The Von Cello Guestbook is unlike any other! Join the fun! But you must register to post. No spam allowed! Click here for old monthly archives. You can also search using the search button, or reading the back posts listed below.

  Hello Visitor
Register | Login
Von Cello 

Post No. 529
12/01/2006 12:41 PM
Comments (0)

Good points Steve! I always wondered what the attraction was to this guestbook, and why I prefer to talk here rather than in private emails. And you hit the nail on the head! Everything that is said here may very well be getting saved in various places in cyberspace and may very well be looked at thousands of years in the future! Could you imagine if Jesus had a blog? Or Moses? Or even guys like George Washington? How amazing it would be to read what the the issues were of the day, and how they looked at things. So, I suppose that is what we are doing here.

Maybe a thousand years from now, someone on the moon will be checking guestbooks from the days when humans still lived on the planet earth. He will then see this joke:

Morty visits Dr. Saul, the veterinarian, and says, "My dog, has a problem."

Dr. Saul says, "So tell me about the dog and the problem."

"It's a Jewish dog. His name is Marvin and he can talk," says Morty.

"He can talk?" the doubting doctor asks.

"Watch this!" Morty points to the dog and commands: "Marvin, Fetch!"

Marvin, the dog, begins to walk toward the door, then turns around and says, "So why are you talking to me like that? You always order me around like I'm nothing. And you only call me when you want something. And then you make me sleep on the floor, with my arthritis. You give me this fahkahkta food with all the salt and fat, and you tell me it's a special diet. It tastes like dreck! YOU should eat it yourself! And do you ever take me for a decent walk? NO, it's out of the house and right back home. Maybe if I could stretch out a little, the sciatica wouldn't kill me so much! I should roll over and play dead for real for all you care!"

Dr. Saul is amazed, "This is remarkable! What could be the problem?"

Morty says, "He has a hearing problem! I said 'Fetch', not 'Kvetch'."
fred and murry 

Post No. 528
12/01/2006 11:55 AM
Comments (0)

imagine for amoment that in 1000 yes someone finds these comments as it seems internet is infinite and old links never die
imagine if internet had existed 2000 yrs ago..Imagine how we would feel reading the blog of a guy named lonely guy jesus or comments from folks from 1492 as they make friends with the capt of a ship...EVERYTHING you say here can be found in the future, fotos audio everything...we are the first generation with this can all be condensed saved seen heard read in the future........
i recall a book called letters to the pope written by jcrist. Its a fiction from a modern crist as he tells the pope that said pope has led the people wrongly..Imagine an unearthed blog found today from 2bc written by a guy named abby about strange sects and political changes and even about erotic woman drugs prices etc.....
Von Cello 

Post No. 527
12/01/2006 11:45 AM
Comments (4)
Come one come all

BTW, i noticed that some people had tried to get on here and were not approved. I just approved them all, so we'll see if you we get some others posting. One guy may cause some trouble....but what the hey?!
Von Cello 

Post No. 526
12/01/2006 10:48 AM
Comments (0)
Definitely Briefs

I don't know about you, but I always get a kick out of at least attempting to have really deep conversations in unlikely places. When I was in college one of my favorite things to do was to throw a party, get everybody as drunk and high as possible and just at the moment when everyone was laughing and carrying on, turn to someone and say, "Do you believe in God?"

They would usually draw a blank face and stumble out a few words like, "Well, I, um...", and all the people around would start cracking up laughing!

I suppose it is equally silly to try to get into a heavy conversation about how to deal with the middle east on the guestbook of a rock cellist! But its all in good fun.

I have noticed that the three of the way, is anyone else out there...are like three representatives of large groups of people who think like us. At this point, Edward represents the politically correct, American college, type thinking, which basically tries to not take a stand on any issue that doesn't directly affect American youth. For instance, if the government decided to start the draft, I would imagine he'd have a strong opinion...expecially if he was on the list. But as to what Jews and Arabs do 10,000 miles from is easier and safer to not take a side.

Steve, on the other hand, represents those Jews who look around the world and see that no matter how clear it may be that the Jews are victims in the middle east, just as they were in Europe, most people will be like Edward and not take a side. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that its every man for himself, and Jews must preemptively attack enemies that they believe are intent on killing them. He realizes that talk is cheap and usually accomplishes nothing, so in the end, you have to do what you deem necessary to survive regardless of what anyone thinks.

