Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.

[Xiahou]

There was this carpenter a while ago that told a story about someone that gave lots of money and thought it made him special .

I think he also said something about worrying about your own wrongs before worrying about those of others.

[KarlXII]

Hawaiian resistance to U.S. control was minimal.

Seeing as they were mainly working on sugar plantations, owned by white Americans (Funny how that works....), who strip the native king of powers and grant powers to themselves at gunpoint, I don't think Hawaii could do a lot of resisting.

[LittleGrizzly]

Before i start i would like to say i think there is a difference between the US goverments actions and its citizens opinion, i dont think for a second the majority of americans would support death squads in latin america for example...

So you don’t think we are the good guys?

Not so much not nice guys, in the equivelent of the world playground your the big kid and sure you steal the other kids sweets now and again but you tend not to beat on people too much and stick up for the smallest kids now and again, your an improvement on the bullys we had before

I suppose a better example of my point about giving aid not making up for doing bad things would be a fictional afghanastan, imagine if Afghanastan back in september 2001 had been the most generous aid giving nation, the country gave a large portion of its GDP to aid, and many of it citizens gave to charity very generously and went around the world helping people, and then 9/11 happens with the taliban sheltering al qaeda, all thier generousity (even if it alot more than the bad they have done) wouldn't seem quite so important, thats why similar pleas about generous aid giving would fall on deaf ears in latin america and the middle east...

Look a little further and you can see that the country is filled with people doing good.

I think bopa talks of american policy rather than american citizens

I think he also said something about worrying about your own wrongs before worrying about those of others.

Irony right here...

[Redleg]

Ok, Redleg the U.S.A has never attempted to divide the middle-east for its own gain, never ever...

Control aspects of the Middle East would be correct - attempt to divide arguement falls flat on its face when looking at history. The Middle-East was divided by France and England as part of their mandate at the end of World War 2. Your agruement wasnt about control other nations but dividing the total middle-east. This is a false arguement.

When I said the racism in Israel I was talking about political racism, you know like you guys had 60 or so years ago, and I think you knew that. If you attempt to refute this you are either increadibly pro-Israel/zionist or you do not care to read.f

Sorry there Bopa - racism is racism in all its ugly forms. I dont seperate one form of racism from the other. You want racism to end take a closer look at your own nation before criticizing other nations on racism. As for calling me a Zionist - that is laughable since I firmly believe both sides are wrong. So try again with a different label.

Peace cannot be forced! Yes well done we are both starting to get somewhere. You cannot force peace very well, though I expect it can be done. Innstead you can start being reasonable and realistic when it comes to The Holy Land, and please don't give me that crap about a Mid-East Road map, because Israel is still building settlements and the U.S.A does not give a toss.

Again reasonable and realistic is not something you have presented - you have presented just one type of arguement. Nope wasn't taking about the Mid-East Road Map but something else entirily. Do a little research into Jimmy Carter's peace building efforts in the that region.

The U.S.A has every power to force Israel back to its borders but you seem to feel that you cannot do this, perhaps ten more years of suicide bombings will make the U.S.A see sense.

Again the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders - what we can do is encourage them, and even force sanctions onto them to to so - but in the end its up to Israel to do the right thing. I find statement saying the United States can force another nation to do something as not talking a peaceful nor realistic approach to the situation. Maybe ten more years of suicide bombings will force both Israel and the Palenstine people to see a path to peace.

I am not realistic for not indulging myself in White Tower generalisations about the state of man's civic society reminiscent of Aristotle's? Yeah and pigs can fly.
C;mon give me more of ya 'ism's.

you didnt even come close to smashing the arguement given I didnt use an ism - again you fail to address the actual question.

[Tribesman]

Again the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders

Why not ? you forced N.Korea back to its line ,you forced saddam out of the province he claimed as Iraqi territory , you forced Russia out of Afghanistan .
Why is Israel so different ?

[Redleg]

Why not ? you forced N.Korea back to its line ,you forced saddam out of the province he claimed as Iraqi territory , you forced Russia out of Afghanistan .
Why is Israel so different ?

Since he is speaking of a peaceful solution - then the answer is we can not force them back, all we can do is encourage them by negoation, concessions, and sanctions.

