glad you posted on this, really.
It goes back to civil discourse-- and I cant tell you how much I appreciate that.
Civil discourse and debate promote understanding and growth. Between you and Rev Blair (my favorite mayor) I can honestly say I've mellowed in some ideas and sharpened others-- which is what good and honest debate is supposed to accomplish.
If nothing else, civil discourse forces me not to react reflexivly-- and that in itself makes any debate that much more substantive.
Hats off!
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 26th, 2004, 09:58 AM
I completely agree that the point of debate is to challenge your own views. I think when one is forced to defend their point of view (especially in their own words), they sometimes find holes in their own argument. If your argument can stand up to a good debate, it is worthy. If not, it should be re-examined.
You and Moghrabi have quite a few hot debates going. Here is a terrific exercise I'd love to see you two do: switch sides in your debate. I used to do that in debating, I'd take the opposing side. If you can win an argument by arguing in favour of a point you completely disagree with, then a) it hones your debating skills exponentially, and b) it can sometimes cause a surprising change of heart or at the very least, a better understanding of where the other side is coming from.
Are you guys game to try it? I, for one, would love to see you do it.
Quoting
Thanks, Research... I find that this whole forum is awesome that way. Typically I've found forums to be either extremely hostile, full of name-calling and half-baked thoughts or just the opposite, so candy-sweet that you dare not disagree for fear of offending someone. This forum has a perfect mix, you can say what you want but you don't have to worry about the nasty stuff. Occasionally, hostilities arise but that's usually a heat-of-the-moment thing, and we're all guilty/capable of it.
It goes back to civil discourse-- and I cant tell you how much I appreciate that.
Civil discourse and debate promote understanding and growth. Between you and Rev Blair (my favorite mayor) I can honestly say I've mellowed in some ideas and sharpened others-- which is what good and honest debate is supposed to accomplish.
If nothing else, civil discourse forces me not to react reflexivly-- and that in itself makes any debate that much more substantive.
Hats off!
Civil discourse and debate promote understanding and growth. Between you and Rev Blair (my favorite mayor) I can honestly say I've mellowed in some ideas and sharpened others-- which is what good and honest debate is supposed to accomplish.
If nothing else, civil discourse forces me not to react reflexivly-- and that in itself makes any debate that much more substantive.
Hats off!
I completely agree that the point of debate is to challenge your own views. I think when one is forced to defend their point of view (especially in their own words), they sometimes find holes in their own argument. If your argument can stand up to a good debate, it is worthy. If not, it should be re-examined.
You and Moghrabi have quite a few hot debates going. Here is a terrific exercise I'd love to see you two do: switch sides in your debate. I used to do that in debating, I'd take the opposing side. If you can win an argument by arguing in favour of a point you completely disagree with, then a) it hones your debating skills exponentially, and b) it can sometimes cause a surprising change of heart or at the very least, a better understanding of where the other side is coming from.
Are you guys game to try it? I, for one, would love to see you do it.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,490
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
July 26th, 2004, 10:16 AM
Researchok, the article clearly states that she has exceptional experience about the Soviet Union. But we all know she has zero knowledge about the Middle East. Posting her resume does not by itself convince me that she is a Middle East expert. She says whatever she said about Israel becuase she is one of the neoconservative Bushies that are not only pro-zionist but pro-Likudist which is by itself a dangerous combination.
Researchok, the article clearly states that she has exceptional experience about the Soviet Union. But we all know she has zero knowledge about the Middle East. Posting her resume does not by itself convince me that she is a Middle East expert. She says whatever she said about Israel becuase she is one of the neoconservative Bushies that are not only pro-zionist but pro-Likudist which is by itself a dangerous combination.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 26th, 2004, 10:32 AM
Good idea in theory- it may work.
The problem here however, is that there are rules of debate, as you know- and we are working with a moving target, so to speak.
Perhaps you can set up the ground rules. I'd be game.
Quote:
.
You and Moghrabi have quite a few hot debates going. Here is a terrific exercise I'd love to see you two do: switch sides in your debate. I used to do that in debating, I'd take the opposing side. If you can win an argument by arguing in favour of a point you completely disagree with, then a) it hones your debating skills exponentially, and b) it can sometimes cause a surprising change of heart or at the very least, a better understanding of where the other side is coming from
Good idea in theory- it may work.