I represent that minority of people who still believe that you can reason with people and get them to make decisions based on evidence and logic. It is my belief that there are certain truths that exist in situations, and that reasonable people can, and should, be open to seeing the reality, making decisions based on reality, and taking or supporting actions based on reality.

But I admit, it is kind of silly to try to do that on a rock cello site guestbook. Yet, in its own way, I find it entertaining ...and I harbor the hope that someone out there may be influenced in a good way by reading this. (Assuming anybody is?)

Post No. 525
12/01/2006 08:19 AM
Email eaburke81  go to the Homepage of eaburke81
Comments (0)
boxers or briefs?

Well I must say, this has been quite a heavy topic with plenty of good points.
I admit, that I do take sides from time to time, I don't always choose to stay in the middle. Take politics.....I am registered as a Democrat and usually vote for democractic candidates....though there are some good, decent, intelligent, moral-minded republicans out there.
Ok, let's talk in simpler terms. for those who have never met me beofre, below is a list of my preferences:

Coke or Pepsi? Coke (especialy diet)
Steak or poultry? Poultry (or eggs and fish)

Borders or Barnes and Noble?
Barnes and Noble is definately the better store becuase you can preview any CD YOU want....used to work there.

Guitars or cellos?
Is there really any contest here? Cellos, definately, though if said guitar is played by person on the same level as Jimi.....

Howard Stern or "the Bob and Tom Show"?
Bob and Tom are much more respectable...and truly funny.

Cooked vegetables vs. salad
I prefer a good salad definately, with olive oil and balsamic vinegar, plenty of parmesean cheese, rustic Italian bread with oil and garlic, and a warm plate of whole-wheat pasta with grilled blood may be Irish but my taste-buds are Italian
I'm makin' myself hungry....that's all for now.
fred and murry 

Post No. 524
12/01/2006 02:45 AM
Comments (1)

the heart of this matter is who started the fight! you can talk all day but u r trying to convince that the jew didnt start it and the world may never know that....Its like how many licks does it take to get to the center of an issue...People see it as jew started it all . Your argument assumes a clarity that we here see that the jew is victim but u r assuming this as a a with proof...but many dont see your proof.I would give aaron the right to kill off anyone he says could annihilate him in a blink and whom he thinks is evil. I wouldnt give this right to those i see as evil..However right shmight...Each will get this right from its court. The issue is not tot to give or grant a right but to allow or not the ability to DO IT! Even bad guys have enemies so i would simply make sure myenemu altho has the right would not have the ability.
i recall many fights wen o was a kid where my friend had actually instigated the fight....It might be clear to u who started as clear as the nose on my face but to others theyd say u r dillusionsal or brainwashed.. Stop arguring about who started it all and simply decide to protect your side by eliminating your enemies ability to take you out...dont try to justify it legally morally or factually..there are many courts and each side will get the verdict it wants tosay it has the right and is theone just be on the look outand if needed preemptively hit your enemy and try after to spin it in your favor
Von Cello 

Post No. 523
11/30/2006 08:51 PM
Comments (1)

To put it in a nutshell: if there are two people involved in a struggle where one keeps trying to kill the other, and the other fights back simply to defend himself and stay alive, is it fair to ask, "Why are you two guys always fighting?"
Von Cello 

Post No. 522
11/30/2006 01:45 PM
Comments (1)
No sides to a circle

Anyway, the point was not that one need choose a side, but that one, to be fair, should not equate the two sides. Is there truly any conflict in the world where the fault is equally shared? If a bully beats up a quiet kid on the way to school is it really fair to accuse both of the kids of fighting? Isn't it actually the case where one kid was wrong and the other was a victim?

I, as a responsible adult viewing such a confrontation could report the truth to a school authority without necessarily taking a side. The "politically correct" mindset says that I should not take a side. But, again, isn't it actually unfair to the quiet kid to not be truthful about who was the aggressor?

Now, if one wants to argue that the Jews are actually the aggessor in the middle east, that is another discussion. But I am concentrating on what is called "moral equivilancy". I am narrowly looking at that particular phenomenon and saying that it is in fact not moral to try to equate two groups of people when one is the aggressor and the other is defending itself from the aggression.

Let's get away from Israel and the Arabs. Let's say you observed a girl getting raped in an alley. If the police asked you to be a witness would you say, "I'm sorry but I don't want to take sides"? If so, then you are consistant. But if you would feel a moral imperative to report the truth acurately to the police you would have to say that the rapist was the aggressor. Even if the girl fought back and kicked the rapist in the balls, would it still not be the case that the rapist was at fault and the girl was defending herself?
Von Cello 

Post No. 521
11/30/2006 10:44 AM
Comments (1)
Choosing between Iraq and a hard place...

