# They shoot children, don't they?



## Zhukov

> They shoot children, don't they?
> Dennis Prager (archive)
> 
> 
> September 7, 2004
> 
> According to The New York Times, when the terrorists took over the Russian elementary school, they shouted "Allahu akbar" ("Allah is the greatest").
> 
> Does this surprise you, dear reader? Does it shock you that the people who deliberately attacked a school and then systematically shot and blew up little children did so in the name of Islam?
> 
> Unfortunately, the question is rhetorical. Having targeted little children for death, there is no atrocity, no barbarity, no act of evil that the human race cannot imagine fanatical Muslims committing.
> 
> We have already become almost inured to:
> 
> The slaughtering of innocent human beings as if they were animals while chanting Muslim prayers.
> 
> The reintroduction of black slavery and genocide against blacks.
> 
> The murder of daughters and sisters for imagined or real sexual behavior.
> 
> The stoning of women accused of adultery.
> 
> The burning of Hindu temples and Christian churches, and the destruction of among the greatest Buddhist sculptures.
> 
> The ban on women driving cars or learning to read.
> 
> The idolization of young men who blow themselves up while murdering and maiming innocent non-Muslims -- and the theology of sexual rewards in heaven for doing so.
> 
> These are some of the atrocities being committed by Muslims in different parts of the world today.
> 
> It is, of course, only a minority of Muslims that engages in such horrors, but it is only Muslims who are doing all these things. Christians aren't -- even among Palestinians, there are no Christian terrorists. Jews aren't -- and when one Jew did deliberately kill innocent Palestinians in 1994, the rest of the Jewish world was horrified and demonstrated its revulsion in word and deed. Buddhists aren't -- despite the destruction of Tibet by the Chinese Communists, no Buddhists have murdered innocent Chinese, let alone non-Chinese who deal with China.
> 
> With the psychopathic cruelty at a Russian elementary school, have we reached the point where people of goodwill can ask serious questions about Muslims and Islam? Or are any challenging questions still to be dismissed as "Muslim bashing" or, even more absurdly, "racist," as if religion were a race?
> 
> The truth is that everyone with a conscience has questions about Muslims and Islam. But the most powerful religion in America, the religion of tolerance, has rendered it almost impossible to ask any such questions. Most people are so afraid of being branded intolerant that the most natural and goodhearted questions are only posed by the handful who have the courage to do so (usually conservative Christians).
> 
> But good Muslims should welcome fair questions and not dismiss them as manifestations of bigotry. Most Americans have no a priori view of Islam. As far as they are concerned, it is one more religion that its practitioners ought to be able to practice in peace just as the members of every other faith in America do.
> 
> I know I have questions, and I know they come from a non-prejudiced place. And I can back up this claim.
> 
> Between 1982 and 1992, I moderated an extremely popular weekly radio show in Los Angeles on ABC radio. It featured a Roman Catholic priest, a Protestant minister and a rabbi. Beginning about 1987, I regularly invited Muslim representatives, marking the first time that Muslims were given such wide exposure on mainstream American radio or television. I developed such a good rapport with the Muslim community and its leaders that I was repeatedly invited to speak at the Islamic Center of Southern California, one of the largest and most prestigious institutions and mosques in the country.
> 
> And I in turn invited Muslim leaders to speak before major Jewish institutions.
> 
> Given this background, it is with the greatest sadness that I feel compelled to ask two questions:
> 
> First, is there anything in Islam or in the way Islam is now taught and practiced that dulls the conscience and thereby enables many religious Muslims to engage in or support atrocities that other groups, religious and secular, find inconceivable?
> 
> Second, the laudable condemnations of Islamic terror made by the Islamic Center notwithstanding, why are there virtually no public demonstrations of Muslims against the unspeakable evils committed by its adherents?
> 
> And while posing questions, here are two for liberals: Why are almost the only people asking these questions aloud conservative and religious? Where are you when it comes to acknowledging evil?
> 
> Yes, some people do shoot children, and good people have a right to ask why.



http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040907.shtml


----------



## Arabian

Really am so sorry for what happened in Russia, and am sure that all Muslims allover the world who really believe in Allah is terribly sorry for that 
And I gonna give you a verse for what angel said to Allah when Allah intended to create a the mankind

002. Al-Baqarah
30. And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth." They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks (Exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You." He (Allâh) said: "I know that which you do not know."




I wanna say that it&#8217;s the life if there are no bad people you will never know the good guys
And I wanna say that those people who kill others her blood is effused in Islam as Allah says
Sura 025. Al-Furqân   verse 68

68. And those who invoke not any other ilâh (god) along with Allâh, nor kill such life as Allâh has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment

So In Islam those people is the least not the most and aren't admitted in Islam and in a period of time there were somekind of them in Egypt but our government arrested them all and we have never heard about them after that 

As I said we don admit them , but why we don&#8217;t shame the admitted government who humiliate and don&#8217;t admit with the war laws like what Russia did in the
 Bosnia-Herzegovinia while their attacks on it 
And what do America do with Iraq prisoners and what happen in Jamaica prisons and what Israel do with the Palestinians prisoners (its a whole governments admitted by the whole world)
Is that mean that people only live in big countries and other countries children should be dead is that what they call equality or democracy 
Is the destruction for whole country including children live in it, called war against terrorism? 
Or it is just a mask to serve their needs 

And at the end I am really so sorry for those innocent children I know that sorry isn&#8217;t enough but what else can I do


----------



## liberal4now

What do you think Bush is doing in Iraq?  Shooting children.


----------



## Arabian

liberal4now said:
			
		

> What do you think Bush is doing in Iraq?  Shooting children.



dear liberal4now
let me ask you 
when he make an attack with plan , did this attack distinguish between children and old man 
when they take your father from your home without any reason will you be happy or feel safty , what feeling would you have towards these people 
and is a matter of children only, are the childrens who only have rights, and others don't and over that we all once were childrens
on the other hand 
after he arrested saddam what else he want????????


----------



## Zhukov

arabian said:
			
		

> And what do America do with Iraq prisoners



You have equated intentionally shooting children in the back of the head with sexually humiliating grown men.  

Why?  To divert attention away from the atrocities committed in your religion's name I suspect.  You do a great diservice to your religion, and are unfortunately very representative of it.  No condemnation.  Only thin words of sympathy and more excuses.





			
				troll said:
			
		

> What do you think Bush is doing in Iraq? Shooting children.



Do please provide proof that Pres. Bush is in Iraq executing children.  I would love to see it.


----------



## Arabian

Zhukov said:
			
		

> You have equated intentionally shooting children in the back of the head with sexually humiliating grown men.
> 
> Why?  To divert attention away from the atrocities committed in your religion's name I suspect.  You do a great diservice to your religion, and are unfortunately very representative of it.  No condemnation.  Only thin words of sympathy and more excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do please provide proof that Pres. Bush is in Iraq executing children.  I would love to see it.



ohh man 
i said that im sorry for those children and i imgine if those were mine i may will go crazy im really so sorry for them and i really dont agree with those people who did so 
all i said is that they are least not most and they aren't addmitted by any country, and if that happened in any muslim countries and arrested they will be executed for their acts we don't courage the terrorism and arab aren't terrorists if some terrorists live in a country is that mean that the whole country is terrorists 
and all what i said that when they attacked al iraq with the forced plane they didnt ditinguish if they are shooting childrens or old guys 
even if they shoot elders or adults, dont they have the right to live their life 
those chidren in russia have their dreams they wished to make it true 
and those also who live in iraq and afghanestan and Bosnia-Herzegovinia. 
who lost their family had also their dreams to live in their own country with their family without any fear ,live in free country with their family


----------



## wade

About the original post:  I'd point out it was the Jews (Zionists actually) that invented modern terrorism when the bombed the Jeruslem Hotel way back in the 50's.  And yes, childeren were amoung the over 90 deaths and twice that number of wounded.

