And yes, the Australian parliament heckled him, but they hardly
represent Australians.

Hardly, one guy and he was a known nut and also temporarily suspended
for being oboxious.

The several thousand protestors outside the legislative building certainly
represented some portion of Australia.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
And yes, the Australian parliament heckled him, but they hardly
represent Australians.

Hardly, one guy and he was a known nut and also temporarily suspended
for being oboxious.

The several thousand protestors outside the legislative building certainly
represented some portion of Australia.

Gould you are missing the "biggest" peace rally since April here in D.C.
They have 2000 to 3000 people at this hour and the say they are expecting
30,000 to 50,000 in a few minutes when the march starts. Rather than being a
peace rally and march it is a blame the USA and Isreal for the problems of
the world.

They have 2000 to 3000 people at this hour and the say they are expecting
30,000 to 50,000 in a few minutes when the march starts.

28,000 to 47,000 showing up in the next few minutes? Must be one heck of a
traffic jam. :-)

Rather than being a
peace rally and march it is a blame the USA and Isreal for the problems of
the world.

Actually, you're right. You can't "agitate" for peace any more than you can
impose a democracy. You can agitate for changes that might *result* in peace.
(As you can create conditions that might persuade people to choose a
democracy).

There are only two avenues to peace in a conflict, and we have historic
precedence for both approaches. First avenue; blow your adversary completely
off the map. Kill enough people and destroy enough property that your surviving
adversaries beg to make peace on your terms, and at any price. Such peace is
typically temporary, until the surviving adversaries recover strength and a
generation or so later decide to seek "revenge." (See: Germany, first half of
the 20th Century)

Second avenue: Examine conflicting claims, goals, philosophies, and traditons
and work out mutually acceptable diplomatic compromise. Such peace is typically
temporary, until one side or the other decides it wants a bigger slice of the
pie than bargained for initially. (See American Manifest Destiny, 19th Century,
Indian treaties and reserves).

Nothing else ever seems to work very well, even temporarily.
(I would consider trade to be included in Avenue Two). Nothing has ever worked
on a permanent basis in all of human history.

Maybe that's why we haven't been "peacemakers" for almost 60 years. We lack the
national will for the first avenue,
and we are reluctant to pursue the second.
We get involved with "police actions" and nation building all over the world, a
world that seems as though it is increasingly uneasy and less peaceful than at
certain times in the past.

"MadDogDave" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.3d67065c240d1502290986441421713b@106 7089266.cotse.net...
"Now The Entire World Is Seeing the Jenius Of Our Great President!"

Now the entire usenet is seeing the pore spellings and gramer of yourself.