If you wish to discuss purely military means - we can address that also, but that goes against his initial premise, and if that is what he desire for the United States to do, it would make his whole arguement one of severe hyprocrisy.

But just to play along - for one being where will we start the invasion of Israel at? In order to go to war with Israel how much military force will be required? What is the available military force available given the current committment of troops? Which region are you will to sacrifice to complete defeat in order to force a somewhat allie back to its pre-1967 borders? So if you care to continue with that course of discussion you are going to have to do a lot better with the arguement, and are you willing to make the premise Bopa is arguing one of complete hypocrisy?

Now as for forcing North Korea back to its line - shall we discuss history of that conflict some more? Given that the forcing was done at a significant cost? Given that several times the front line shifted along the hills that make up the DMZ.

Do you wish the United States to fund Islamic Fundmental groups like we did in Afganstan to help force the Russians to leave? Afganstan is not a situation where the United States forced Russia out, we helped to fund the organizations that actually accomplished that task. One of Bopa chief compliants is one of short term thinking that was pursued in doing so, now I might disagree with him regarding how much blame solely rests on the United States in that regard - he is correct short term thinking has created a mess in the Middle-East starting with the British and French Mandates after WW1. By funding more Islamic "Terrorist" groups to force Israel to its pre-1967 borders would be just that type of short term thinking that Bopa is arguing against - which in essence supports the arguement about the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders in that way. Unless of course he is willing to make a complete hypocrisy of his arguement.

Now for Saddam its rather easy - we developed a base of operations with Allied nations to do so? Do we have that same ability with the Nations surrounding Israel? Now a collation of sorts can be developed but its another short term thinking type of operation - are you willing to have the Irish troops occupy Israel to maintain the peace between the two groups? I am not willing to put US Troops into such a circumstance at all. Last time we got involved in that type of conflict - a bombing resulted that killed men who were not allowed to defend themselves under the rules of engagement.

So do you wish for more violence in the Middle-East there Tribesy? Does that equation mean its a short term goal or a long term goal?

And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?

I don't agree with what Israel is doing - but its not the United States place to force Israel back to pre-1967 borders? If you want that done - find another world policeman to accomplish that task.
We got enough problems of our on creation to deal with then adding another one to the alreadly burning bonfire that is just barely in control.

I have seen how well the United States plays the policeman of the world - your damned if you do, and your damned if you don't. Let the Irish play policeman for a bit.

[Incongruous]

What the heck Redleg?
Ok divide can have many meanings and does not have to pertain to people drawing maps on lines, you know this, so stop playing around.

Racism is racism, oh man Redleg this is awsome!. Are you trying to equate what Israel is doing to something NZ and Britain are doing? Do you even know what Israel does to the pelestinians? Or do you just not give a toss?

Again Redleg I am talking about sorting out The Holy Land, the U.S is not doing it, as long as you allow Israel to act in a fascist and illegal way you aint gonna get spit for anything. So why hold back?
Why is Israel able to drag you down with it in the mid-east? It's nothing but a gian anchor round your neck. Lose it. You are it's purse and you control your own strings.

Oh and what argument was I meant to smash? I just said that I didn't like such state of civic nature type remarks for the reason that they are too generalised and white tower.
As for the 'ism comment, I was just making fun of the term Warlordism, it's awsome

[Conradus]

And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?

Arguably? They're doing both.

[Redleg]

What the heck Redleg?
Ok divide can have many meanings and does not have to pertain to people drawing maps on lines, you know this, so stop playing around.

You might want to be clear on which way you mean it then. As stated before the United States did not divide the Middle-East. pretty clear cut what divide means - break apart. Now attempting to control Iran by supporting the Sha is not dividing.

Racism is racism, oh man Redleg this is awsome!. Are you trying to equate what Israel is doing to something NZ and Britain are doing? Do you even know what Israel does to the pelestinians? Or do you just not give a toss?

do you know what racism is given the nature of your statements I don't think you do. As for what Israel does to the Palenstine's yep I know what is going on - just like I know what the Palenstine's do to Israel. Unfortunately for you I also place the blame on who is at fault - Israel and the Palenstine leadership. I dont mix vement hate toward other nations for the problems that are going on in Israel because of the Israeli government and the Palenstine authority. Can you say the same thing?