As far as "Bush" killing children in Iraq, I'm sure some have died as a result of US action.  But the US has done everything possible to avoid civilain causalties.  There is a huge difference between targeting children specifically and the unfortunatel loss of innocent life that is inevitable in war.  The US is not carpet bombing civilian areas like the Russians in Chechnya.  I think the charge that "Bush is shooting children in the back" is ludicrous!

Finally, I'd point out that while some of the terrorists in the Russian school attack were moslim, evidently not all were.  This is about more than religious fanatiscism - it's about revenge for Russian atrocities in Chechnya which are virtually ingnored, and therefore effectively condoned, by the West.

Wade.


----------



## dumphauler

wade said:
			
		

> .  This is about more than religious fanatiscism - it's about revenge for Russian atrocities in Chechnya which are virtually ingnored, and therefore effectively condoned, by the West.
> 
> Wade.



That's it , rite on the head!


----------



## padisha emperor

*Zhukov*


> Do please provide proof that Pres. Bush is in Iraq executing children. I would love to see it.



you are clever, you know what he meant.

This war was lead by Bush orders, so he may be consider as the responsable of the "collateral dammages".

You know, Napoleon was consider after Waterloo as a danger for international paece and as a war criminal......
And he did'nt make worst than Bush....


----------



## Zhukov

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> And he did'nt make worst than Bush....



Not entirely sure what you meant by that.  But if you consider trying to conquer all of Europe for your personal aggrandizement _better_ than what we have going on today, I question your judgement in such matters.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

liberal4now said:
			
		

> What do you think Bush is doing in Iraq?  Shooting children.




Your level of thought is that of a child.  You need to see beyond the fashionableness of hating america.  We stopped the nazis.  The communists.  Now 're stopping world terrorism, and all you do is bitch and moan like a child.


----------



## padisha emperor

> Not entirely sure what you meant by that. But if you consider trying to conquer all of Europe for your personal aggrandizement better than what we have going on today, I question your judgement in such matters.





No, I was not speaking of that 

this was his problem. 
War was in Europa before and after him, so if he was punish as a war criminal for it, it is stupid. George III, Louis XIV and Louis XV wanted to conquer the world 

He was condamned because he was occupating several countries.....like Bush - only one, but with the same situation for him like Napoleon in Spain, that's not a good point for W. )


----------



## Zhukov

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> He was condamned because he was occupating several countries



No he was condemned first and foremost because he lost.

He lost because he waged war not for protection or defense, but because of desire and ambition.  He waged war against Russia, for instance, for no other reason than because he thought he could win.


----------



## padisha emperor

> No he was condemned first and foremost because he lost.
> 
> He lost because he waged war not for protection or defense, but because of desire and ambition. He waged war against Russia, for instance, for no other reason than because he thought he could win.



If all the looser of wars at this time and before have been condemned AS WAR CRIMINAL.......such lot of people in jails !
Condemned, yes, but as a war criminal, maybe not.
That was I meant


the origin of the napoleonic wars are with the war of thr French revolution : France wass under attack, France defended itself. France won, and the prussian and austrian invasion failed.
After, France did war in Italy to fight Austria, who was a threat for France. France did war in Egypt to prejudice England's interests.
Again war in Italy against Austria, for the same reason than during the first Italy campain.

You know, France at this time was threat by : England, of course, Prussia, Russia and Austria - for the mightiest - .

France attack Russia because England said to Russia that Napoleon was a danger, and Russia break the Peace of Tilsit (1808).

Napoleon go in Russia, win in Borodino, near Moscow, and made his entrance his Moscow. bad luck, the city burned. (probably the Russians).
And after, you know the end : an awful winter : Napoleon was not defeat by Koutouzov, but by the Winter.


In fact, the idea to take Napoleon for a comparaison was not a good idea...you misunderstand all my message ( I think you do it on purpose..    )

Bush, the new Torquemada : against the no christians, with the help of God, fighting muslims.


----------



## Zhukov

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Napoleon go in Russia, win in Borodino



Well....that's debateable.  Napoleon was certainly in possesion of the field at the end of the day, but at what cost?

I disagree with your assesment of the motivation for events that occured after 1798, but we've diverged from the point.



What would you have our President do?

This has been going on for about 1500 years, this fighting between the christians and the moslems.  But with respect to the fatalities among the innocent whats important is *intent*.

If Pres. Bush could snap his fingers and make every Islamofascist die and thus avoid unnecessary deaths don't you think he would?  Or do you believe he doesn't care about (or perhaps enjoys?) the deaths of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Should Churchill have been tried as a war criminal for carpet bombing civilian targets?  How about de Gaulle after the French naval bombardment at Haiphong?

What was their intent?  What was their goal?

Now lets examine the other side.  If the Islamofascists could snap their finger and kill every non-moslem man, woman, and child in the USA don't you think they would?  Or are they just all talk, and really very nice people?

It's unfortunate and tragic when any innocent person dies and one can only hope some good will come of it.


----------



## wade

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Now lets examine the other side.  If the Islamofascists could snap their finger and kill every non-moslem man, woman, and child in the USA don't you think they would?  Or are they just all talk, and really very nice people?



Oh, I think if the NeoCon's could just snap their fingers and every moslem man, woman, and child in the World would vanish they'd do it in a heart-beat.  A lot of other groups as well.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> Oh, I think if the NeoCon's could just snap their fingers and every moslem man, woman, and child in the World would vanish they'd do it in a heart-beat.  A lot of other groups as well.
> 
> Wade.



IT's democrats who want to leave all the various brown people of the world out of the world economy with their idiotic economic protectionism.  Reconcile that one, UberNinny.


----------



## Zhukov

wade said:
			
		

> Oh, I think if the NeoCon's could just snap their fingers and every moslem man, woman, and child in the World would vanish they'd do it in a heart-beat.  A lot of other groups as well.



I doubt it.

For the islamofascists we have their word on it.

For the 'NeoCons' there is nothing to support that.

In fact the current Head NeoCon has his finger on a button that could do just that, and yet he hasn't.  Do you have an explanation for that?


----------



## liberal4now

"Your level of thought is that of a child. You need to see beyond the fashionableness of hating america. We stopped the nazis. The communists. Now 're stopping world terrorism, and all you do is bitch and moan like a child."

No, your level of thinking is like that of a child.  The bush admin. is making terrorism worse.  Look at what is happening in Iraq.  Everyday there are car bombings, people are dying.  The situation in Iraq is not getting better.  It is getting worse.  Terrorism is not going away.  Even the mighty bush man can't win the war on terrorism.  The moron said so himself and then later retracted  it.


----------



## Avatar4321

liberal4now said:
			
		

> "Your level of thought is that of a child. You need to see beyond the fashionableness of hating america. We stopped the nazis. The communists. Now 're stopping world terrorism, and all you do is bitch and moan like a child."
> 
> No, your level of thinking is like that of a child.  The bush admin. is making terrorism worse.  Look at what is happening in Iraq.  Everyday there are car bombings, people are dying.  The situation in Iraq is not getting better.  It is getting worse.  Terrorism is not going away.  Even the mighty bush man can't win the war on terrorism.  The moron said so himself and then later retracted  it.



Sighs, Please explain how killing terrorists makes it worse? How is the world worse off when 3/4ths of known Al Queda leadership is dead or captured?


