i willhave a think

You’ve got your cause and effect in a twist. Perhaps the economy in Ireland started to bloom because, among other reasons, the violence decreased… At least your last line is correct.

but can’t even begin to fathom that others on this planet might react the same to the murder of their own.

Can’t speak for many here, but I do know Justin and I can quite adequately see the consequences of propaganda and guerrila insurgency actions on both the Iraqis and Palestinians.

What gets people’s goat is how I can advocate extreme measures, in their opinion, when understanding the consequences. Because it is only through understanding the consequences, can you ever realize the full effect of such actions as I advocate and the reason that they are necessary. Those who don’t understand the consequences, like anon, do not see the need at all except the need to call those who disagree with him, idiots.

Your points are well taken. Like you I’ve tried illuminating the “cause and effect” aspects of U.S. foreign policy, but these idiots just don’t get it.

What’s “funny” is Neo-neocon herself admits she was “radicalised”, if you will, by the events of 9/11, but can’t even begin to fathom that others on this planet might react the same to the murder of their own.

Idiots.

I am as disappointed at seeing Davids views portrayed as English.

I am NOT British or European and my ancestors fought for both those privaleges.

Most English people realise that it is Stoic aggression that wins conflict - making a decision to act and standing by it. Back down at your peril.

What will halt world terroism?

More people like the security guard who undoubtedly gave his life protecting others.

It is noble that someone chose to honor this man with a littany like this.

There were two countries Hitler didn’t want to fight. England & the USA.

Dragons both - Wake us at your peril.

Our local regiments history:
http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/sli/index.htm

I don’t usually read this blog so forgive me if I don’t reply.

Mr H

Of course, Talkin’s logic is A to B, A to C. Not A to B, to C.

You like the porn industry as much as you like the fast food industry?

The latter two industries, however, exist because people want them, and they provide something people want. If people didn’t want them, they wouldn’t exist.

And it really is a Marxist meme that it’s war profiteers who create wars; man has fought wars ever since he learned how to pick up rocks and bash others over the head with him—which happened long before there were any weapons manufacturers. Yes, weapons makers make money, but it’s hard to imagine them being successful in a completely pacifist society, just as it’s hard to imagine porn being popular in an asexual one.

My telepathic powers have given me great help in the past! I’m sure Neo, and the other female bloggers would agree! Telepathy is a girl’s best friend!

Neo has at times written the same subjects that Bookworm hath, or Dr Sanity has or Shrinkwrapped has. Either days apart or minutes.

Now we have Talkin refer to Condi in Brit, and low a behold Bookworm just wrote a post about it as well.

Link

The telepathic powers of women are undoubtedly very useful, I’m sure.

Compare this with Yon’s and Totten’s descriptions of Happy Sapppy and Grateful Kurds, showing Americans the kindness and respect we would expect if we were royalty, and thus being very uncomfortable with such special status.

He makes some remarks about how terrorism isn’t produced by poverty, that terrorism produces poverty itself.

You said it much better than I did—I salutes ya!

I do want to add just one thing: while there are too many poor people in the world, the fact is, it isn’t poor Filipinos, South Americans or Haitians flying airplanes into buildings, becoming homicide bombers or attacking schools and taking children hostage.

The age old argument to that is that the US is too powerful and we have too many hands in too many other people’s pies for us to govern ourselves by feat, and not the consent of other nations.

David’s long on suggestions but short on methods. I disagree with David’s unfounded assumption that the US arms industry “supports war,” although I certainly believe the US arms industry does a fine job of producing weapons – for which we can all be grateful, even perhaps David himself.

The Apache Helicopter and the F-16 are pretty popular exports.

1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life

It’s too bad the CIA’s latest attempt using psycho-kinesis to have Castro stumble on world wide tv and break his tv, didn’t work to kill him then.

I think david here needs to be careful about saying that stopping Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait did not help international order. Most people realize that having conquerors going around taking other people’s lands and women, isn’t Order, international or not.

Less guns and bombs would mean less death and destruction.

We don’t make Chinese RPGs, Russian Kalashnikovs, French fighter jets, or German bunkers.

When the Soviet Empire dissolved and their arms build up was sold to the world at military surplus prices, where was David here in calling a stop to it?

You can’t stop arms from being sold, unless you invade them and wreck their factories as punishment. Stopping arms from being sold just starts more wars. And the arms that are sold, will start even more wars. A chain reaction.