Care to guess what Austrilia did with its aborgine's? How about what South Africa? As stated numerous times on this site - I find both sides wrong. So guess what its not a matter of not giving a toss - I find both equally wrong with their racism and hate. However I dont go blaming others for the problems that face the two sides - I look squarely at the two combatants.

Again Redleg I am talking about sorting out The Holy Land, the U.S is not doing it, as long as you allow Israel to act in a fascist and illegal way you aint gonna get spit for anything. So why hold back?
Why is Israel able to drag you down with it in the mid-east? It's nothing but a gian anchor round your neck. Lose it. You are it's purse and you control your own strings.

Actually there you go again only addressing Israel - have you seen the fascist behavior of the Palentine authority? How about the text books calling for the killing of jews that was published by the Palestine authority at one time? Again you haven't talked about sorting out the Holy Land - you have talked solely about Israel. Haven't seen you faced the reality that certain groups with the Palenstine people are also an equal part of the problem. One sided fixes do not fix the problem.

Oh and what argument was I meant to smash? I just said that I didn't like such state of civic nature type remarks for the reason that they are too generalised and white tower.
As for the 'ism comment, I was just making fun of the term Warlordism, it's awsome

Again you avoid the answer. Blaming the United States is so much easier for you do to now isn't it? Now care to guess how many conflicts are going on in the world as we speak? Give you a clue its a fairily high double digit number.

[Redleg]

Arguably? They're doing both.

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

[Kralizec]

There are Palestinian refugees (if you can still call them that) all over the middle east. I heard that they were one of the hardest hit groups when the violence started picking up in Iraq some years ago.

[Conradus]

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

I wasn't even referring to Palestine, though their actions against the Palestinian Authority could be catalogued as such. I was referring to their war in Lebanon two years ago. They violated the sovereignty of said country, that's war.

[Tribesman]

are you willing to have the Irish troops occupy Israel to maintain the peace between the two groups? I am not willing to put US Troops into such a circumstance at all. Last time we got involved in that type of conflict - a bombing resulted that killed men who were not allowed to defend themselves under the rules of engagement.

Oh dear Red , its funny you want to mention that event since Irish troops are still there so its a silly question .
And as for the rules of engagement you are on about they did allow the American troops to defend themselves . The problem was they hadn't taken measures to prevent that type of attack and didn't have time to react to it .

And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?

They are committing acts of war against soveriegn nations and as they don't have borders they are not operating within them are they .

[Dâriûsh]

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

Why? The two Mukhabarat states are not really bastions of human rights, are they? Let me know when either of them is referred to as the Only Democracy in the Middle East™ by the western media.

[Fragony]

I wasn't even referring to Palestine, though their actions against the Palestinian Authority could be catalogued as such. I was referring to their war in Lebanon two years ago. They violated the sovereignty of said country, that's war.

There never was a peace treaty, Israel and Libanon have always been at war, nothing illegal about it.

[Conradus]

An armastice was signed in 1949 and no formal declaration of war ever since as far as I know.

[Fragony]

No need, formally they are still at war. Armastice and peace aren't the same thing.

[Tribesman]

There never was a peace treaty, Israel and Libanon have always been at war, nothing illegal about it.

Actually the terms of the armistice make actions by both Israel and Lebanon illegal and subject to intervention by UN member states .
In fact since most of the actions undertaken there are completely illegal your claim that there is "nothing illegal about it" is complete nonsense .

[Fragony]

your claim that there is "nothing illegal about it" is complete nonsense .

No, kidnapping of soldiers is an act of war. Israel's reaction was a tad on the harsh side though. Understandable but a tiny bit overkill.

edit, maybe you are right because I can't remember any proof of Hezbollah getting support from government.

[Tribesman]

Fragony maybe you should have read the armistice document and all the sections of other agreements that it relates to before you said there "was nothing illegal"

edit, maybe you are right because I can't remember any proof of Hezbollah getting support from government.