----------



## wade

Avatar4321 said:
			
		

> Sighs, Please explain how killing terrorists makes it worse? How is the world worse off when 3/4ths of known Al Queda leadership is dead or captured?



Because the way it's being done, for every terrorist killed 3 spring up to replace them.


----------



## padisha emperor

yes.
hate calls hate. If the terrorists see that US kill everybody, theu would be more and more agressive.
it was i mean in my message about the USA and muslim world : a peaceful politic is the key, or at least not a such violent politic. If USA, instaed of making war, try to be cxonciliant with the arabian world, the terrorists would not have support from the arabian countries. And they would be more weak.
Terorists enjoy when US kill people. They want to die for Islam - their Islam, not the true one - . They want to become martyrs.
So Bush put the U army in hell. 

You know that when you kill terrorists, it make them strongest, because they become martyrs for the others.
It is a vicious circle.




> How about de Gaulle after the French naval bombardment at Haiphong?


it was not him : he leave politic the 01/20/1946, and return to it in 1958.
Haiphong is in march 1946 - began the 6th -


----------



## CSM

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> yes.
> hate calls hate. If the terrorists see that US kill everybody, theu would be more and more agressive.
> it was i mean in my message about the USA and muslim world : a peaceful politic is the key, or at least not a such violent politic. If USA, instaed of making war, try to be cxonciliant with the arabian world, the terrorists would not have support from the arabian countries. And they would be more weak.
> Terorists enjoy when US kill people. They want to die for Islam - their Islam, not the true one - . They want to become martyrs.
> So Bush put the U army in hell.
> 
> You know that when you kill terrorists, it make them strongest, because they become martyrs for the others.
> It is a vicious circle.
> 
> 
> 
> it was not him : he leave politic the 01/20/1946, and return to it in 1958.
> Haiphong is in march 1946 - began the 6th -




Hate breeds hate, you are correct. The terrorists found that out when they attacked the United States; not once, but many times. It took 3000 deaths in one of our major cities to incite the American people but Al Qaeda managed to do it.

If peaceful politics is the key, how come the terrorists didn't cease and dessit before we went after them? Why did they plot this horrific attack on the great city of New York? The United States has tried the "peaceful coexistence"  route before and it has always ended with the US regretting having waited to take action.


----------



## Avatar4321

wade said:
			
		

> Because the way it's being done, for every terrorist killed 3 spring up to replace them.



I would love to know where you are getting your statistics. If you are somehow informed on Al Queda's recruitment numbers, you should inform the Department of Defense and those numbers will quickly be depleted.

I have a feeling however, that you have nothing but rhetoric to support your view. Besides which i think you need to come up with a pretty compelling argument why people are upset with the United States action to execute men whos trap bombs to children and behead civilians. Quite frankly im inclined to believe that killing these evil men happens to deter people from joining them.


----------



## padisha emperor

read my message about it. I will search it and tell you where it is.
you'll understant exactly what I mean


----------



## padisha emperor

posted by me : 


> Fracne was also vixctim of terrorists attacks...of course, not so awful than 9/11, but in 1995, lots of terrorists attack....and without war we go out of this crisis. the ennemy : FIA, Front Islamique Armé, weaponed islamic front.
> 
> Of course, Al Qaeda is bigger, really, but the facts that some of you thik it is a survival war is maybe too exagerate. Of course I can understand this point of view, but don't you think that if you 'll do war again and again and again, you'll have more and more ennemies ? the world population would be hostile to USA, like in Europe. It would be not good for USA. and so, not good for USA's allies.
> 
> A peaceful politic is often the key : France was after 1991 called by Islamics "little devil",like UK, the "great devil" was USA.
> Now, and you saw it for the hostage affair, the muslim world is for France, is friendly with it. Even the Islamics are.
> So, if USA would do a friendly politic with muslims countries, maybe these countries would want to be allied with USA, and in this situation, the Islamics who want attack USA would have no more countries with them, or less. look : Islamics took french hostages, all the muslim and islamic world condamn them.
> So, if the muslim countries would be allies of USA, USA would have no problem, or really less.
> 
> 
> I know it's hard to believe and more to do. But politic is hard.
> A clever politic with muslim countries will help USA




this message is in "France" >> "Chirac est un Ver"


----------



## wade

Avatar4321 said:
			
		

> I would love to know where you are getting your statistics. If you are somehow informed on Al Queda's recruitment numbers, you should inform the Department of Defense and those numbers will quickly be depleted.
> 
> I have a feeling however, that you have nothing but rhetoric to support your view. Besides which i think you need to come up with a pretty compelling argument why people are upset with the United States action to execute men whos trap bombs to children and behead civilians. Quite frankly im inclined to believe that killing these evil men happens to deter people from joining them.



You must not watch the news shows (I watch most of them while working, I'm a channel flipper extreme).  It is generally agreed that for every terrorist (I didn't say necessarily say Al-Queda) killed that there is more than one ready to take their place.

I agree, we should take out Al-Queda as fast as possible.  Even if they manage to recruit new members to their ranks, removing existing members weakens the structure and so it makes sense to do so.

My point however is that if you are proposing that we can eliminate all terrorists through this policy, short of outright genocide, you are kidding yourself.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

liberal4now said:
			
		

> "Your level of thought is that of a child. You need to see beyond the fashionableness of hating america. We stopped the nazis. The communists. Now 're stopping world terrorism, and all you do is bitch and moan like a child."
> 
> No, your level of thinking is like that of a child.  The bush admin. is making terrorism worse.  Look at what is happening in Iraq.  Everyday there are car bombings, people are dying.  The situation in Iraq is not getting better.  It is getting worse.  Terrorism is not going away.  Even the mighty bush man can't win the war on terrorism.  The moron said so himself and then later retracted  it.



Still flogging that dead horse?  He said it's not a war that will be one in the sense that no official government can say "OK, we give up."  A proper reading in context and it makes total sense.  

Here's the difference between libs and cons: cons put things IN context to make their case,  libs take things out of context to make their case.  One way is honest, one way is dishonest.  Can you tell which is which?  It seems not.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> You must not watch the news shows (I watch most of them while working, I'm a channel flipper extreme).  It is generally agreed that for every terrorist (I didn't say necessarily say Al-Queda) killed that there is more than one ready to take their place.
> 
> I agree, we should take out Al-Queda as fast as possible.  Even if they manage to recruit new members to their ranks, removing existing members weakens the structure and so it makes sense to do so.
> 
> My point however is that if you are proposing that we can eliminate all terrorists through this policy, short of outright genocide, you are kidding yourself.
> 
> Wade.



So what is your solution wade? To just lay down and allow islamofascism to work it's tentacles around the globe?  THEY DON'T WANT TO COEXIST PEACEFULLY.  An honest reading of the Quaran reveals this simple truth.


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So what is your solution wade? To just lay down and allow islamofascism to work it's tentacles around the globe?  THEY DON'T WANT TO COEXIST PEACEFULLY.  An honest reading of the Quaran reveals this simple truth.



No, but we have to be smart about how we pursue this battle, and so far we have not been smart at all.

We are bankrupting ourselves in the first battle of a long war.  Bush is playing right into their hand like a fool.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> No, but we have to be smart about how we pursue this battle, and so far we have not been smart at all.
> 
> We are bankrupting ourselves in the first battle of a long war.  Bush is playing right into their hand like a fool.




Typical.  Glittering generality,  "be smart", followed by zero actual advice.    And then some more personal attack.  Don't you tire of your own vacuousness?