I must confess, I too routed for the Red Sox since they hadn't won is so long. But in the Arab-Israeli conflict it is different because one side truly just wants to live in peace on its ancestral homeland and the other side truly wants to kill everyone on the other side. To me it is a no brainer as to who's side I would want to be on.

For instance, look at W.W. II. Would you also say that you would not have taken a side between the Nazis and the Jews? Clearly the goal of the Nazis was to kill all of the Jews, and the goal of the Jews was to live in peace in their respective countries.

Even in the case of the Nazis, there were many Nazis who didn't really want to kill Jews. There were those who were sucked up into the situation. But that didn't really matter to the Jews getting gassed in the ovens, did it? Same here. There are many good Muslims out there, but if you had your arm blown off, or had your face scared, or had your relatives killed by a suicide bomber, that wouldn't matter much.

To me it is sad that many people feel they have to maintain neutrality when the issues are so clear. It is as if the mind goes numb. I know many people have bad feelings about right wing commentators, but I have heard Mike Savage say that "liberalism is a mental disorder". Now that is harsh for sure. But I think he means that "liberal" people often get so caught up in political correctness that they can't see the obvious. In the case of the Nazis vs. the Jews, it was obvious who the bad guys were (even though some Nazis were good). And the same is true here.

Look on a map of the middle east. Israel is like a pack of matches on a football field. The Arab lands are probably the size if the U.S. and Israel is the size of New Jersey. Do the Arabs really need to be killing Jews day and night to get control of that tiny sliver? The sad reality is that they are programmed by a religion that praises the killing of the other. But I know that there are many views out there, and most people don't change their views no matter what.

I suppose you think you are not picking sides, but in a way, you are. You on the side of those who refuse to pick a side.

No hard feelings though. People have a right to their opinions and beliefs.

Post No. 520
11/30/2006 10:00 AM
Email eaburke81  
Comments (1)
Choosing between a rock, or a hard place.....

I see your point, Aaron. I guess for me it has always been hard choosing to root for a "side" or a "team", or a "party"....maybe it's that I'll somehow feel guilty for choosing one side over the other. I'm one of those in-the-middle-guys. Israelis or Palestinians? Both sides have good people hidden amoung the people who want to demolish the other side. Red Sox or Yankees? I just don't know...I guess both teams are good, though I did root for and encourage the Sox in the World Series 2004 and it paid off! I did it out of sympathy....when you haven't won a world series since 1918 how much must that effect team morale? Needless to say, many New England Grandfathers can now die happy. (No offence to any Yankee fans on this guestbook - I love you guys too!)

What's that you say? You can't be patriotic unless you love one team? Are you the same guys saying that you can't be patriotic if you support our troops but don't support the war in Iraq? Oh yeah, I know you....saw you on the news last night and on the Fox Network too.

But getting back to the point - The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very serious one and it is quite a dilema. Perhaps you are helping the situation by choosing a side, Aaron, and I respect that. So often I feel isolated up here in Vermont and that there's little I can do to help war-torn countires a world away from me. For my part, I have confidence that there are a few people on both sides of the Middle-East conflict that want to see an end to the bloodshed...I mean, isn't there more enough land out there in the desert for both groups to share in harmony? But perhaps I'm just a utopian and an idealist.
Von Cello 

Post No. 519
11/30/2006 12:19 AM
Comments (1)
Fig Pizza

Well, I was wondering what part of your post to respond to first. So I'll go for the most important...a fig is not a date!!!

Now to the fluff...

I agree that there are peace loving Muslims. There seems to be a knee jerk reaction that many people have of saying, "Yeah I know there are the radicals, but there are many nice Muslims too!" It's almost like saying, "I know there are attack dogs, but there are many nice dogs too". We all know there are many nice Muslims!

But I was trying to take a narrower view of a specific problem. i.e. the Israeli-Arab conflict. There are not a lot of "nice" suicide bombers. In fact, there are none. Anyone who would walk into an area with innocent civilians and blow himself up, in order to kill and maim as many people around him as possible is not nice! I know many of them believe they have a "cause". But a cause does not make it acceptable to murder innocent random people. At least that is what Judaism and Christianity teach.