I don’t presume to recommend what the international solution would be in the future, but I can tell you what it is right now.

The Status Quo is complex yet straight forward. After the Cold War, the Soviets disintegrated. Russia sold their arms to Africa and the MidE, fueling the international arms trade and wars on the cheap. America was suffering from the shock and the surprise and the victory disease of winning the Cold War, without a nuke fired. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, America acted as if the Soviets were backing Saddam, trying to gain a world wide coalition as if the threat of nuclear annihilation was still on the border. Many people got onto the band wagon, because they wanted to be part of the winning side, and feared Saddam more than they hated the US. The 500,000 troops, was a Cold War formation of tanks and mechanized infantry, of prolonged air strikes and air superiority. America got their first taste of asymmetrical defeat at the close of the 20th century, in Somalia. The Lebanon barracks bombing, the bombing of the Cole, all signified a new Age. That age began on September 11, 2001.

Now, the status quo isn’t enough. America cannot act as if the Soviets are still around, trying to prevent nations from falling into their grasp, thereby maintaining the status quo of dictators and murderers in the MidE. And yet, the Soviet apparatus in the cold war did its work well, it fueled a belief that America was weak and that America was evil and to be hated. Islamic Jihad took up where the Soviets left off.

The only reason why any international law even exists, is because of the threat of the American military force. This was created in the Cold War days, the birthplace of the United Nations. Back then, the balance of powers was Soviet vs America. Now we have an imbalance, and people like Russia, France, China, Saudi, Syria, and Iran feel that there is an opportunity either to embarass the US or take power for themselves.

The Cold War was symmetrical, and therefore predictable. Nukes against nukes, army against army, nation against nation. But the conflict engendered on 9/11 is not symmetrical. It is not armies vs armies, it is civilians vs bombs, and suicide bombers vs children, and humvees vs ieds, and ieds vs mortars.

There were no models to predict this conflict’s end or beginning, those who thought so like the Generals Zinni and Co, are deluding themselves and us along with them.

I will speak in religions terms that most Americans would understand. Whether you believe we are nearing the End Times or not. I believe that this is a test of America. It is a test to see whether we are worthy of being the world’s lone superpower. If we are not, if we fail the test given unto us by God, of whatever denomination you believe in, then we shall forfeit our right to our power and thus lose it in reality soon.

If America loses, we’ll still be okay. But the world will have a new top dog, and it won’t be AMerica anymore. They will realize in time, too late for them, the difference between an American superpower and the hyperpowers of Russia and China and Iran. If they survive to see it.

3. And, speaking of America’s involvement in other countries—-why yes, we do get involved in other country’s affairs. So does England, as you pointed out. So does Red China. And I suspect we’re all pikers in the meddling department, compared to the amount of meddling, fomenting, tinkering, subverting, undermining the Soviet Union did in its heyday. So what? All countries try to influence each other, and work for their own advantage. Yes, we prefer governments that are friendly to us. China prefers governments that are friendly to it. India prefers governments that are friendly to India—and so on. This isn’t good. It isn’t evil. It’s a fact of life.

Yes, the US has interfered in other people’s politics, for a variety of reasons—one of which, of course, was to defend itself against the meddling of others, such as the aforementioned Soviet Union. In a world as dangerous as ours, if your neighbor’s going to get nukes, germ warfare, etc., you’d like that neighbor to be friendly, or, at least, not hostile.

And, any mistakes the US made, I regret. But regrets aren’t going to help us in the current conflict.

I don’t recall saying anything about the situation in Venezuela; I think that must have been a comment by Ymarsakar. The whole subject of the cold war, and America’s attempts to fight it—while keeping it “cold—are too long to go into here, and would take up too much of Neo’s bandwidth. I will say, however, that, given the cruelty and horror of communist regimes, the US was right in opposing them wherever they cropped up. Get hold of a copy of, “The Black Book of Communism.”

And, as far as overturning democracies—we let the Ayatollah take over in Iran (which was NOT a good thing for the American people); we let Hamas take over, despite the fact we DON’T think this is good! We let the Afghans vote in Shari’a law, though we didn’t think that was a good idea either.

(How am I wrong about Iran, by the way? Did the Ayatollah NOT get into a war with Iraq? Was that just something the press made up?)