----------



## padisha emperor

> No, but we have to be smart about how we pursue this battle, and so far we have not been smart at all.
> 
> We are bankrupting ourselves in the first battle of a long war. Bush is playing right into their hand like a fool.



I agree. Totally.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I agree. Totally.




And how about your vacuousness, padesha?  Tired yet?


----------



## padisha emperor

> And how about your vacuousness, padesha? Tired yet?



no vacuousness in me, thanx.
It is not because some of this board's users think not exactly like you that they are stupid and vacuous...You know, they can even be more clever than you !


(and in France, it is 0:35 AM, not the end of afternoon of the beginning of evening...)


----------



## rtwngAvngr

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> no vacuousness in me, thanx.
> It is not because some of this board's users think not exactly like you that they are stupid and vacuous...You know, they can even be more clever than you !
> 
> 
> (and in France, it is 0:35 AM, not the end of afternoon of the beginning of evening...)




If you think "be smarter"  is a plan, then you have a disorder,  a malady.


----------



## Avatar4321

wade said:
			
		

> No, but we have to be smart about how we pursue this battle, and so far we have not been smart at all.
> 
> We are bankrupting ourselves in the first battle of a long war.  Bush is playing right into their hand like a fool.



First, it would take a heck of alot more than we are spending now to bankrupt the US. Especially since government spending is just a small part of the GDP of the United States. In Germany their government spends nearly 50% of the nations GDP and its just starting to break. I think we will be able to handle atleast that much before bankrupting ourselves. and I dont see us handling that anytime soon. Especially not with conservatives in control. Now if we could only get rid of some entitlements. 

Second, if we are playing so stupid right now, how would you do it?


----------



## Avatar4321

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> I agree. Totally.



How exactly can you agree? France isnt doing anything to assist us in the war on terror. How can they be bankrupting themselves fighting terror?


----------



## Avatar4321

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> no vacuousness in me, thanx.
> It is not because some of this board's users think not exactly like you that they are stupid and vacuous...You know, they can even be more clever than you !
> 
> 
> (and in France, it is 0:35 AM, not the end of afternoon of the beginning of evening...)



I dont think RWA said anything about people being stupid because they disagree with him. I think he is saying that you guys are saying nothing but empty rhetoric. be nice to see something substancial. 

You guys want to say Bush is wrong? thats fine. But dont think its very clever unless you explain what he is doing wrong and what you think he can do better so we can actually have a discussion on ideas rather than simply saying Bush is wrong.


----------



## padisha emperor

I agree, because I think hat this war was not a very clever thing.
Nevermind, US did it, but now, it's a slough, a quagmire. The US army is in hell.
So, now, the US government have to be clever with the following decisions about Iraq.


----------



## NightTrain

Avatar4321 said:
			
		

> You guys want to say Bush is wrong? thats fine. But dont think its very clever unless you explain what he is doing wrong and what you think he can do better so we can actually have a discussion on ideas rather than simply saying Bush is wrong.



This is excellent, I tried this approach with another troll a few months ago and he outright refused.  

Answer what Av posed to you.  No vague 'UN resolutions will work' bullshit, answer with some solid ideas.

It's been my experience that the hand-wringing liberals such as yourselves can't answser this question.  

Prove me wrong, Liberals!


----------



## wade

Avatar4321 said:
			
		

> First, it would take a heck of alot more than we are spending now to bankrupt the US. Especially since government spending is just a small part of the GDP of the United States. In Germany their government spends nearly 50% of the nations GDP and its just starting to break. I think we will be able to handle atleast that much before bankrupting ourselves. and I dont see us handling that anytime soon. Especially not with conservatives in control. Now if we could only get rid of some entitlements.
> 
> Second, if we are playing so stupid right now, how would you do it?



I've answered that before - I'd have used neutron bombs to kill Saddam and most of the Baath party during one of their congresses, along with heavy conventional (and maybe a few more neutron bombs) to eliminate the Rep. Gaurd.  Then I'd have let the Iraqi people take over the country, decide their own fates, and offered them assistance but not forced it down their throats.

Wade.


----------



## NightTrain

wade said:
			
		

> I've answered that before - I'd have used neutron bombs to kill Saddam and most of the Baath party during one of their congresses, along with heavy conventional (and maybe a few more neutron bombs) to eliminate the Rep. Gaurd.  Then I'd have let the Iraqi people take over the country, decide their own fates, and offered them assistance but not forced it down their throats.
> 
> Wade.



So...

You would have used a few WMDs to indiscriminately kill untold numbers of civilians?  How many children would die?  How many innocent civilians?  Your death toll is in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

Murderer!


----------



## wade

You obviously don't understand the technology.  Neutron bombs have a very limited area of effect, and very little radioactive persistance, and do minimal collateral damage.  Given that the Baath party meetings were done in a hall well away from the reach of the general public, and that neutron bombs can be scaled down to effect an area as small as about one large city block, there would not have been massive, or even significant, civilian casualties.  What such a weapon does do is ensure that those in the target zone are killed, with almost 100% certainty.

I would expect the only civilian casualties would have been the staffs of the Baath party members who had the misfortune to be present or immeadiately nearby.  There would have been extremely few children killed - less than have died as a result of the occupation.

Wade.


----------



## NightTrain

wade said:
			
		

> You obviously don't understand the technology.  Neutron bombs have a very limited area of effect, and very little radioactive persistance, and do minimal collateral damage.  Given that the Baath party meetings were done in a hall well away from the reach of the general public, and that neutron bombs can be scaled down to effect an area as small as about one large city block, there would not have been massive, or even significant, civilian casualties.  What such a weapon does do is ensure that those in the target zone are killed, with almost 100% certainty.
> 
> I would expect the only civilian casualties would have been the staffs of the Baath party members who had the misfortune to be present or immeadiately nearby.  There would have been extremely few children killed - less than have died as a result of the occupation.
> 
> Wade.



I understand much more than you evidently think I do.

Your estimates of a tactical neutron bomb kill zone and affects are completely fucked.

Espousing several NewBomb deliveries is tantamount to Nuke delivery as far as instant casualties.  You are no true Liberal, you're a hardcore Commie that hates Bush because he's against Commies.

No Liberal would rubber stamp an N bomb.  

Thanks for playing.


----------



## wade

The kill zone of a tactical neutron bomb is less than 4 small city blocks, or two large ones.  Saddams Baath Party congress was easily more than a half mile from any large population centers (on the other side of the river), pleanty far enough away that very few innocents would be killed.

I am not a communist at all.  Communism denies human nature, and is thus doomed to be corrupted by it.

I believe in regulated capitalism.  The market structure should be used to allocate goods and services, but it should be regulated to prevent abuses such as monopolies and other forms of collusion.

Wade.


----------



## Comrade

wade said:
			
		

> The kill zone of a tactical neutron bomb is less than 4 small city blocks, or two large ones.  Saddams Baath Party congress was easily more than a half mile from any large population centers (on the other side of the river), pleanty far enough away that very few innocents would be killed.



Taking out the Iraqi Congress?   For what?  To do Saddam a favour?



> I am not a communist at all.  Communism denies human nature, and is thus doomed to be corrupted by it.



You condemn communist now.  You kept the flame lit for communist only a few days ago.



			
				wade said:
			
		

> We have no idea what might have happend if the USA had chosen communism back in the 1780's instead of a democratic republic for its form of government. The Soviet Union fell from communism to dictatorship because of all the stresses to the union not faced by the USA. *Remember, after the communists took power the western powers sent armies to try to dispel the new government.* Under constant threat from outside powers and in the face of horrible economic conditions, it was easy for a dicator to seize power.