Errrr ..isn't HezBallah part of the government and even if it was not the armistice agreement applies to all paramilitary forces in the territory anyway (even if they are not formed until after the Israeli invasion and the formation of Israeli supported terrorists in Lebanon each of which is just as illegal as any Lebanese action)

[Fragony]

Fragony maybe you should have read the armistice document and all the sections of other agreements that it relates to before you said there "was nothing illegal"

If the conditions for the armistice are broken you are back at the state of war without having to declare it, so no nothing illegal, just a bit harsh.

[Redleg]

Oh dear Red , its funny you want to mention that event since Irish troops are still there so its a silly question .

Not a silly question at all - again do you want Irish troops involved in occupation duty, which is completely different from what is in Lebanon as part of the UN mission. Where the Irish have committed some troops to the cause, now when one speaks of occupation duty one speaks of divisions and having to pay for it. But then I suspect you know that and are just being you in your response. So I will rephrase it for you, to help you out a bit more, do you want to committ several divisions of Irish troops to enforce peace in Israel?

And as for the rules of engagement you are on about they did allow the American troops to defend themselves . The problem was they hadn't taken measures to prevent that type of attack and didn't have time to react to it .

Again care to replay the circumstances involving that event. Since I have seen several after-action reports regarding that event - its not hard to show where the rules of engagement would not have allowed them to prevent the attack at all, until after it was to late to stop the vehicle. Then again measures were not inplace to channel vehicles to prevent just such an attack, so in that you are correct. And using that event - it shows just how hard it is to seperate two fractions that are bent on destroying each other and anyone that gets in their way of that destruction. So again are you willing to committ Irish divisions to occupying Israel in total?

They are committing acts of war against soveriegn nations and as they don't have borders they are not operating within them are they .

Sticky situation the Palenstine Authority is in isn't? They have no border, yet they have forces within their soverignty that committ acts of war against Israel. Double edge sword your attempting to walk and your not doing to well, especially since I have several times stated my position on the issue - both sides are wrong.

Edit: and here is where you have a problem arguing against my postion - when both sides continue to escalate and break promises to halt violence - its hard for me to take either side on the issue. Hince no need for United States attempting to force peace between the two - neither of them want it, and hopefully my nation learned its lesson in Beriut when you deal with two warring fractions within the same nation, and neither wants peace - you just get caught in the crossfire.

[Tribesman]

If the conditions for the armistice are broken you are back at the state of war without having to declare it, so no nothing illegal, just a bit harsh.

You really havn't got a clue what you are on about do you Frag .

So I will rephrase it for you, to help you out a bit more, do you want to committ several divisions of Irish troops to enforce peace in Israel?

What divisions ?
Even going by a very outdated study from your government it would take most of the adult population of Ireland to provide the numbers needed to seperate the nutters in Palestine .

Edit: and here is where you have a problem arguing against my postion - when both sides continue to escalate and break promises to halt violence - its hard for me to take either side on the issue.

Not at all , since I take neither side , I only attack those who take a side and say that side is the only one that is right , and as in most cases that is people backing Israel you might get some misperception from it .

[Redleg]

What divisions ?
Even going by a very outdated study from your government it would take most of the adult population of Ireland to provide the numbers needed to seperate the nutters in Palestine .

And you wanted to argue that the United States can force peace in Israel. The laugh is on you Tribesy on that one.

Not at all , since I take neither side , I only attack those who take a side and say that side is the only one that is right , and as in most cases that is people backing Israel you might get some misperception from it .

Neither do I take sides - which is why I found lots of fault with Bopa postions since he seemly is either blaming the United States for the situation, or is wanting the United States to solve it. Niether is correct. The peace can only be established when the two warring fractions decide that they want it. And the only way that is going to happen is for the people to throw the nutters in office out of power on both sides. Whats even worse if one wants to look at history to see who is to blame for the creation of Israel - he should look close to home and the collective guilt of the world (primarily Europe) after WW2.

And we have seen what happens to moderates on both sides in Israel.

[Tribesman]

And you wanted to argue that the United States can force peace in Israel. The laugh is on you Tribesy on that one.

