[Winstonm]

Quote

This was in fact my point. They are a people who have never been permitted to have their own country. This does not make their suffering and injustice any less real.

Where in the "Rules of the World" does it state that a group of people has the right to have their own country? What constitutes this group? Is it a common language? If so, then the USA should disband as the group of people who inhabit its shores have no common language.

Palestinians have no more right to a Palestine than the Israelis to an Israel - which came first, the chicken or the egg? Whose God wins? If the Palestinians want a country, invade Jordan - or kick out the Israelis and let the Israelis invade and take over Jordan. Then we could have a Jordanian crises - at least it would be something different.

[pbleighton]

"Again since Gaza is a nation".

Gaza is not a nation.

Peter

[Impact]

Peter,

1) "You are also ignoring the elephant in the room - this was carved out not merely for the Jews in Palestine, but for European Jews as well. A mass migration was planned (and it happened). This was not something common in history, as you state it was."

If you accept that people have a right to self-determination, they then have a state and they make the rules regarding migration/immigration to that state.

Your point being???


2) Utopia is the only state in which there is no injustice.

Every time we make a law, draw a boundary or any real or artificial distinction there are hard luck cases or those of injustice.

We would all love to see a world where it is not so - but it doesn't happen. So, one hopes that steps are taken to attempt to minimise the injustice.

3) You seem to feel that all Palestinians have been dealt this huge injustice.
I can understand that in the case of any who were forcibly removed from property or had it appropriated, but that is only a small minority on any basis that I have read - even giving credence to the more pro-Palestinian accounts.

4) You have never come to grips with the basic tenet that the Palestinians deny the Jews and Israel the right of existence.
On the other hnad you seem to feel that a minority (of Palestinians) alleged economic injustice outweighs the right to exist of the Jews.

That is an interesting view of "injustice".

5) When referring to the dispossessed you never acknowledge or have regard to the plight of Jews
a) who lost their land/possessions by being in the wrong part of partition at the relevant time;
who were dospossessed and forced to flee from the various Arab states in the Middle East over the succeeding decades- and a complete lack of compensation for those persons from the same Arab states who bleat about Palestinians (and which states benefited by expropriating property.

You might have thought that would weigh heavily on the scales of injustice.

Or is the real difficulty, that one tiny nation (geographically and demographically), actually provided succour and refuge to victims - while all the surrounding nations with far greater orders of magnitude of land and population declined to provide succour and refuge to the victims with whom they empathised?


6) "General attitude to Arabs": well, I'll take each person on his/her merits -regardless of background, race, creed or colour -or even bridge-playing (or denigrating some: card-pulling) ability!

However, if and when someone says "you don't have a right to exist", I get a little concerned and am unlikely to make of that person my best friend. Indeed a little wariness is in order: even if you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not trying to kill you.

Fortunately, living in a nation which encourages tolerance of all, virtually any minority recognises it is just that, and unites in love of sport and general laissez faire.

I suggest your comment is - at best- unfair. At worst I could turn the tables and accuse you of anti-semitism, but I don't.

I don't know you. It would be unfair and improper to do so.

I am attempting to deal with arguments - and attempt to sway someone whom I see as making continuing emotional pleas to consider additional facts and /or premises in an attempt to convince him - or at least mitigate a perceived antipathy.

I request that you accord me the same courtesy, rather than ridicule or denigration.


7) As to partisanship: who if anyone can be totally unbiased?
We are all biased or prejudiced by our backgrounds, family inculcation and the knowledge that we have acquired and its sources.

If I watched and read "Greater Israel" propaganda thart would be no better than (pardon the pun) taking as gospel what is broadcast on Al Jazeera.

Proof of partisanship by reference to some undefined basis of the participants in a conflict (which for some is life and death) seems somewhat irrelevant. When self-interest is at stake there will always be a measure of "partisanship".

I suggested that I - as did ben Gurion- could understand or even empathise with another's feelings.

Understanding the source of their anger might help to find an answer but the mere perception of the reason for the anger is not a justification; it is an explanation.

There are undoubtedly crazies on both sides. No group is completely right but the implementation of any policy requires compromises THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE WITH - not those that start from a premise of the complete destruction of one group.