True communism IS based on dictatorship.   You hold out for utopia, as if the West and some economic setbacks were the only reason it failed in the USSR.  And Cuba, North Vietnam, Cambodia, etc...



> I believe in regulated capitalism.  The market structure should be used to allocate goods and services, but it should be regulated to prevent abuses such as monopolies and other forms of collusion.



Everything I've read from you so far tells me you support socalism, not regulated capitalism.  

In so many words, you believe in socialized healthcare.  You said the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes.  You said the environment is at risk from the greedy rich. You naturally despise Bush.  

You'd have bush take out 48 city blocks with three 'Neutron bombs' instead of limited JDAM strikes against what was later to be faulty intelligence on Saddam's location.

So the world community thinks you are mad.  

The allies start pulling out in disgust.   

But you took out the Iraqi Congress!

And killed over a million Iraqis.

And still no conventional attack.

And saddam is loving every second.  



But wade, I know you hate Bush.  For other reasons you've posted before.

If Bush had lobbed a few nukes into Iraq based on what was indeed information of questionable accuracy, hardly anyone, least of all you, would be going on about how great this idea was.


----------



## Zhukov

wade said:
			
		

> I'd have used neutron bombs to kill Saddam and most of the Baath party during one of their congresses, along with heavy conventional (and maybe a few more neutron bombs) to eliminate the Rep. Gaurd.  Then I'd have let the Iraqi people take over the country, decide their own fates, and offered them assistance but not forced it down their throats



That would have almost certainly led to a full scale three-way civil war that would have cost the lives of millions without our physical prescence there to stop it.  The ultimate outcome of which would have been a client state of the Iranian theocracy.


----------



## wade

Comrade,

Where do you get this shit?

You say true communism is based on dictatorship.  This is pure crap.  You have obviously never read Marx.  True communism is based upon rule of the proletariat, through their elected representatives.  Soviet and Chineese communism have effectively cut the proletariat out of any role in the power of the state - totally contrary to the basis of communism.  Neither of these nations is really communist.  Communism is an ideal which is not practical because people have a desire to own goods and property and the state is a poor distributor of goods and services.  It is far too subject to corruption at almost every level.  It denies human nature.

Soviet and Chinese (and other places) lack(ed) any kind of assurance of some standards of basic rights of the citizen or limitations to the power of the state.  The obvious result is totalitarianism.  Remove the bill of rights and other assurances of individual rights and limitations on the state from the American constitution (as Bush seems to want to do) and it too will very quickly go down the road to dictatorship.

-----------

Taking out Saddam and the Baath Party congress would have cut the head off the Saddam regime.



			
				Comrad said:
			
		

> You'd have bush take out 48 city blocks with three 'Neutron bombs' instead of limited JDAM strikes against what was later to be faulty intelligence on Saddam's location.



Where do you come up with 48 city blocks?  Neutron bombs can be made in almost any size.  The mini-neutron bomb (using a red mercury trigger) is the size of a baseball and has an area of effect which can be just about as small as you want.  From the inventor of he neutron bomb:



> The material (red mercury) means a neutron bomb can be built "the size of baseball" but able to kill everyone within several square blocks.
> http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm


{btw: you should read this whole article - very sobering stuff}​The area of effect can be reduced by reducing the amount of fusion fuel in the bomb, so it could be tailor made to minimize the loss of innocent life.

The odds are very high that Saddam would attend a major meeting of the Baath party, especially if the USA were carefully avoiding any threatening political jestures.  But to ensure his demise, several of his palaces would also probably have to be hit.  Even if he did survive, his power would be ruined.

I have been a proponent of using the neutron bomb since well before 9/11.  It is the least expensive way to deal with corrupt regimes - both in monetary terms and in terms of the loss of innocent life.  It would also make absolutely clear that we are not fucking around anymore!

JDAM's are another option, but the number required would be huge and this tends to make the chances of sucess small.  It is much easier to have a few subs launch some neutron bomb armed cruise missiles in secret than to pull off a massive JDAM attack.  You have to strike quickly and simultanously, or the chances that your targets will not be killed and the mission will fail becomes almost a certainty.  Carefully planed neutron bomb attacks can achieve this - JDAM attacks are very unlikely to do so.

Wade.


----------



## CSM

A little technical detail:

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

Notice that the article states there remains a lethal dose 24 to 48 hours after detonation.


----------



## wade

CSM said:
			
		

> A little technical detail:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
> 
> Notice that the article states there remains a lethal dose 24 to 48 hours after detonation.



That essay does not consider the mini-neutron bomb - it assumes a plutonium core.  Yes there is a delay before the area can be safely entered, as neutron radiation will cause gamma rays to be emmitted from some metals for up to 48 hours after the blast.

But the size of effect figures at that site are all based upon the original neutron bombs.  It does not even mention the mini-neutron bomb with the red mercury trigger.  These can be made tiny as there is no critical mass requirement.  Also the fallout from a standard neutron bomb from the fission core, is mostly absent from the mini version.

Wade.


----------



## CSM

wade said:
			
		

> That essay does not consider the mini-neutron bomb - it assumes a plutonium core.  Yes there is a delay before the area can be safely entered, as neutron radiation will cause gamma rays to be emmitted from some metals for up to 48 hours after the blast.
> 
> But the size of effect figures at that site are all based upon the original neutron bombs.  It does not even mention the mini-neutron bomb with the red mercury trigger.  These can be made tiny as there is no critical mass requirement.  Also the fallout from a standard neutron bomb from the fission core, is mostly absent from the mini version.
> 
> Wade.


 No argument from me as far as teh technical details go; just wanted folks to know what you were talking about.


----------



## Comrade

wade said:
			
		

> Comrade,
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> You say true communism is based on dictatorship.  This is pure crap.  You have obviously never read Marx.




http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/m2frame.htm?massparty.htm



> Marx and Engels spelt out a second correction to the Manifesto, after the experience of the Paris Commune. In a preface to the re-publication of the Manifesto in 1872, they quote from a speech made by Marx to the first international Marxist organisation, the International Working Mens Association:
> 
> "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for their own purposes."






> True communism is based upon rule of the proletariat, through their elected representatives.



Similar to the rule of the Ba'ath party members who elected their representatives, while from high, high above in the party Saddam ruled at the top of their pyramid.




> Soviet and Chineese communism have effectively cut the proletariat out of any role in the power of the state - totally contrary to the basis of communism.



Agreed.  Communism is a fantasy where you establish one party in complete control of all property and expect some kind of just democracy to come about just like *that*.




> Neither of these nations is really communist.  *Communism is an ideal* which is not practical because people have a desire to own goods and property and the state is a poor distributor of goods and services.  It is far too subject to corruption at almost every level.  It denies human nature.



I think we're in agreement then.  It's certainly an idea each set out to achieve and did not survive beyond it's inception.



> Soviet and Chinese (and other places) lack(ed) any kind of assurance of some standards of basic rights of the citizen or limitations to the power of the state.  The obvious result is totalitarianism.  Remove the bill of rights and other assurances of individual rights and limitations on the state from the American constitution (as Bush seems to want to do) and it too will very quickly go down the road to dictatorship.



http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/m2frame.htm?massparty.htm

"the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

And when that goes you can use the bill of rights as toiletnaya bumaga.



> Taking out Saddam and the Baath Party congress would have cut the head off the Saddam regime.



With neutron bombs again?



> Where do you come up with 48 city blocks?



3 known unsuccessfull strike on Saddam.  Instead of JDAM's you elected to use neutron bombs with a four block radius.  4 sqaured = 16 blocks kill zone.   Times three =48



> Neutron bombs can be made in almost any size.  The mini-neutron bomb (using a red mercury trigger) is the size of a baseball and has an area of effect which can be just about as small as you want.  From the inventor of he neutron bomb:



The evil scientist in me agrees!