Not at all Red since occupation isn't the only way , violations of the armistice mean chapter VII , armed intervention is only one aspect of that , financial and economic measures are another , instead of punishing all parties that are acting illegaly your government has chosen to arm one , and not only arm it but also to directly finance its own armament industry .
If they want to force peace the last thing the government should be doing is providing the means for war .

[Redleg]

Not at all Red since occupation isn't the only way , violations of the armistice mean chapter VII , armed intervention is only one aspect of that , financial and economic measures are another , instead of punishing all parties that are acting illegaly your government has chosen to arm one , and not only arm it but also to directly finance its own armament industry

You are correct that armed force is not the only way one can bring about change, but it requires an target that is willing to change. Have you seen any willingness from either side for peace? Because I sure haven't seen any indication they want peace in Israel. Both sides repeatly have their nutters who committment violence over and over again. Economic and financial sanctions won't have much of an impact on them. Since for it to work, it also requires that the both sides truely want peace.

I personally don't see to many indications of both wanting a true lasting peace.

If they want to force peace the last thing the government should be doing is providing the means for war .

That is the only correct arguement presented so far. If peace is truely desired by both sides, then both sides need to have its funding and base removed from having the supplies given to them to carry out war. There was an interesting picture posted in the papers today concerning a missle made by the Palenstine's for firing into Israel. Kind of demonstrates that neither side is really interested in pursueing peace.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is the only correct arguement presented so far. If peace is truely desired by both sides, then both sides need to have its funding and base removed from having the supplies given to them to carry out war. There was an interesting picture posted in the papers today concerning a missle made by the Palenstine's for firing into Israel. Kind of demonstrates that neither side is really interested in pursueing peace.

Which gets back to my "warlordism" point that Bopa has taken too much glee in maligning.

There are a number of "actors" in the Palestine/Lebanon/Israel region whose power derives from being a "warlord" over some group. Actual peace -- as opposed to an ongoing simmer of violence, mistrust, etc. -- would undercut their power. They have a vested interest in taking ANY nascent peace effort and lobbing a rocket on it.

A warlord is NOT a nation-builder nor a peacemaker. She or he is the quasi-feudal ruler of an armed camp. An opponent is almost a political necessity. Note: this label can be applied to any number of the factions involved: Hamas and sub-sects thereof, Fatah and sub-sects thereof, Hezbollah and sub-sects thereof, Druze groups, Israeli "settlers," etc.

[Incongruous]

Hamas is the democratically elected result of decades of U.S backed Israeli opression, nothing more. You see there is no equating the predicament of the two sides. Israel is a recognised nation-state, the world has refused Palestine that right, and by its support for Israel the U.S has stripped away its historical pretensions. As I keep saying redleg I fully realise my own nations cooperation with Israel, but the U.S was the prime mover there. You had all the power after WWII and you failed to take the steps to prevent the atrocity of zionism claiming statehood. The Jews deserve a state, well why? Why did the Palestinians have to lose everything to assuage your guilt? If it was not about guilt, what was it about?
The installment of a friendly regional power to dominate the mid-east?

The idea that all atrocities are of the same magnitude is false, the amount of carange inflicted upon the Palestinian people is an elephant when compared to the destruction inflicted by Hamas on Israel. I hear Israelis can get an education and running water. But you will continue to deny that Israel is the main offender because...
I don't know. But it is something which rankles with Muslims across the globe, it a rallying cry to blow up innocent westerners and those unfortunate to be nearby.
But it is not the only reason, it is also the U.S's continued attempt to divide the mid-east, yep divide Redleg, divide. You know what I mean so you can apply any term you feel apt to that meaning.
As for my use of racism, again there are degrees of it, aparthied is at an extreme end as is nazism, what is happening in Palestine is just another extreme degree of it, lets say state enforced racism.

Why are you so fixated on my non commital to aristotelean generalisations of politcal community?
"It's so much easier to blame the U.S" umm ok, I'm not some idiotic child Redleg, I actually to think and read up on things. I'm not some damned mouth piece of soundbite media.