No matter how moderate, that is the problem that any Israeli has to deal with - and I am obviously sympathetic to THAT problem.

regards

[jdeegan]

pbleighton, on Jul 4 2006, 07:21 AM, said:

"When we took land from the native americans we could support 50 persons on the same land that supported one indian. "

Huh?

The best current estimates are that there were between 50 and 100 million Native Americans in the U.S. before European colonization.  By the end of the 19th century there were about 2 million.

Peter

The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions.

Scholars have been able to correlate archeological evidence from Indian mounds (which are the surviving ruins of ancient Indian cities) and some surviving accounts from the very first 16th and 17th century European explorers (Spanish and French). Clearly, the Indian population of what is now the U.S. was considerably more than what the first English encountered in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some of the difference was probably the die off due to the introduction of Old World diseases (in Mexico we know from Spanish records that the ultimate die off there was between 80 to 90% in the space of about 60 years - 1520 to 1580). Farther north, without further incursions by Europeans, the damage from the Spanish and French expeditions was probably far less.

The other, controlling factor was the lack of domestic animals for food. Sustainable population depended on supplies of protein from the wild - fishing, bison, deer, antelope, etc. This is what accounted for the fact that by the early 1800's European settlers could support anywhere from 10 to 100 persons on the land it took to support one Cherokee - this is what concerned the Cherokee councils of the time. Cherokee lands at the time (1790) supported a population of an estimated 26,000 persons living their traditional lifestyle. The current population of this area is about 10 million.

The archeologists have found that a number of long defunct Indian cities, Cahokia and other Mississippian culture sites, collapsed well before any Europeans showed up in the New World. Depletion of local hunting grounds look like the likely culprit.

Bottom line is there is a lively academic debate about the actual Indian population in what is now the U.S. as of, say, 1500, but the evidence, to date, supports numbers more like five to eight million. This compares to a low point of less than two million in the 19th century and 4+ million now and growing at a rate much faster than the rest of the U.S. population.

Whites are now moving out of the northern great plains states - the Dakotas, eastern Wyoming and Montana, western Nebraska etc. In some areas, native grasses are being reintroduced, cattle ranches have been losing money, bison herds are growing, and Native Americans, at least the few I know from those tribes, are seriously considering moving (and some have) from cities like Dallas back to the northern great plains where their parents and grandparents came from.

[luke warm]

Quote

I request that you accord me the same courtesy, rather than ridicule or denigration.

i suggest you not hold your breath

[pbleighton]

1) "You are also ignoring the elephant in the room - this was carved out not merely for the Jews in Palestine, but for European Jews as well. A mass migration was planned (and it happened). This was not something common in history, as you state it was."

If you accept that people have a right to self-determination, they then have a state and they make the rules regarding migration/immigration to that state.

Your point being???



I do not accept self-determination of one group at the expense of other groups.




2) Utopia is the only state in which there is no injustice.

Every time we make a law, draw a boundary or any real or artificial distinction there are hard luck cases or those of injustice.

We would all love to see a world where it is not so - but it doesn't happen. So, one hopes that steps are taken to attempt to minimise the injustice.



Your point being?




3) You seem to feel that all Palestinians have been dealt this huge injustice.
I can understand that in the case of any who were forcibly removed from property or had it appropriated, but that is only a small minority on any basis that I have read - even giving credence to the more pro-Palestinian accounts.




What is now Israel used to be Palestine. The Palestinian people had lived there for centuries. If you can't see that this is injustice, I can't help you.



4) You have never come to grips with the basic tenet that the Palestinians deny the Jews and Israel the right of existence.


Yes I have. I stated emphatically in an earlier post that they needed to do so.



On the other hnad you seem to feel that a minority (of Palestinians) alleged economic injustice outweighs the right to exist of the Jews.

That is an interesting view of "injustice".



I do not. This is either an absolute fabrication on your part, or a refusal to actuall read posts you are responding to.




5) When referring to the dispossessed you never acknowledge or have regard to the plight of Jews





Again, false. Please read my posts efore you respond to them.





a) who lost their land/possessions by being in the wrong part of partition at the relevant time;
who were dospossessed and forced to flee from the various Arab states in the Middle East over the succeeding decades- and a complete lack of compensation for those persons from the same Arab states who bleat about Palestinians (and which states benefited by expropriating property.

You might have thought that would weigh heavily on the scales of injustice.