> {btw: you should read this whole article - very sobering stuff}​The area of effect can be reduced by reducing the amount of fusion fuel in the bomb, so it could be tailor made to minimize the loss of innocent life.



Cooll link, I'll read it.



> The odds are very high that Saddam would attend a major meeting of the Baath party, especially if the USA were carefully avoiding any threatening political jestures.  But to ensure his demise, several of his palaces would also probably have to be hit.  Even if he did survive, his power would be ruined.



When, where, at what cost and with what result?  I see Qusay in charge and Uday with a greater role.   And the rule of succession, although not clear, is certain.



> I have been a proponent of using the neutron bomb since well before 9/11.  It is the least expensive way to deal with corrupt regimes - both in monetary terms and in terms of the loss of innocent life.  It would also make absolutely clear that we are not fucking around anymore!




Now that a bold statement my friend.  I think it's far too extreme for too little return on investment.  Just using a nuke at that point would virtually guarantee Kerry his spot in 2005.  With Qusay in charge and the world mightiliy pissed off at the US.



> JDAM's are another option, but the number required would be huge and this tends to make the chances of sucess small.  It is much easier to have a few subs launch some neutron bomb armed cruise missiles in secret than to pull off a massive JDAM attack.  You have to strike quickly and simultanously, or the chances that your targets will not be killed and the mission will fail becomes almost a certainty.  Carefully planed neutron bomb attacks can achieve this - JDAM attacks are very unlikely to do so.



I'm all for the option to have this, but if the intelligence is specific to a building of interest, like I imagine it would generally be, a good spread of JDAMs will bring the roof down, without enraging and panicking world and domestic opinion.


----------



## Avatar4321

Its rather sad how some people still believe in the communist lie despite the fact that Marx really had no idea how economics works and has been the direct result in the termination of millions of lives. Communism has never ever had a system that works. because its very presmises are faulty. They dont take into account the evil nature of man like Democratic governments and capitalist idealogies do. When you refuse to admit man can be evil scum and fail to provide checks and balances against that then you are doomed for totalitarian regimes.


----------



## wade

Comrade said:
			
		

> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/m2frame.htm?massparty.htm
> 
> Similar to the rule of the Ba'ath party members who elected their representatives, while from high, high above in the party Saddam ruled at the top of their pyramid.



But the same thing can and has happened in "Democracies".  For democracy or any other political system to hold to its ideals it requires that those ideals be laid down and that the people understand and defend them against all threats - internal and external.  Any failure to protect the principals upon which the government is founded, especially from the government itself, will almost invariably lead to dictatorship - a lesson we seem to need a refesher course in here in the USA.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Communism is a fantasy where you establish one party in complete control of all property and expect some kind of just democracy to come about just like *that*.



I agree. But that is an implementational issue really.  Had communism in the Soviet Union (for instance) laid out firm limitations for the power of the state and rights for the individual, and had the people insisted those rules be followed, it might have worked.

I personally believe that communism as an overall system might be workable if properly implimented.  However I also think that this system would probably not lead to most people being happy.  It is focused on the idea of individual sacrifice for the good of the many, and while that is acceptable when things are bad, it is overly restrictive to the human spirit when things are good.




			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> With neutron bombs again?
> 
> 3 known unsuccessfull strike on Saddam.  Instead of JDAM's you elected to use neutron bombs with a four block radius.  4 sqaured = 16 blocks kill zone.   Times three =48



Wrong - 4 block total area.  Neutron bombs can be made that have a 200 meter radius of effect - and it is quite possible they can be made to have an even smaller radius of effect.  The article I referenced refers to a baseball sized bomb with about a 200 meter radius, but by reducing the hydrogen content of the fusion mass, the radius should be able to be reduced to almost any size desired.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> When, where, at what cost and with what result?  I see Qusay in charge and Uday with a greater role.   And the rule of succession, although not clear, is certain.



It is very likely that at least one of the spawn would have perished as well, and probably both if the palaces were hit as well.  But even if they did surivive, with the removal of the Baath party and the Republican gaurd, they'd have been running for their lives - not trying to step into Saddams shoes.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> Now that a bold statement my friend.  I think it's far too extreme for too little return on investment.  Just using a nuke at that point would virtually guarantee Kerry his spot in 2005.  With Qusay in charge and the world mightiliy pissed off at the US.



I got news for you Comrade - THE "WORLD" IS MIGHTLY PISSED OFF AT THE US!

Qusay would not be in charge.  As for gauranteeing that Kerry would win - I don't think so.  I think Americans would support such a strike given the anger level immeadiately after 911, especially if the collateral damage (civilian causualties) was very low.

Furthermore - there is no reason we would have had to admit we'd done it.  The world might highly suspect this was the case, but we are not the only one's capable of such action.  Actual neutron bomb attacks have never been carried out in the past, only the USA and the SU really have any experiance with these weapons at all.  And they leave very little evidence of what actually happened - especially if red mercury triggers are used.  We could just have said "Allah smote the evil" with a wink and a smirk and leave it at that.

It would be a big question mark as to who really did it.  Certainly the Israelis, British, Russians, French, Germans, and Chineese have the capability.  Hell, we could even setup Iran as the fall guy - blame it on them and turn the Arab world against their own!  LOL

And another thing - this is not beyond the capacity of certain private parties in the USA.  William Swanson (Raytheon) could probably pull this off all by himself if he were willing to risk the consequences should he get caught.  The hardest part would be getting the mini-neutron bomb - but an enraged private citizen might not be quite so concerned with civilian casualties.

It is even possible for much less well positioned people to have done it.  I think I could build a cruise missile with a limited range (lets say 200-300 miles) for under $50,000 (including 2 tests).  GPS makes it very easy to do the guidence system.  Before you laugh, read this:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-3-2003-41208.asp

YOU can build your own cruise missile!  And all the parts are available off the shelf!

This opens the door to all kinds of cover stories and misdirections.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> I'm all for the option to have this, but if the intelligence is specific to a building of interest, like I imagine it would generally be, a good spread of JDAMs will bring the roof down, without enraging and panicking world and domestic opinion.



Conventional weapons do not have the sudden kill power of a neutron bomb.  Neutron bombs would kill everyone within the target structure, and below it down to the 3rd basement.  To achieve the same kill % on a 200 x 200 meter area using 2000 lbs JDAM's would require a minimum of 300 JDAM's dropped in 2-3 salvos.  While this might be possible, pulling something off using B2 bombers, it would require our entire B2 force (21 - see http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm), and it is questionable they could pull off the harmony of attack needed to prevent Saddams having a good chance of being wisked away after the first bomb hit.  And their would be no capacity remaining for the palaces or the Republican Gaurd.  Furthermore, there is a good chance they'd be detected heading into Iraq - while the Iraqi's could not pinpoint them, suspicious radar readings would likely end up with Saddam in a bunker, and possibly the Republican Gaurd depolying into a state of "readiness" making its total destruction much less likely.

If we were to have done something like this it would have needed to be achieve total surprise and near total destruction of the target objectives, and conventional bombs just do not pull off that trick (at least not until we have a lot more B1 bombers than we do now).

Finally, there would have been no denying we'd done it.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Might of worked ..  shoulda... woulda .....   couldaa..

Communism is good; communism is bad.

Wade, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Please find some personal inner unity, for you own sake.