4. No offense, David, but if you look at America and just see a bunch of rich white guys running thing, you really need to look harder. I could be snarky, and say that when we yanks look at England, we see a lot of rich, white, crooked, treasonous Marxists such as “Red” Ken Livingstone and Jack Straw running things—when they aren’t prancing around in leotards on T.V. shows (thought you Brits didn’t need TV!). We also see a lot of mad mullahs in the mosques over there, and calling for war against everybody, and encouraging more jihad attacks, which is, apparently, just peachy-keen-a-reeno with your government, since guys like “Red” Ken are always slobbering over them, in their defense.

But I won’t say that! All I will say is that a lot of unrealistic, Bob-worshipping Yanks are disgusted over the way you Brits treated Condaleeza Rice (black, female, from a poor background) when she was over there.

David, I’m afraid we’re going to have to simply agree to disagree on a lot of things. I think my view of world is a far more tragic one than yours; I don’t think humanity, or human societies, are ever going to perect, or run smoothly. There will always be friction, competition, and, yes, sometimes violence between human groups. The best way to handle that, I believe, is to face it; to resolve differences justly, and not to put too much power into the hands of one person, or one government entity (not even an international one). Trying to create Utopia, or schemes to end war forever, or poverty forever, or some evil forever, isn’t going to work, because human beings are their own worst enemies, and are never going to fit into some five-year plan somebody else comes up with for them.

I gather from your comments that you do have a strongly socialist, liberal/progressive mindset; and I know from hard experience I’m probably not going to change your mind—and you aren’t going to change mind.

Like I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

(Do read “Black Book of Communism” though; depressing, but fascinating!)

1. Eternal warfare? David, I’m not a fortune-teller, not a prophetess. I don’t know what the future holds. If America survives this present crisis, she might see a thousand years of peace—or she might be immediately attacked by China. I don’t support endless war, and I have no idea whether the next few decades are going to turn out peacefully or not.

What I do see is that America is at war now—and that it has been, ever since 9/11. We were attacked. Now. We either fight back, or we throw in the towel. I don’t like it, but there you are.

Again, turning the tables on you—what do you see as the solution to the current conflict? Endless diplomacy, that achieves nothing? Endless appeals to the UN, which will achieve nothing? More and more vague “encouragement” for warlike societies in the hopes that they’ll become less warlike? We know how that game always plays out; the local monarchial/mullah—King UBU will promise peace, democracy and the moon on a silver platter, and continue attacking his neighbors, supporting terrorists and being a pain in the ol’ yin’-yang to all civilized societies in the world. The UN will condemn Israel. Then it will scold the US for not sending UBU more money, and for being so cruel as to publicize the current UN leader’s involvement in the current UN scandal.

2. And, speaking of the UN, there’s a catch 22 here; if an international body of law has no power, it can’t enforce its dictates. The bad guys will simply laugh at it, and ignore it. If it’s too powerful, it can all too easily become a bad guy itself (and there won’t be anybody out there who can arrest it for its crimes—unless my hypothetical kindly aliens come, to save us earthlings).

Either way, I don’t see that International law is going to be much help.

There’s always the third alternative, of course (one the current UN uses); call upon a large, powerful country with a big army to go in and beat up the bad guys for it. In reality, this would work out in making America the world’s “cop”, carrying out the judgments of the UN—i.e., we’d still be meddling in other’s countries ways, but we’d be meddling for the UN, not for ourselves; and we’d probably be involved in more fighting than ever.

This doesn’t seem to me like a good solution.

(To be continued)

!. you are wrong about Iran

Try Wikipedia, or any half decent history book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Liek it or not the US has a long history of interfering in the running of other countries. So gas Britain

The problem with Venezuela is that Venezuela’s leader is unfriendly & also historically communist Central American leaders always seem to try to force communism into neighboring countries

So you can choose our leaders but other people can only choose those friendly to you. Oh and he isn’t a communist.

Have a think about the following list

US assassination plots to remove heads of state, some legitimate, some not, some brutal, others less so:

1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - Jos順igueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Ra?stro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caama񯬠Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d’Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)

Countries attacked by US since WW2:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
ElSalvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-present
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998-2002
Yugoslavia 1999

Now maybe all this is justified but it really hasn’t helped in establishing international law and order. And maybe this is theonly way to carry on as the UN or whoever will never be as powerful.

But I argue this is a recipe for chaos and misery.