I guess the issue is: is killing innocent people in order to further the power of Islam against the religion of Islam? If you do some searches on the internet you'll soon see that it is not against Islam. Indeed, there are many leading clerics and others in that world that praise such actions (although a few do speak out against it). Whereas there is no respectable Jewish rabbi who says that is acceptable. Not one! So, if you are to be objective, you would have to admit that in the Israeli-Arab conflict, one side generally sees the killing of innocents as praiseworthy, while the other condemns such behavior. And if one side believes it has the God given right, if not the duty, to kill the people on the other side, how are the people who are the objects of this violence supposed to react?

So, I object when people try to equate the two sides, and, out of some type of "political correctness", make statements that lay the blame on both. I don't want you to feel I am picking on you, because this is a common problem. Many people, indeed many reporters, say things like, "the cycle of violence in the middle east", or "the tit for tat killing", etc. When this is not true. It is not a cycle, nor is it tit for tat. It is one side believing it has the God given right to destroy the other, and the other side trying to defend itself.

The bottom line is this: if all the Arabs dropped their weapons there would be peace, but if all the Israelis dropped their weapons there would be a blood bath. That says it all! Sad but true.

The same is true in Iraq. If all the Muslims dropped their weapons, the U.S. soldiers would not kill anyone. Right? But if all the U.S. soldiers dropped their weapons, don't you think there'd be massive beheadings, hangings, and all kinds of gruesome we have already seen with Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl and others?

So, let's be real and not let political correctness blind us to the truth. What the answer is, is another issue. But you can't cure a disease if you have the wrong diagnoses.

Yours truly,
Dr. Minsky

Post No. 518
11/29/2006 10:59 PM
Comments (1)
An Addendum........

I should have put this in my previous posting, but this is semi-serious after all that comic rambling I did.

I belive that MOST muslims DO have a basic respect for all human life. It is only the extreme, fundamentalist muslims who hold the notion that killing for reasons other then self-defence is justified and will get them into their own version of Heaven. I mean, I have no doubt in my mind that there are muslims out there who live lives of love. Why am I sure of this, you ask?

There happens to be a small, Islamic house of worship (not a mosque) a few blocks from my apartment. I hear nothing in the local news about them, nor have they spread anti-semetic or anti-Catholic propaganda around my neighborhood, nor have they ransacked the neighborhood with car bombs. They just kneel and pray towards Mecca as their faith dictates they do, and life goes on....Ramadan? Yep, they celebrate it...they are Muslims but they seem to mind their own business.
I have no doubt in my mind that this is living proof that not all Muslims are hell-bent on killing others. Catholics and most, but not all, Christians beleive that Jesus wants us to lo,ve everyone un-conditionally as he did and that's how I, personally live my life.

Excuse me if it seems I
m preaching to the choir, as the old cliche goes. I do not wish to make myself seem like your moral superior, becuase I'm definately not! Hell, I put ketchup on my eggs for God's sake! Have a good night, all, I'm goin' to bed.

Post No. 517
11/29/2006 10:26 PM
Email eaburke81  go to the Homepage of eaburke81
Comments (1)
A down-home, country -style"holy war"

Von Cello wrote:
"I'd like to see how the good people of Vermont would react if they were all moved to Israel and had to deal with an endless supply of virgin hungry, brainwashed Muslim youth. How would they handle having their kids blown up on school buses, their wives and kids blown up in pizza parlors, their families blown to bits during holiday dinners? If they fought back in self defense would it be fair to say, "Hey why are both of you guys blowing each other up? Why don't you just eat figs and dates together"?

Well since I'm probably the only Vermonter on this guestbook, I'll tackle this one. If myself or one of my fellow statesmen moved ot Isreal and saw such carnage, I'd probably first refer to both the Israelis and Palestinians as "flatlanders" (I mean, Israel and Sryia are desert countries), and then I would....well, I don't know what I'd do.....probably hide myself at the nearest Catholic enclave in Bethlehem, but I probably wouldn't be safe there.
Gosh, this whole holy war thing is a little too complex for a country boy like me to grasp. I seriously do not know what I'd do to help the situation improove in the region.

and BTW, If I'm not mistaken, I believe, as a big fig newton fan, that figs and dates are one in the same....could be wrong though.

Also, what do Israelis put on their pizza? And what is pizza like in other countries?
Von Cello 

Post No. 516
11/29/2006 02:06 PM
Comments (1)
Screw the figs, and get that girl!