You can use my mantra,  it's  "Bush/Cheney '04"


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Might of worked ..  shoulda... woulda .....   couldaa..
> 
> Communism is good; communism is bad.
> 
> Wade, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Please find some personal inner unity, for you own sake.
> 
> You can use my mantra,  it's  "Bush/Cheney '04"



Learn to read RWA!

I never once said that Communism is a good thing.  I said it was pontentially a viable political system that does not necessarily have to degenerate into dictatorship.  There is a huge difference.

I think that Communism makes sense as a means of land reform in nations where dictatorships have created a class structure which requires it.  However, I think this is just a stepping stone to democracy.  Once land reform is solidly established, the advantages of the market system and private ownership would prevail, provided the state does not fall backwards into dictatorship.

Dictatorships transitioning to democracy that recognize existing ownership of resources and offer no redress for the sins of the past dictatorships leave the people subject to economic oppression by the same power-elite/ruling class that made up the dictatorship.  This is clearly the case in many S. American nations which are badly in need of land reform.  Communism is a means of instituting land reform in such situtations - the alternative is a blood bath where the existing ruling class is eliminated, and those that undertake such a course invariably create a new dictatorship.

Watch Vietnam - given its current course, it will probably be a democracy in another 10-20 years, maybe less.

Stop repeating that mantra - it is blocking your thought processess.  Open your mind and think!

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> Learn to read RWA!
> 
> I never once said that Communism is a good thing.  I said it was pontentially a viable political system that does not necessarily have to degenerate into dictatorship.  There is a huge difference.
> 
> I think that Communism makes sense as a means of land reform in nations where dictatorships have created a class structure which requires it.  However, I think this is just a stepping stone to democracy.  Once land reform is solidly established, the advantages of the market system and private ownership would prevail, provided the state does not fall backwards into dictatorship.
> 
> Dictatorships transitioning to democracy that recognize existing ownership of resources and offer no redress for the sins of the past dictatorships leave the people subject to economic oppression by the same power-elite/ruling class that made up the dictatorship.  This is clearly the case in many S. American nations which are badly in need of land reform.  Communism is a means of instituting land reform in such situtations - the alternative is a blood bath where the existing ruling class is eliminated, and those that undertake such a course invariably create a new dictatorship.
> 
> Watch Vietnam - given its current course, it will probably be a democracy in another 10-20 years, maybe less.
> 
> Stop repeating that mantra - it is blocking your thought processess.  Open your mind and think!
> 
> Wade.




communism will never be anything other than tyranny.  IT's the government taking all money and deciding who to give it to.  You say it's a step from tryanny to democracy.  That's bs.  It's tyranny with a fresh coat of red paint and litany of unrealistic, individuality stopping plattitudes dressed up as wisdom,  but even Maybelline wouldn't make that two bit whore of an ideology look attractive.


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> communism will never be anything other than tyranny.  IT's the government taking all money and deciding who to give it to.  You say it's a step from tryanny to democracy.  That's bs.  It's tyranny with a fresh coat of red paint and litany of unrealistic, individuality stopping plattitudes dressed up as wisdom,  but even Maybelline wouldn't make that two bit whore of an ideology look attractive.



By your logic democracy is the same.  Look at Rome - it was a democracy for about 200 years, but then it degenerated into totalitarianism.  Look at all the "democracies" that have failed over history.

Your understanding of what communism is is juvinile.  You really should read Marx Comrade.  You are looking at it through a tunnel focused on what happened in the Soviet Union - which was never actually Communist.

Look at how many "democracies" in the world today are little more than slave-labor states.  What matters is the integrity of the political system and its defined ideals and goals and how well it lives up to them.  Any political system is vulnerable to totalitarianism and tyrrani.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> By your logic democracy is the same.  Look at Rome - it was a democracy for about 200 years, but then it degenerated into totalitarianism.  Look at all the "democracies" that have failed over history.
> 
> Your understanding of what communism is is juvinile.  You really should read Marx Comrade.  You are looking at it through a tunnel focused on what happened in the Soviet Union - which was never actually Communist.
> 
> Look at how many "democracies" in the world today are little more than slave-labor states.  What matters is the integrity of the political system and its defined ideals and goals and how well it lives up to them.  Any political system is vulnerable to totalitarianism and tyrrani.
> 
> Wade.



Really the debate here is an economic one.  socialism vs capitalism.    Democracy and socialism are not incompatible, and for that matter, neither are tyranny and capitalism.  What history has shown is that democracies which turn towards socialism and forget the values which made them great are the ones that fail.  

You're the one with the juvenile understandings.  I've read marx,  his analysis of industrial culture is quite accurate, but his solution is, well, frankly, nonexistant.  Anger and revolution solve nothing.  What purports to be a government of the people winds up being the worst tyranny, a mere envy-based coups, emotionally satifying for the short term, yet crippling in the long.  Thanks for your input, but you are wrong.


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Really the debate here is an economic one.  socialism vs capitalism.    Democracy and socialism are not incompatible, and for that matter, neither are tyranny and capitalism.  What history has shown is that democracies which turn towards socialism and forget the values which made them great are the ones that fail.
> 
> You're the one with the juvenile understandings.  I've read marx,  his analysis of industrial culture is quite accurate, but his solution is, well, frankly, nonexistant.  Anger and revolution solve nothing.  What purports to be a government of the people winds up being the worst tyranny, a mere envy-based coups, emotionally satifying for the short term, yet crippling in the long.  Thanks for your input, but you are wrong.



Your argument is flawed.  You point at the US democracy as, pretty much, your sole example of a successful democracy.  Look at how many have failed!

It was the unique circumstances of being on a realtively unihabited continent rich in resources and having a diverse ethinic population, that allowed the US democracy to establish itself and flourish.  If the USA had been born in Europe, particularly in 1917 Russia, it would have failed too.

The problem with democracies in an established society are that they have no means of redressing past wrongs or redistibuting wealth and property.  If they do incorporate the means to do this, they also incorporate the very seeds of their own devolution into dictatorship.  It takes two steps to get from an entrenched dictatorship (for instance a monarchy) to democracy, the first step requires land reform and wealth redistribution, followed by a period of about a generation of social recovery.  Only then will a nation be ready for democracy.

Just watch in Iraq - our attempt to force democracy on them is going to fail.  The only way to avoid this would be to institute some kind of forced land and wealth redistribution upon them, followed by a generation of education for all - but that is not going to happen.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> Your argument is flawed.  You point at the US democracy as, pretty much, your sole example of a successful democracy.  Look at how many have failed!
> 
> It was the unique circumstances of being on a realtively unihabited continent rich in resources and having a diverse ethinic population, that allowed the US democracy to establish itself and flourish.  If the USA had been born in Europe, particularly in 1917 Russia, it would have failed too.
> 
> The problem with democracies in an established society are that they have no means of redressing past wrongs or redistibuting wealth and property.  If they do incorporate the means to do this, they also incorporate the very seeds of their own devolution into dictatorship.  It takes two steps to get from an entrenched dictatorship (for instance a monarchy) to democracy, the first step requires land reform and wealth redistribution, followed by a period of about a generation of social recovery.  Only then will a nation be ready for democracy.
> 
> Just watch in Iraq - our attempt to force democracy on them is going to fail.  The only way to avoid this would be to institute some kind of forced land and wealth redistribution upon them, followed by a generation of education for all - but that is not going to happen.
> 
> Wade.



The values of individual responsibility made us great.  The fact that strong individuals left an old overstructured europe to succeed based on their own merits and not according to the whims of an aristocratic church and state made us great.

Wealth redistribution is not an admirable goal.   

Redressing past wrongs?  Social recovery?  You're a terminal kool aid drinker.  