I do. From my first post in this thread:

"I don't think either the Israelis or the Palestinians have learned much since the British robbed the Palestinians of a chunk of their land and gave it to the Jews, one of the worst-considered pieces of racist social engineering in world history.

The Palestinians will have to accept historical injustice, and recognize Israel's right to exist. It is not going away, and the Israelis have acquired the right to live there by longetivity. Israel should never have been established, but it was (actually, it should have been established in Germany after WWII, but that is another story...). They can look to Native Americans for grief counselling."



6) "General attitude to Arabs": well, I'll take each person on his/her merits -regardless of background, race, creed or colour -or even bridge-playing (or denigrating some: card-pulling) ability!

However, if and when someone says "you don't have a right to exist", I get a little concerned and am unlikely to make of that person my best friend. Indeed a little wariness is in order: even if you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not trying to kill you.

Fortunately, living in a nation which encourages tolerance of all, virtually any minority recognises it is just that, and unites in love of sport and general laissez faire.

I suggest your comment is - at best- unfair.



I suggest that it is true - I said that your comment encapsulated your attitude toward Arabs/Palestinians. Every comment you have made in this thread has shown zero respect for Arabs/Palestinians. I am not saying that in your personal life you would treat them badly - I am not accusing you of personal racist behavior. However, your comments have been quite consistent, and quite negative.




At worst I could turn the tables and accuse you of anti-semitism, but I don't.



And what comment have I made which would enable you to do that?





I don't know you. It would be unfair and improper to do so.

I am attempting to deal with arguments - and attempt to sway someone whom I see as making continuing emotional pleas to consider additional facts and /or premises in an attempt to convince him - or at least mitigate a perceived antipathy.




If you bothered to read my posts carefully, you would have seen that there I have no antipathy towards Israel. The establishment of Israel was an injustice, as was the conquest and genocide of Native Americans. Israel has earned the right to exist, but it must make peace with the Palestinians, for moral and practical reasons. You deny the moral reasons and have never dealt with the practical: Israel literally cannnot exist indefinitely in a world with 600 million Muslims without making peace with the Palestinians. There will, sooner or later, be a nuclear weapon(s) detonated in Israel. This will be totally wrong. It will also happen. Nuclear weapons have changed a lot of things. In a previous century, Israel would not have to make peace (there is, as you say, plenty of historical injustice).




I request that you accord me the same courtesy, rather than ridicule or denigration.




Stop being so sensitive. You misread/don't read my posts, and make comments which verge on being flames. I suggest that you modify your posting style on political topics if you can't stand a little heat.

And here is another suggestion. My posts evidently bother you. You have an option. Ignore my posts. If you tell me that you are going to do this, I won't respond to your posts. I am not saying that you should do this (I am, after all, composing lengthy replies to your posts), but it is an option for you, if you wish.

I have already done this with luke warm. I no longer respond to his posts, based on a posting he made with respect to Iran:
"i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them"

Based on this, I came to the conclusion that further discussion with him would be fruitless. He may well be a good guy in his personal life, I'm just not going to waste my time responding to someone with his worldview. Life is too short.

If you have the same reaction to my posts as I had to his, just let me know and I will have the courtesy not to bother you any more.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions. "

"Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; in the 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, precise pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain; estimates are often produced by extrapolation from comparatively small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used these various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that.[1] Anthropologists agree that the bulk of indigenous American ancestry can be traced to ice age migrations from Asia over the Bering land bridge, though some believe previous sea faring peoples contributed small population stocks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_hi...igenous_peoples

Peter

[luke warm]

Quote

I have already done this with luke warm. I no longer respond to his posts, based on a posting he made with respect to Iran:

Quote

"i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them"

it's true, i said that... and i do think you underestimate the actions of those who believe that if they strap 100 pounds of explosives to their bodies and blow up a synagogue, willy nilly killing anyone who happens to be in proximity, they will go straight to heaven, with the aforementioned rewards

i do not see the inaccuracy in what i said

[helene_t]

Those estimates that vary from 8 to 115 millions are for all of the Americas. This is something different from the US.

If someone said that the immigrants could feed X people from the land that could feed one Indian, it obviously depends which land and which ethnic group of Indians they're talking about.