I agree all my “encourage” statements are very vague. But for a start having an electoral system which only elects those who have millions of dollars might help. Th epoint is that you do enourage me my admitting that these kind of things , more law and democracy are needed.

But what better solutions do you offer? eternal warfare to defend american freedom and oil? And what happens when in this jungle other countries become more powerful and start trying to push america about? As i said the opposite of law is chaos.

America can encourage economic justice by altering the terms of trade. i suspect this will happen over time as the US economy, like Europe is based on a great deal of cheap imports the most important of which is oil. I would be surprised to see us maintaining such a clear economic superiority…we shall see.

And your faith in the arms industry is touching. Less guns and bombs would mean less death and destruction. Although i would imagine that in a gun enthusiastic place like America this is not a popular idea.

Obviously I know less than you about American politics partiularly at a grass roots level. But a cursory glance at the leadership shows a lot of very rich white men looking out for each other in running the place……It is the same here. This leads many people to feel the governement is distanced from them and that they have little input.

Meant to be brief. failed

will think more about things said

happy thursday

david

I wonder what country David is talking about. The last time I looked the legislative, executive & the judicial branches still ran America – all elected or appointed(with advise & consent) by the elected – all in accordance with the constitution.

Iran was a democracy until Britain and the US overthrew the government because they were going to nationalise the oil industry in the 1950’s. They put the shah in, who was a right bastard.

Here’s a piece of history David has wrong. Iran was never a democracy. The closest Iran ever got to a democracy was as a constitutional monarchy throughout the last shah’s rule. Iran was a monarchy before & during WW2 & remained a monarchy until 1979, when the Shah was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. And that Shah, the last Shah, took over the throne from his father during WW2(not the 1950’s) after the Allies found out his father was a Nazi sympathizer.

As far as the US was concerned nationalization of the Iranian oil industry was fine & remains fine. The US didn’t care then & doesn’t care now just who or what entity controls & sells the oil. Oil from nationalized industries costs the same as oil from private industry.

Re-establish the primacy of International Law. i.e. no more illegal occupations, condemn lunatic governments but on a democratic and consensual basis. if you are going to invade the model of gulf war one is far more effective than that of the mark 2 version. Accept governments that are democratically elected. Venezuela and Palestine.

Actually, US foreign policy is to “accept” all governments, as long as they are friendly & don’t try to screw the US. If the Palestinians would quit killing Americans & American allies I’m sure the US would “accept” Palestine. I wonder if David is aware that until the recent election of terrorists to the government the US gave a considerable amount of money to Palestine. Palestine would still be getting that money if Palestine would only stop with the terrorism. Before I comment on “illegal occupations” I’ll wait until David defines legal occupation.

The problem with Venezuela is that Venezuela’s leader is unfriendly & also historically communist Central American leaders always seem to try to force communism into neighboring countries.

I not much of a believer in “international law.” I trust domestic law & believe the US should be a nation of domestic law. We can’t have foreign entities dictating the policies of the US, now can we?

International economic justice. Half the world live on $2 or less and often a lot less. This creates a large group of poor and marginalised who are easy to spark into violent rebellion. The reason why, as you say, that Americans can live a soft live ii sthat much of your work is being done for you by poor people all over the world. Allow these groups of people to become richer and they will be much less likely to feel a need to fight. It is no accident that troubles in Ireland started to ease when the economy started to bloom. Economic growth is rarely encouraged by warfare. Especially the drawn out asymmetrical kind we have now.

I’m not sure what David means by “economic justice.” Or … maybe I do. I do agree with David that poverty is not good but unlike David I believe the US has no power to “allow” or disallow any group of people to become richer or poorer, short of giving them money to make them richer – such factors being due I think mainly to the competitive abilities of those groups, whether those groups are able to avoid internal & external strife, the education systems, social customs & a host of other causes that have little to do the permission of the US. Banalities such as “economic growth is rarely encouraged by warfare” can’t be rebutted. It’s like stating that plant growth is rarely encouraged by drought.

Discourage the concentration of the mass media into the hands of a small group of wealthy people who have their own agenda. The internet is certainly helping here.