The problem here however, is that there are rules of debate, as you know- and we are working with a moving target, so to speak.
Perhaps you can set up the ground rules. I'd be game.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,490
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
July 26th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Cool and heated. LOL.
But we seem to mellow out as we are earning from each other. So I do not think it will be too heated since we do agree on a lot of things now.
I don't know about you Researchok, but i learned few things.
Cool and heated. LOL.
But we seem to mellow out as we are earning from each other. So I do not think it will be too heated since we do agree on a lot of things now.
I don't know about you Researchok, but i learned few things.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 26th, 2004, 10:51 AM
I can say the same-- perhaps not so overtly, but in ways more subtle.
In the end of course, its not about winning debates, as such.
There are millions of individual lives at stake-- both literally and figuratively-- that is to say, the quality of those lives.
The status quo is unacceptable.
I can say the same-- perhaps not so overtly, but in ways more subtle.
In the end of course, its not about winning debates, as such.
There are millions of individual lives at stake-- both literally and figuratively-- that is to say, the quality of those lives.
The status quo is unacceptable.
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 26th, 2004, 12:23 PM
Okay, kids. Get ready. The rules of debate will be kept relatively simple:
1. You must argue your case convincingly. Presenting a pseudo-argument that actually enhances your real view is not allowable and is punishable by death.
2. You must not veer off-topic.
3. You must keep cut-and-paste to an absolute minimum. Conversely, you must provide links for any points you present as fact. You may use quotes but these quotes must be given authorship and be from a known and reputable source. IE, Globe & Mail - GOOD, National Enquirer - BAD. There is a gray area here, obviously, but the attempt should be made. If you are seen to be using non-reputable sources, you will be shot.
4. You must not wear white shoes after Labour Day. Oh wait, never mind....
5. Absolutely no personal references to your fellow debater's character, hygiene habits, sexual preference, relationship to chickens, education or lack thereof, and quality/quantity of brain matter.
6. Posts should be a reasonable length.
Please enter the debate with a burning desire to win. Argue as though your life depended on it. The winner will be chosen by member vote. Purchase of votes strictly forbidden unless the sum is very high and paid to me.
**** WATCH FOR UPCOMING ANNOUNCEMENT WITH TOPIC OF DEBATE! ****
(in other words, you don't get to choose)
And Research, in this particular case it WILL be about winning debates.
Okay, kids. Get ready. The rules of debate will be kept relatively simple:
1. You must argue your case convincingly. Presenting a pseudo-argument that actually enhances your real view is not allowable and is punishable by death.
2. You must not veer off-topic.
3. You must keep cut-and-paste to an absolute minimum. Conversely, you must provide links for any points you present as fact. You may use quotes but these quotes must be given authorship and be from a known and reputable source. IE, Globe & Mail - GOOD, National Enquirer - BAD. There is a gray area here, obviously, but the attempt should be made. If you are seen to be using non-reputable sources, you will be shot.
4. You must not wear white shoes after Labour Day. Oh wait, never mind....
5. Absolutely no personal references to your fellow debater's character, hygiene habits, sexual preference, relationship to chickens, education or lack thereof, and quality/quantity of brain matter.
6. Posts should be a reasonable length.
Please enter the debate with a burning desire to win. Argue as though your life depended on it. The winner will be chosen by member vote. Purchase of votes strictly forbidden unless the sum is very high and paid to me.
**** WATCH FOR UPCOMING ANNOUNCEMENT WITH TOPIC OF DEBATE! ****
(in other words, you don't get to choose)
And Research, in this particular case it WILL be about winning debates.
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 26th, 2004, 12:56 PM
The critical thing is that the topic be something you both feel very strongly about. You may offer suggestions, since I am such a benevolent kinda person. 8-)
Quoting
Hey, rules is rules, boy. You don't even know what the debate topic IS, for heaven's sake. 8-)
LOLOL
Youre giving me the LOSING side of the debate!
How about we take out own sides?
Youre giving me the LOSING side of the debate!
How about we take out own sides?
The critical thing is that the topic be something you both feel very strongly about. You may offer suggestions, since I am such a benevolent kinda person. 8-)