[jdeegan]

pbleighton, on Jul 6 2006, 08:09 AM, said:

"The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions. "

"Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; in the 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, precise pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain; estimates are often produced by extrapolation from comparatively small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used these various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that.[1] Anthropologists agree that the bulk of indigenous American ancestry can be traced to ice age migrations from Asia over the Bering land bridge, though some believe previous sea faring peoples contributed small population stocks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_hi...igenous_peoples

Peter

The numbers you are citing include the Inca, Mayan and Aztec regions. I was just thinking about what is now the U.S. and maybe Canada. Very few people in the U.S. think of themselves as Indian or native American culturally, but lots of people in the U.S., including a couple of my own grandchildren, have a little bit of Indian blood in them.

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Jul 4 2006, 09:50 AM, said:

From the 18th to the 20th of July this month, there will be a huge happening involving Christians who support Israel here in D.C., ran by Pastor John Hagee's ministry. I for one will be there.

Having been to Israel in my travels (don't ask why) I can tell three things that are absolute certainties:

1. The people of Israel will fight to the last man, woman, and child.

2. The IDF pound for pound is the best fighting force in the world. I'd pick them everyday of the week, especially in a ground/tank battle.

3. Israel will not lose another conflict. They also at the same time have no quarrels about making sure their security is well secure. And they won't have need (nor does America to be quite blunt about it) for the pitiful excuse called the United Nations and their "resolutions".

Ran across the following earlier today...
http://www.talk2acti.../2/172519/7931/

I remembered the name from one of Dwayne's posting a while back. I don't claim that "Talk 2 Action" doesn't have an agenda, however, the raise a number of interesting points about Hagee and CUFI

[Al_U_Card]

jdeegan, on Jul 11 2006, 12:09 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Jul 6 2006, 08:09 AM, said:

"The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions. "

"Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; in the 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons. Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, precise pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain; estimates are often produced by extrapolation from comparatively small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used these various estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people, although some recent estimates are lower than that.[1] Anthropologists agree that the bulk of indigenous American ancestry can be traced to ice age migrations from Asia over the Bering land bridge, though some believe previous sea faring peoples contributed small population stocks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_hi...igenous_peoples

Peter

The numbers you are citing include the Inca, Mayan and Aztec regions. I was just thinking about what is now the U.S. and maybe Canada. Very few people in the U.S. think of themselves as Indian or native American culturally, but lots of people in the U.S., including a couple of my own grandchildren, have a little bit of Indian blood in them.

We might ask a few individuals that "qualify" as aboriginal peoples by our government's regulations.....pride is a tricky thing. Am I proud that my 7th generation grandfather left Pennsylvania in 1779 for Ontario as a United Empire Loyalist? It doesn't affect my life in any direct way at present....not the same thing for people who are struggling for survival or enfranchisement.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jul 6 2006, 08:25 AM, said:

Quote

I have already done this with luke warm. I no longer respond to his posts, based on a posting he made with respect to Iran:

Quote

"i don't think you can ignore religion, i think you underestimate the actions of people who think they will go straight to heaven when they die, with shitloads of cattle and virgins waiting for them"

it's true, i said that... and i do think you underestimate the actions of those who believe that if they strap 100 pounds of explosives to their bodies and blow up a synagogue, willy nilly killing anyone who happens to be in proximity, they will go straight to heaven, with the aforementioned rewards

i do not see the inaccuracy in what i said

Jimmy, I cannot speak for Peter so I speak for myself.

I grant that there are some who suicide bomb based on the stated beliefs. What makes this group different from the Jones followers who drank the Kool Aid, the Dividians who cremated themselves, or the Crusaders bringing Christianity to the heathen world? Did not the Japanese at the end of the war fly kamikaze missions? We are talking about a small minority of Islam - this is not a global religious war, our good guy religion verses their evil religion.

The basis of these suicide bombings is not the religion; it is the rich or the powerful within the group leading the ignorant or poor or hopeless - just like Jim Jones and David Koresh and Charles Manson for that matter.

We send men into harm's way in Iraq - although none was a suicide bomber, 3000 are just as dead - and it was the rich and powerful who sent them.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jul 4 2006, 12:02 PM, said:

This reminds me....the USA is in a war, a real war...What does the other side want and why do we not just give it to them......


I must admit I have no idea what the "other side" wants so how do I surrender?


This reminds me of what Israel must feel...just what does the other side want and have they not offered it?