Fine. I don’t like the idea of “mass media” in the hands of a small group, either. But how to “discourage”? Stronger anti-trust laws? Nationalization of all media? David doesn’t give us a clue. In the American form of democracy the “media” is a business like every other kind of business & such parts of the “media” that are privately owned could only be owned by “wealthy people,” it being nonsensical to think media-type businesses would be owned by poor individuals. I suppose we could consider public corporations, which is what most “media” are, as a “concentration” of the middleclass, which is what most investors are. Agenda? I have an agenda & I’m sure David has an agenda. Probably the investors in the Disney Corporation have an agenda. In fact, I think most folks have some sort of agenda, the wealthy being no exception.

Discourage the concentration of power into the hands of small elites and encourage democracy and the rule of law.

Discourage how? Here again, David is bashful as to his method(s) of discouragement. I heartily agree that encouraging democracy & rule of law is always worthwhile.

limit the power of an arms industry that has such a clear incentive to support war because it makes such large profits.

David’s long on suggestions but short on methods. I disagree with David’s unfounded assumption that the US arms industry “supports war,” although I certainly believe the US arms industry does a fine job of producing weapons – for which we can all be grateful, even perhaps David himself.

Suggestions 6, 7 & 8 are mostly generalities: “engage with those who you disagree … at some point these things have to be put in the past … live in the real world.” Meaningful debate would require more specificity.

To David, Justin was saying that German did not make terroist attacks, which is why we should not treat Palestine and Iran like we treated Germany, however you think we treated Germany.

Although the end point is still curious. Germany was pacified by American occupation forces, that prevented Soviet forces from conquering Western Europe. Why was the occupation of Germany “legal”, assuming david thinks it is, and the occupation of Iraq illegal? Hrm.

Well, I’m afraid you’ve got me at a bit of a loss. When I wrote that, I thought you were saying the US was like Europe, and the middle east like Germany, based on the fact that Germany ended up being dominated by the allies, and England was the (or rather, a part of the) overlord, as that seemed the way to best approximate reality using your metaphors (in an apples-to-oranges kind of way, as my comment satirically illustrates). Looking at your response, I’m no longer sure that was correct (nor am I sure that you meant the opposite, as I have even more trouble making that metaphor relevant to modern day). So, I’m afraid I’m gonna have to let you explain exactly which metaphor you were using (and, more importantly, how it is at all analogous to our present situation).

Palestine is very odd. It was a Britsh mandated territory until the UN! Created Israel in 1948. Jordan was meant to be for the Arabs and Israel for the Jews. It didn’t work and the Arabs immediately attacked the Jews who won and drove all of the Arabs out of Israel into the refugee camps that are still about, Both sides made great claims to be the majority and to have been there for ever. In fact they were both very diverse groups and it appears to be difficult to be certain about numbers before 1948.

It’s amusing how you managed to cite that, and didn’t manage to put together that that’s exactly what I referred to in my responses to #1 (disregarding my point about Iran pursuing nuclear proliferation despite UN orders). What can following international law do to cause an opponent that has never followed international law to suddenly do so? Perhaps if it was something as simple as a (nonviolent, if emotional) rivalry between two countries, an olive branch and some free trust would be in order.

The point is that, in this case we have a number of nations officially refusing to acknowledge international law, and by doing so seek the completely annihilation of a country that has every right to exist by said international law. How exactly would us changing how we do business now change how they’ve been doing business long before Iraq, long before Afghanistan, even before the Iranian coup? If terrorism is supposed to be reactionary to western grievances, why then does the very culture that gave birth to the terrorism we see today (and continues to this day) precede those very grievances? What can your messianic brain offer us to stop something that I’d wager has been around a lot longer than that very brain (here I’m wagering on your age, not on how long this has been going on)?

Okay, I think that’s enough rambling. You have yet to respond to my #4 and #8, in addition to the previously mentioned two, but you could combine those into replies to TalkinKamel.

You can make fun of people weaker than you are, and suffer little consequence because of your strength (French cheese eating surrender monkies). But you’re not stronger than either me or the Islamic fanatics, david. So becareful what you do.

Because in the end, the Brits do not know who they provoke. They have not learned now as they did not learn it back in the American Revolution. They did not understand Honor and Duty, and however twisted the Muslims are, honor and duty are things they live and die and kill and mutilitate by. Insulting and making fun of Muslims is not an “entertainment” as david making fun of me is. Because unlike I, the Muslims will kill and eviscerate you.

If david and his Brit compatriots understood to what extent they were sealing their doom, they might not deserve their just rewards, but it seems they do not.