Why do people keep blaming both sides? Anyone who is really honest and knowledgable on the subject knows that it is against the Jewish religion to kill other people except in self defense (like Christianity), but it is praiseworthy to kill "infidels" in Islam. Not only is it okay to kill an "infidel", but it is taught that when you kill them you get to go to heaven, but not just that, you get to have sex with 72 virgins. So, screw the figs and the dates. If you are a young Muslim male who has been brought up on this form of Islam, you are definitely going to go for the virgins!

I'd like to see how the good people of Vermont would react if they were all moved to Israel and had to deal with an endless supply of virgin hungry, brainwashed Muslim youth. How would they handle having their kids blown up on school buses, their wives and kids blown up in pizza parlors, their families blown to bits during holiday dinners? If they fought back in self defense would it be fair to say, "Hey why are both of you guys blowing each other up? Why don't you just eat figs and dates together?"


Post No. 515
11/28/2006 07:47 PM
Email eaburke81  go to the Homepage of eaburke81
Comments (1)
Eat, Drink and be Merry! (Christmas or Chaunnukah)

This from a much earlier posting I wrote on this forumn, but I hope one day the people of Israel, Iran, Syria and Iraq will all sit down with one-another and realize how much they all love dates, olives, wine, sand, palm trees, camels and the occasional oasis.
Thier's is the freakin' Fertile Crecsent, for God's sake! They've got some tasty crops, people! Their's is the land of frickin' milk and honey! If John the Baptist lived on locusts, then They've got it way better then him! Why don't you take a break from blowing each-other up and enjoy the fruits of your farmers' labours! Jeez-louise!
fred and murry 

Post No. 514
11/28/2006 04:24 PM
Comments (1)

this is why you nor i are president
we let each country have the right to kill whom it wants but we try to eliminate their ability to do so. thats theidea aaron.rights shmights ....its all about ability....a right from a govt? from god? each decides its rights, not u nor i have the right to decide who has that right . so the game is if we have or not the ability?
fred and murry 

Post No. 513
11/28/2006 02:28 PM
Comments (0)

this is y u nor i are president we let each country have the right to kill whom it wants but we try to eliminate their ability to do so. thats theidea aaron.tights shmights its all about ability....gight from govt? from god? each decides its rights, not u nor me have the right to decide who has that right . so the game is we have or not the ability?
Von Cello 

Post No. 512
11/28/2006 02:04 PM
Comments (0)
Let us reason together...

I see your point that if you allow any country to attack preemptively, you must allow all countries to do the same. But I think it really depends on the situation.

If France just suddenly attacked Spain for no good reason, that would be wrong. But if the leader of Spain was:

1. going around the world stating that France had no right to exist
2. stating that it should be wiped off the face of the earth
3. spreading lies about its history and its people
4. making alliances with its enemies
5. using the media to foment hatred of it all around the world
6. actively seeking nuclear capacity in defiance of the U.N. and the E.U.

Then I think France would have a good justification for attacking Spain to prevent it from obtaining nukes and carrying out its stated goal of destroying it.

That is the situation Israel is in with Iran. So, in this one case, I think it is fair to consider a preemptive attack by Israel reasonable. Whereas, in almost every other situation on earth it would be unreasonable.

It would be great if the U.N. could pass anti-discrimination laws between countries. Wouldn't it be great if the president of Iran could just be arrested? Unfortunately, there is nothing the international body can do, so the only recourse is to allow his country to capacity to build nuclear weapons, or militarily destroy its capacity. The only other option is talking to them, but so far, that is only buying them time, and making the situation more and more dire.
fred and murry 

Post No. 511
11/28/2006 02:27 AM
Comments (0)

if israel strikes first against a country and says it was needed cause israel and many others knew that that other country was a threat to israel that you would accepted by you..cause to you israel is a legitimate authority. If china hits n korea anduses the same reasoning to you its wrong casuse china to you is not an authority. You cant decide that the good guys can prehit but not everybody can prehit..Only we can israel can but not iran or china... you have created two classes of countries, your good guys and bad guys...You know we cant have everybody hitting everybody but u think its better if only you can do it and your friends...Im saying that to open this RIGHT you haveto know its a pandoras box and allcountries will use it...
fred and murry 

Post No. 510
11/28/2006 02:27 AM
Comments (0)

if israel strikes first against a country and says it was needed cause israel and many others knew that that other country was a threat to israel that you would accepted by you..cause to you israel is a legitimate authority. If china hits n korea anduses the same reasoning to you its wrong casuse china to you is not an authority. You cant decide that the good guys can prehit but not everybody can prehit..Only we can israel can but not iran or china... you have created two classes of countries, your good guys and bad guys...You know we cant have everybody hitting everybody but u think its better if only you can do it and your friends...Im saying that to open this RIGHT you haveto know its a pandoras box and allcountries will use it...
Von Cello 

Post No. 509
11/27/2006 03:31 PM
Comments (0)
Probing into the mind of Marcus...