In World War II, the Americans lost 400,000 men - dead. In the holier than thou "war of terror", U.S. dead worldwide are <4000 total, and that includes 3000 in one day - that is also <4000 in a 20-year period, or 200 a year.

To buy into the hype of the need for a global war on terror, a religious Armageddon brewing in the middle east, and Islam as an evil empire intent on eliminating the U.S. from the map (at a rate of 200 per year - less than the birth rate) simply means that the perpetrators of 9-11 got what they wanted. They have received more worldwide publicity in that past 6 years than buying every minute of advertising in every super bowl ever played. Do you seriously believe that they thought they could do any permanent damage to the U.S. by flying 4 planes into some buidlings? This was a war attack? Do you remember the Palestinian response? They were dancing in the street. Why? Because they view the U.S. as equal to Israel. The little guys had flaunted their stuff in front of the great big bully U.S. 9-11 was a show, plain and simple, and its goal was publicity.

Germany and Japan had armies, navies, and air forces, were invading other countries, and attempting world domination - 400,000 U.S. men gave their lives to stop them.

You do a disservice, IMO, when you call Bush's Paranoia a war. Whatever you want to call this enemy, radical Islam or the boogeyman, they do not have the weapons needed to take over the world. The idea is ludicrous. The entire scam is based on the fact that the neocons do not want fundamentalists to take over and control the oil riches in the middle east, so to foment a "war" there had to be an enemy - a real enemy, no doubt, but not of the magnitude to necessitate global warfare.

Make no mistake about it, the conflict is about national security, as defined by the neocons that it would be bad for U.S. interests to have the oil reserves of the middle east in control of fundamentalists-led countries. If the U.S. stopped trying to impose its will in the region, there would be no reason to attack the U.S., and stupid to continue to do so. The conflict is not a war of ideologies, other than the U.S. ideology to control the destiny of the middle east.

Is is all about the power of the oil and who controls it - not that the U.S. wants to own it but the U.S. does not want Iran or Syria to control it - as long as the owner is a U.S. "friendly" regime, all is O.K.

The fundamental Islamic boogeyman is an example of the neocon's "creating our own reality." That threat is real, of course, but it is overwhelmingly exaggerated to disguise the real reasons to enter the region.

IMHO.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Mar 6 2007, 09:40 PM, said:

I grant that there are some who suicide bomb based on the stated beliefs. What makes this group different from the Jones followers who drank the Kool Aid, the Dividians who cremated themselves, or the Crusaders bringing Christianity to the heathen world? Did not the Japanese at the end of the war fly kamikaze missions? We are talking about a small minority of Islam - this is not a global religious war, our good guy religion verses their evil religion.

I think the best example of this, in fact, was the '30 seconds over Tokyo' Doolittle raid in WWII. That was as pure a suicide mission as they come- they launched a day early, and as result shouldn't have had the fuel to land safely.

We have always rewarded martyrs...seems to me that charging singlehandedly into an enemy foxhole has always been a great way to earn a medal.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Mar 6 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 4 2006, 12:02 PM, said:

This reminds me....the USA is in a war, a real war...What does the other side want and why do we not just give it to them......


I must admit I have no idea what the "other side" wants so how do I surrender?


This reminds me of what Israel must feel...just what does the other side want and have they not offered it?

In World War II, the Americans lost 400,000 men - dead. In the holier than thou "war of terror", U.S. dead worldwide are <4000 total, and that includes 3000 in one day - that is also <4000 in a 20-year period, or 200 a year.

To buy into the hype of the need for a global war on terror, a religious Armageddon brewing in the middle east, and Islam as an evil empire intent on eliminating the U.S. from the map (at a rate of 200 per year - less than the birth rate) simply means that the perpetrators of 9-11 got what they wanted. They have received more worldwide publicity in that past 6 years than buying every minute of advertising in every super bowl ever played. Do you seriously believe that they thought they could do any permanent damage to the U.S. by flying 4 planes into some buidlings? This was a war attack? Do you remember the Palestinian response? They were dancing in the street. Why? Because they view the U.S. as equal to Israel. The little guys had flaunted their stuff in front of the great big bully U.S. 9-11 was a show, plain and simple, and its goal was publicity.

Germany and Japan had armies, navies, and air forces, were invading other countries, and attempting world domination - 400,000 U.S. men gave their lives to stop them.