Can you imagine if the heap of abuse david puts upon me is multiplied 50X for Muslim children made fun of by equally childish British children of the ton and lower classes?

Horrendous social conflict. I tell you david, step away from the brink of oblivion, for America shall not pull you from it with the blood of our patriots should you fall over into it. Fair warning.

And I do think allowing each country to rule itself is preferrable to that—or to the organized thuggery of the UN.

(Also, there’s still the problem of “Who watches the Watchmen?” When those in charge of international law become lawless themselves, who’se going to arrest them? They’ll control the armies, the judges, the international courts. Our only hope would be that some kindly extraterrestrials would take pity on us, and come to our aid—either that, or an armed rebellion, in which we might well be outgunned and outnumbered).

However bad the Shah may have been, the Ayatollah was much worse—and much more dangerous to the world at large (the Iran/Iraq war killed more Moslems than the Israeli wars ever have) And as far as I’m aware, Iraqi oil is still in the hands of Iraq; it hasn’t become the property of the US.

Before becoming part of the British empire, the Holy Land was part of the Ottoman empire—and not a very important, or influential part at that. In fact, according to contemporary travelers’ accounts, it had been allowed to slide into poverty and disrepair.

The Moslem world, as a whole, sits on a great deal of wealth; trust me, if the Saudis really wanted to end the refugee camps, they could afford to bring the Palestinians into their own land, give them homes and educate them to do the jobs they’re now importing Filipinos and Asians to perform. Dubai, Bahrain, the Arab Emirates are also rich—rich enough to aid their poorer Moslem brethren. Instead, they prefer to use them as a weapon against the hated West, and those uppity Jews whose very existence they see as an insuly. They’re keeping their people poor, and encouraging them to hate Israel and the West, so they won’t go around fomenting any revolutions against them.

A lot of Islamic jihadists are rapists. To suggest that they’d take me, is somehow suggesting that this means I have high morality… hrm. As much as you fling out the personal attacks, you don’t even think them through to the logical end. *shakes head*

I hope everyone realizes how much the damage the “Brits” did to the world. Iran, Palestine. They left the mess to be cleaned up by us, now they don’t like how we clean it up. Hrm. Not very grateful, are they.

The UN has its problems but can you see a better option?

Ya, it’s called American Imperium and American justice. As someone’s “link” here said. America doesn’t need to invade everyone to be an Empire, we conquer politicaly culturally with no military force at all. It may even have been your link, david.

Some of the terrorist leaders are very rich but the bulk of fighters on the ground are very poor.

Moussie’s family and his suicide bombing compatriots were rich enough to be sent to the US. Maybe you need to get your head out of the sand on this topic, for once.

If you understood 1/5th of the US Constitution, you’d have understood that the point is to divide power so that it balances each other out, which allows concentrations of power never before seen in the history of the human race. Even your human race, david.

The Brits have entertainment personal attacks and character assassination. They deserve the real violence and personal assassination their Muslim slaves will bring onto them. I just worry about all those nuclear weapons in EUrope, we should perhaps disarm the UK and France of nukes now, before they get taken by Islamic Jihad in 10 years.

1 . Ymarsakar you are all those things, except a rapist cos I never said that. You need to have a big look at your head.

2. Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) (isnt that quantum? Oh hum, well you need to learn some history.

Iran was a democracy until Britain and the US overthrew the government because they were going to nationalise the oil industry in the 1950’s. They put the shah in, who was a right bastard. Under the Shah the rich did what they wanted and the poor got pissed off. It was finally so appalling that a bigger bastard overthrew him and we have the mess we have now.

Palestine is very odd. It was a Britsh mandated territory until the UN! Created Israel in 1948. Jordan was meant to be for the Arabs and Israel for the Jews. It didn’t work and the Arabs immediately attacked the Jews who won and drove all of the Arabs out of Israel into the refugee camps that are still about, Both sides made great claims to be the majority and to have been there for ever. In fact they were both very diverse groups and it appears to be difficult to be certain about numbers before 1948.
Try this zionist site, http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_history.htm but you can guess that the Palestinians might differ

Germany has never used terrorist action after 1945. The western half did its best to be a western democratic state and forget that it had just build an industry to urder jewish (and other) people. The east concentrated on being a nasty little police state with a strange double standard about the death camps.