Oh and Seamus, what makes you think

[Redleg]

Hamas is the democratically elected result of decades of U.S backed Israeli opression, nothing more. You see there is no equating the predicament of the two sides. Israel is a recognised nation-state, the world has refused Palestine that right, and by its support for Israel the U.S has stripped away its historical pretensions. As I keep saying redleg I fully realise my own nations cooperation with Israel, but the U.S was the prime mover there. You had all the power after WWII and you failed to take the steps to prevent the atrocity of zionism claiming statehood. The Jews deserve a state, well why? Why did the Palestinians have to lose everything to assuage your guilt? If it was not about guilt, what was it about?

Oh poor misguided Bopa - the United States did not have all the power after WW2. It was also shared with the old USSR. THe middle-east quirimare developed in part because of the two compeating superpowers, it also developed in part because of policies after WW1 with the British and French Mandates. And as I stated before and you have failed to read - it was the collective guild of the world, primaily of Europe. In fact the United States was really not a big help to Israel until the 1973 war - Britian and France share that distintion. So until you actually learn some history on Israel's foundation - its just to easy to tear you anti-US stance apart concerning the founding of the Israel state.

It seems to me that you don't fully realize the situation when you continue to point to one nation as the problem. To bad its been interesting to demonstrate that your position is primirily one of Anti- versus any real understanding.

The installment of a friendly regional power to dominate the mid-east?

LOL - the creation of Israel has a bitter history - the installment of a friendly regional power was not initially one of them.

The idea that all atrocities are of the same magnitude is false, the amount of carange inflicted upon the Palestinian people is an elephant when compared to the destruction inflicted by Hamas on Israel. I hear Israelis can get an education and running water. But you will continue to deny that Israel is the main offender because...

Your problem there Bopa is a failure to actually read - I refuse to claim that only one side is at fault. It takes two to tangle - and the Palenstine Authority and all its previous identies are guiltly of insuring the conflict continues.

I don't know. But it is something which rankles with Muslims across the globe, it a rallying cry to blow up innocent westerners and those unfortunate to be nearby.

Yep and its just as false in their doing so.

But it is not the only reason, it is also the U.S's continued attempt to divide the mid-east, yep divide Redleg, divide. You know what I mean so you can apply any term you feel apt to that meaning.
As for my use of racism, again there are degrees of it, aparthied is at an extreme end as is nazism, what is happening in Palestine is just another extreme degree of it, lets say state enforced racism.

Again the United States does not divide the Middle-East. You do understand what the term divide means do you not? Divide means to seperate. In what why has the United States attempted to seperate the middle-east. The nations were formed after WW1 as part of the British and French Mandates after WW1, and finallized between the World Wars and immediately after. Before the United States was truely involved in the region. Somewhere around the late 1940's we began to get involved in internal politics of selected nations to prevent Soviet takeover by proxy of those nations, and unfortunetly for the current world we also attempted to control a few of them. Now where does divide equate into that equation.

Again racism is racism - all of it is intolerable to me. I also see the racism that the Palenstines equate back to the Israelies in their text books. So I have little support for your arguement here when you discount the preaching to childern to do suicide bomb another culture.

Why are you so fixated on my non commital to aristotelean generalisations of politcal community?
"It's so much easier to blame the U.S" umm ok, I'm not some idiotic child Redleg, I actually to think and read up on things. I'm not some damned mouth piece of soundbite media.

To bad your rethoric is just that of a soundbite media. You focus on one side of a complex issue demanding that one side committ to change without acknowledging that the other side also has to change. You blame one nation over all - without looking deep into how the situation was created in the first place. You incorrectly blame the United States for the creation of the state of Israel - which I find extremely funny given Truman's thoughts on the creation of the Nation of Israel.

So read up a bit before you blame the United States. Its almost as pathic as those that claim the United States built nuclear weapons for Israel.......

Oh and Seamus, what makes you think[/QUOTE]

[Incongruous]

Hahah, ok whatever Redeg I admit it, I am a complete fool with no understanding of the Palestinian problem. You got me!
Because anyone who actually reads up this can't possibly take a different point of view on it can they? So I must be a complete idiot right?

Again I still do not understand your fixation with the good old nature of the political community philosophy, explain?
But perhaps another time, this exchange is over, since I obviously have to go and read the Oxford English Dictionary.