You do a disservice, IMO, when you call Bush's Paranoia a war. Whatever you want to call this enemy, radical Islam or the boogeyman, they do not have the weapons needed to take over the world. The idea is ludicrous. The entire scam is based on the fact that the neocons do not want fundamentalists to take over and control the oil riches in the middle east, so to foment a "war" there had to be an enemy - a real enemy, no doubt, but not of the magnitude to necessitate global warfare.

Make no mistake about it, the conflict is about national security, as defined by the neocons that it would be bad for U.S. interests to have the oil reserves of the middle east in control of fundamentalists-led countries. If the U.S. stopped trying to impose its will in the region, there would be no reason to attack the U.S., and stupid to continue to do so. The conflict is not a war of ideologies, other than the U.S. ideology to control the destiny of the middle east.

Is is all about the power of the oil and who controls it - not that the U.S. wants to own it but the U.S. does not want Iran or Syria to control it - as long as the owner is a U.S. "friendly" regime, all is O.K.

The fundamental Islamic boogeyman is an example of the neocon's "creating our own reality." That threat is real, of course, but it is overwhelmingly exaggerated to disguise the real reasons to enter the region.

IMHO.

Winston do you realize your whole argument is basically, we should not go to war until many, many more Americans are dead than 200 a year? Reread what you wrote.

I am not saying I disagree or agree but just when do you think we are at war and it is justified?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston do you realize your whole argument is basically, we should not go to war until many, many more Americans are dead than 200 a year? Reread what you wrote.

I think not, Mike. I believe the argument is that the U.S. is a target of terrorism due to the U.S. policies in the middle east. This is and should be an open debate from the neocons as to the reasons - the problem, as explained to me by an Army Colonel, is the U.S. right wing feels it cannot allow Iran to gain influencial control over Iraq, as this would immensely increase their ability to control the oil flow, and create a kind of triumverate of Iran, Iraq, and Syria with Iran as the head of state, so to speak. It is blatant interference with a motive - of preventing Iran from expanding powers - and it is done with war machines.

This is a valid concern and one that should be debated. Whether or not the U.S. has the right to protect its national security interests by interfering in the politics of a region, and whether U.S. allies, such as Israel, would be truly threatened by a super-fundamentalist power. But the group that has led us into this war in Iraq does not believe it needs to debate this issue in the open, as they have already decided the proper course, but to dissuade controversy and the pressure of public opinion it is easier to "create" an enemy and then call anyone who disagrees a traitor.

When I mention WWII and its death toll, I only present the comparison of what real war casualties amount to compared to propagandistic wars; we will know we are in war real war when we our armies are attacked with the purpose of defeating our nation and having another country or group of countries impose their will on us.

I don't see a old man in a cave in Afghanistan as another Napolean, and I don't see how an army that has to steal domestic airliners to uses as bombs constitutes that much of a war threat.

Are terrorist real? Yes. But they could terrorize for the next 100 years and never do enough direct damage to the U.S. to cause any vast harm. Should we be opposing terrorists and terrorism? Absolutely.

But if the neocons believe that control of the middle east is critical to U.S. national security, important enough for war, then that should be debated openly and honestly instead of creating an army of hobgoblins that live in caves and fly planes into buildings if we don't kill them all, everywhere on earth, and then using the fear created by the ghosts of 9-11 to further their agenda.

[mike777]

If only the neocons...conned us into war ok
Where is the middle, where is the left? How many against Afghanistan in 2001? how many in 2007? I asked this before with no response, why are in a civil war in 2007 in afghanistan and yet no one, not one pres. candidate says pull out and pull out now? What do they know that we do not?

okokokok you guys think we are in a fake, phony, fabricated wWAR on terror.

Thank God we can have an election every 4 years for a new executive leader, if the current one sucks...errr is sick....

edit:

Next 100 years? errr...I am one the one that posts that some AI will be billions and billions of times greater in Int. than the entire human race by 2050 and trillions by 2100

[pbleighton]

Mike, do you deliberately confuse Iraq and Afghanistan, or are you merely confused?

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Mar 7 2007, 09:43 AM, said:

Mike, do you deliberately confuse Iraq and Afghanistan, or are you merely confused?

Peter

Ya I confuse easy, I thought this thread was called the middle east too.