So you are an equal opportunity first striker? So, if China feels that Spain is a potential threat it should nuke Spain? And if Canada feels that Burmuda is a threat it should nuke Bermuda? Everyone has the right to nuke anyone as long as they feel threatened?
fred and murry 

Post No. 508
11/27/2006 02:17 PM
Comments (0)

we cannot say that israel must strike wen it feels it might be struck but nobody else can do that . whats good for israel inthis century must be good for every country..israel does it. the usa did it ,and others will follow suit. im saying its aneraof suspicion of ones neighbor and keeping a finger on the trigger ..its paranoia,its each country deciding on its own who and wen to attack..we cannot give this ability only to ourself and those we see as like us
Von Cello 

Post No. 507
11/27/2006 01:08 PM
Comments (0)
The plot thickens

So, what are you saying? Are you saying that everyone in the world should attack everyone that they think might attack them? Are you basically saying that W.W. III is already on and it's every man for himself?

Post No. 506
11/27/2006 10:14 AM
Comments (0)

i dont think its only israel. ALL countries could be eliminated in 1 blow even the exploding biological briefacse in kansas would wipe us all out in 4 days. All countries can easity apply the ISRAELI idea of ,one hit on us is one too many.I think the whole world is now able to destroy the whole world and that worries the big democracies.. In the past big democracies not fearing being destroyed forced a vision that WE dont attk until we are attked..but now even the big guys see that one blow could takeoutthe usa the vision changeds to preemptivity but this runs counter to cristian values of fairness trial evidence and proof....Aaron, the argument is that we all need to eliminate the kill power cause if the usagot it then the OTHER guy wants it too. We feel weneed it cause we dont trust him andhe feels the same...theonly solution is WAR before they get it....ITS ME OR YOU is the way sounds greedy and selfish egotistical even maniacal butitsour reality. WE ARE ALL ISRAELIS
Von Cello 

Post No. 505
11/27/2006 09:33 AM
Comments (0)
Survival of the first strikers

Good points. This was mentioned. But here was my point. The U.S. is a very big country. We could afford to lose a city or two by taking a first strike and we could still retaliate, destroy our enemy, and survive as a nation (even if a much different nation). But Israel cannot afford to take even one nuke. One nuke on Tel Aviv could wipe out the majority of the population, and the radiation might wipe out the rest of the country. So, unfortunately, for Israel to wait until it is hit, to hit back, is suicide. Israel is in the terrible position of having to strke first in a nuclear confrontation. Well, actually, what it has to do is to strike to wipe out the possiblity of a nuclear bomb being built by countries that have as their goal the destruction of Israel.

That is the core of the argument that got our friend to say, "I'm glad YOUR finger's not on the bomb". Yet what was his answer? "You should not attack another country unless you are attacked first". So I said, "So Israel should allow itself to be obliterated, and THEN it should attack?"

He had no answer for that point so he just kept repeating his idiotic statement, "I'm just glad your finger's not on the bomb". Until I finally said, "Fine, so let's let another Holocaust happen. Brilliant idea!"'s a difficult situation. But it has to become unacceptable in the world for countries like Iran to threaten to destroy other countries and also try to obtain nuclear capability. It should be a no brainer. If you want to destroy another country, that country has the right to destroy you first. Simple as that. Sad but true.

There is a talk show host here in New York, Mark Levin. One day he started talking about how sick he was of hearing from Iran that Isreal has no right to exist. He starting screaming, "You know what Iran, I think YOU don't have a right to exist. I would like to blow YOU off the face of the earth. How do you like THAT?!"

Back to Top

Home | About Von Cello | Upcoming Gigs | Recordings | Compositions | Store
E-Mail List | Interact | Video Clips | Pictures | Links | Trademark | Musicians Only

Von Cello is incorporated in the United States of America. This web site and all its content is copyrighted. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable law.
Click here for copyright, terms of usage, and legal statements.