And as for the rest well, the opposite of international law is international chaos. The UN has its problems but can you see a better option? Apart from the everybody kill each other one….oh or America invade everywhere.

Some of the terrorist leaders are very rich but the bulk of fighters on the ground are very poor. Often from the camps created at the same time as Israel.

I thought the idea of the US Constitution was to aviod the concentration of power, so why has it been allowed to happen? It’s a pretty small group running the US

TalkinKamel, lots of great arguments that i am going to have to think about.
Right that is enough for now…back for more later

Thanks for the entertainment

Heh, thanks for explaining about David’s G-d thing! (You don’t seem like a religious fanatic to me).

I find your words about America, and her people, inspiring.

I’m a girl camel, and always have been. And my better half doesn’t help me post; I do it all on my own.

I was, however, raised by a highly intelligent, literate father (Aside to Neo; Neo, he’d've loved your poetry posts), and an older brother, who was like a second father to me. From them I learned to talk politics, literature, art, movies, science, science fiction, history—essentially, guy stuff. They taught me to reason, question, and appreciate what’s really excellent.

On those rare occasions when I find myself in an all female group, and they start chattering about sewing, patterns, knitting and handicrafts, I sweat, turn pale and start edging towards the door (no offense to my female friends, or any female posters here; it’s just that I can only take “girly” conversation in small doses).

Glad you enjoyed my wisecracks about the UN. Unfortunately, they’re all too close to the truth. . .

Bezuhov

:>)

Yes, it does appear that the reason our “allies” didn’t want to come in with us against Saddam is that they were afraid of losing all that lovely oil revenue.

Ever since 9/11, a lot of rocks are being lifted, and the creepy-crawly stuff beneath is being revealed. . .

You trying to insult me by saying I’m not nice? I’m a very nice a person, I’d have you know.

Talkin, david perhaps thought up God and just free formed wrote it because I brought up my religious beliefs. He is infering that I am a religious fanatic, not you ; ) It’s funny too, cause Neo just wrote a new post about the failure of Christianity in Euro land.

I have also have had my doubts about the American system. I was as scared as anyone, to face such an indomitable and formidable foe as Islamic suicide bombers. The media kept carping on about “how do we stop people who are willing to die for their beliefs”. My answer after years of doubt and hesitation and lack of confidence? There is a truer belief system, and a more stronger and righteous one, right here in America, that is just as worthy if not more so, of people dieing for. Public Schools don’t really teach that. And as I’ve seen given my renewed study of American and World History, that strength has always been there and continues to be there. I’ve just been too blind to see it, as I was growing up. A lot of Americans are, in fact. But then again, a lot of Americans aren’t as well.

My strength is as the strength of 10, when my heart is pure. And when I know my strength is part of a greater strength, relying upon other Americans. To do their jobs, to honor their oaths, to pursue their duties and desires. All Americans felt this sense of community and nationalism after 9/11, but I only felt this after I had intellectualized it by understanding it. And that is why I, part of a minority, can keep and hold this emotion by sustaining it. The American military faces risks and dangers, and they do so willing and eagerly. Why? Because they know that even if they were to die, America the Nation would protect their blood family, their wives and their children, in their place. They know that they are not alone when fighting, that the entire nation is behind them, and that we would have to die in the hundreds of millions for terroists to harm their families with any degree of ease. Iraqis did not have this sense of unity and loyalty and duty. They have to do their jobs as police and as national guardsmen, with the knowledge that at any time the terroists can strike at their families, killing, mutilating, raping, dismembering, or kidnapping. A nation is built upon trust. And America would not be the most powerful nation in the history of the human race, were ordinary Americans distrustful of the honor and the loyalty of each other. We would not deserve such power, if we were as fragmented as Europe and France.

Who really understands Iraqis? The fake liberals in this thread, or the noble men and women of the United States of America?

The core strength of America is beyond anything I can make or unmake, although I perhaps hope I may contribute some small amount of support. It is the existence of people, that if anything, makes me “right”. When I see self mobilized Minutemen, self mobilized guardians of military families at funerals for their loved ones lost in war, I cannot help but be confident. To be anything else, would be dishonoring the sacrifices of All Those That Died in the belief that We Would Stand against the enemies of their loved ones if they were to fall in battle and be unable to. And that, I literally, physically, Can Not do. There are some things greater than simple willpower. I do not believe I want to see the day when my will is powerful enough to overwhelm my personal integrity, for that day is the day I lose.

Talkin, the European Union is a dictator’s dream come true. Perhaps one reason why not a lot of Brits like being inside the EU.

Yet they would love to see America inside the UN, a powerless child being abused for the entertainment of our enemies.

Your succinct description of the Un’s modus operandi, is very accurate and amusing ; )

Sorry, but neither America, nor any other prosperous country, is responsible for the rest of the world’s poverty.

Hrm, I was mistaken. I had thought you were a man. Could still be right of course, we do live in the enlightened age of maximum human potential ; ), but usually I don’t tend to think of a woman as speaking as you do. Your writing style, not your positions. It’s weird, your mind gives you this mental voice as you read, and it is either feminine and masculine, and you can’t consciously choose unless you realize you’re wrong. Weird sensation. Because if I read a person’s writing and I assign a masculine voice, then it sounds totally different than if I reread it and assigned it a feminine voice. The voice tones are totally dissimilar.

If the Palestinians had actually used all the bazillions of dollars we, and Europe, sent them, they could have wonderful villages, hospitals, universities to rival any in the world.

ya if you download google earth and zoom in on the Wall separating israel and Palestine, you’ll see like the West side is like green with farms and plots, while the east side is like terrain and tenements. Hrm. As if here civilization is, across the wall, is the barbarian lands.

I’m thinking talkin is an account used by both the wife and husband… 30% chance perhaps.

Okay, after doing some reseach, I’m confident that there is a 90% chance of certainty that Talkin is female and has always been female. That was just for my own personal consistency, of course.

Now that I have played the odds and gamed the system, I can now stop talking about the subject and making a fool of myself. Consider yourself warned.

Feeding frenzy on Ymar is opened up, start your attack runs! Audacity, Audacity, and more Audacity. Come on you sons of bees, attack, do you want to live forever?

Less, rather. Nice guys finish last, especially in the Middle East.

The expectation that there was a Gulf War I alliance to be had does not fit the facts (Oil-for-food, various illicit deals between Saddam and our “allies”) that were uncovered by the invasion. That they were only uncovered post-invasion explains why our allies were so reluctant to join an alliance in the first place.

I would support a replacement for the UN consisting of only democracies.

While our politicians seem deplorably weak and weasling, I hope you are right about ordinary Americans; certainly your views correspond with what I see of average Americans, day to day!

While I’m sometimes depressed, and tempted by defeatism, I certainly hope that you are right on these issues, and I am dead wrong.

4. What “Social Elites”, living in which countries? How are we to “discourage” them? What if they refuse to be “discouraged”? Are we supposed to go to war against them? I thought you didn’t want America to do that! As for encouraging rule of law and democracy—aren’t we doing that in Iraq?

(And, again, what if others don’t want rule of law and/or democracy? What if they’re happy with their democratically elected whack-job ruler, who’se working on getting nukes? How are we supposed to discourage them, short of getting nasty?)

6. We have given lots of trade and help to the Saudis. We do support Israel, but we have also sent billions in aid to many Moslem countries, such as Egypt, etc. We aided Afghanistan when it was invaded by Russia. We saved Bosnian Moslems in the chaos that was once Yugoslavia, when Europe, and the UN, stood around with their fingers stuck in their mouths. We saved Palestinians during Black September. Clinton invited that rat Arafat to the White House. Saudi visitors continue to pour into the US, despite 9/11.

How much nicer do we have to be?

And Germany and Japan are now accepted because they’re no longer waging Blitzkriegs, or invading China—in short, because they were beaten in war, and are now behaving themselves. I’m all for letting by-gones be by-gones—when they’ve actually gone by, not while they’re still ongoing.

8. Yes, the real world is complicated. Wishful thinking, platitudes about “understanding” and Marxist cliches aren’t going to help us. We’ve tried all that. Doesn’t work. And why are you suddenly bringing G-d into this? At what point has anybody here blamed G-d, for anything? I thought we were blaming A. The Terrorists, and B. Western appeasement in the face of aggression.

Are you trying to infer that we’re all religious fanatics, who want war because we see it as some sort of harbinger of the end times? If you are, you’re very wrong—not only about us, but about even most fundamentalist American Christians (who really don’t have such beliefs).

After all—we aren’t the ones waiting for the 12th Imam. If you’re concerned about religious fanaticism, don’t worry about the Christian variety.