Socialism is stealing,  covetousness run amok.  Quit trying to infantilize society, daddy-o.


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The values of individual responsibility made us great.  The fact that strong individuals left an old overstructured europe to succeed based on their own merits and not according to the whims of an aristocratic church and state made us great.
> 
> Wealth redistribution is not an admirable goal.
> 
> Redressing past wrongs?  Social recovery?  You're a terminal kool aid drinker.
> 
> Socialism is stealing,  covetousness run amok.  Quit trying to infantilize society, daddy-o.



Socialism is stealing?  You have no problems with socialism when it involves buiding and maintaining roads.  You have no problem with it when it comes to funding the military.  You have no proble with it when it comes to enforcing the laws that protect the property you so covet.

You only have problems with it when it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the cold, or caring for the sick.

Do you not think that the people have a right to take back what has been illegaly gotten?  This is what land reform and wealth re-distribution are about.  Kings and dictators establish the ruling class, and afford the riches of the land to them.  Eventually the people must rise up and correct this.  It is only fair and right.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> Socialism is stealing?  You have no problems with socialism when it involves buiding and maintaining roads.  You have no problem with it when it comes to funding the military.  You have no proble with it when it comes to enforcing the laws that protect the property you so covet.
> 
> You only have problems with it when it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the cold, or caring for the sick.
> 
> Do you not think that the people have a right to take back what has been illegaly gotten?  This is what land reform and wealth re-distribution are about.  Kings and dictators establish the ruling class, and afford the riches of the land to them.  Eventually the people must rise up and correct this.  It is only fair and right.
> 
> Wade.




I'm not an anarchist, I believe in government. Your hyperbolic rhetoric is unneeded. I believe some endeavors are handled best by government.  Personal fiscal success is not one of them.  Individuals must be stimulated to achievement and hard work. Lying to them and teaching them to pilfer public coffers to sustain their own personal lifestyle is an irresponsible lesson, a false guarantee, given by envious, power hungry politicians seeking to use a lazy mob to dominate  the truly industrious members of society with onerous confiscatory taxation.


----------



## Zhukov

wade said:
			
		

> the unique circumstances of being on a realtively unihabited continent rich in resources and having a diverse ethinic population, that allowed the US democracy to establish itself and flourish.  If the USA had been born in Europe, particularly in 1917 Russia, it would have failed too.



Eastern Russia _is_ relatively uninhabited, rich in resources, and in possession of a diverse ethnic population.


----------



## 5stringJeff

Moved to Global Topics, as there was little (if any) dicussion of religion left in this thread.


----------



## Comrade

wade said:
			
		

> But the same thing can and has happened in "Democracies".  For democracy or any other political system to hold to its ideals it requires that those ideals be laid down and that the people understand and defend them against all threats - internal and external.  Any failure to protect the principals upon which the government is founded, especially from the government itself, will almost invariably lead to dictatorship - a lesson we seem to need a refesher course in here in the USA.



If this is a US hosted site, and if the government comes busting in, email us with your story.  Until then I will roll my eyes.



> I agree. But that is an implementational issue really.  Had communism in the Soviet Union (for instance) laid out firm limitations for the power of the state and rights for the individual, and had the people insisted those rules be followed, it might have worked.  I personally believe that communism as an overall system might be workable *if properly implimented.*



Communism is not a half way step along to true Democracy.  

When you grant the state ownership of all property and wealth under a single party revolutionary movement the idea of personal rights cannot coexist in the primacy of the Marxist state.  

From the beginning of the process in *siezing* all personal property for the state, the rights of the individual are subect to mob rule barely bound by the will of crony favoritism among the revolutionary command structure.

That's the nature of all Communist reality as we've seen it unfold in history.

At some point why don't you just give up the hope?



> However I also think that this system would probably not lead to most people being happy.  *is focused on the idea of individual sacrifice for the good of the many,* while that is acceptable when things are bad, it is overly restrictive to the human spirit when things are good.



That presumes the good of the many is based upon stripping all wealth and property from individuals and that bestowing all means of production and sustenance into the hands of a core of revolutionary leaders for eventual distrubution based on their direction is a good idea in general. 



> Wrong - 4 block total area.  Neutron bombs can be made that have a 200 meter radius of effect - and it is quite possible they can be made to have an even smaller radius of effect.  The article I referenced refers to a baseball sized bomb with about a 200 meter radius, but by reducing the hydrogen content of the fusion mass, the radius should be able to be reduced to almost any size desired.
> 
> It is very likely that at least one of the spawn would have perished as well, and probably both if the palaces were hit as well.  But even if they did surivive, with the removal of the Baath party and the Republican gaurd, they'd have been running for their lives - not trying to step into Saddams shoes.



Something about this whole plan begs the question, what do you know about Saddam's location the US intelligence failed to connect on?



> I got news for you Comrade - THE "WORLD" IS MIGHTLY PISSED OFF AT THE US!



Nukes are not supposed to be popular, are they?



> Qusay would not be in charge.  As for gauranteeing that Kerry would win - I don't think so.  I think Americans would support such a strike given the anger level immeadiately after 911, especially if the collateral damage (civilian causualties) was very low.



Americans are not ready to accept first use of neutron bombs and the logic of this proposition is not convincing based on the motive and the effect of using them.



> Furthermore - there is no reason we would have had to admit we'd done it.  The world might highly suspect this was the case, but we are not the only one's capable of such action.



However, you said in this same post:



> *I think Americans would support such a strike given the anger level immeadiately after 911, especially if the collateral damage (civilian causualties) was very low.*



You don't get to have two position in one post.  Both are wrong, the world would be outraged along with most Americans, over Bush's 'wink and nod'.



> Actual neutron bomb attacks have never been carried out in the past, only the USA and the SU really have any experiance with these weapons at all.  And they leave very little evidence of what actually happened - especially if red mercury triggers are used.  We could just have said "Allah smote the evil" with a wink and a smirk and leave it at that.
> 
> It would be a big question mark as to who really did it.  Certainly the Israelis, British, Russians, French, Germans, and Chineese have the capability.  Hell, we could even setup Iran as the fall guy - blame it on them and turn the Arab world against their own!  LOL



Dr. Evil did it!



> And another thing - this is not beyond the capacity of certain private parties in the USA.  William Swanson (Raytheon) could probably pull this off all by himself if he were willing to risk the consequences should he get caught.  The hardest part would be getting the mini-neutron bomb - but an enraged private citizen might not be quite so concerned with civilian casualties.
> 
> It is even possible for much less well positioned people to have done it.  I think I could build a cruise missile with a limited range (lets say 200-300 miles) for under $50,000 (including 2 tests).  GPS makes it very easy to do the guidence system.  Before you laugh, read this:
> 
> http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-3-2003-41208.asp
> 
> YOU can build your own cruise missile!  And all the parts are available off the shelf!
> 
> This opens the door to all kinds of cover stories and misdirections.



On the one hand you distrust US motives and its role in spreading Democracy by conventional warfare.

On the other you suggest using a first strike WMD to depose a foreign regime and then denied, is fine by your book.



> Conventional weapons do not have the sudden kill power of a neutron bomb.  Neutron bombs would kill everyone within the target structure, and below it down to the 3rd basement.  To achieve the same kill % on a 200 x 200 meter area using 2000 lbs JDAM's would require a minimum of 300 JDAM's dropped in 2-3 salvos.  While this might be possible, pulling something off using B2 bombers, it would require our entire B2 force (21 - see http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm), and it is questionable they could pull off the harmony of attack needed to prevent Saddams having a good chance of being wisked away after the first bomb hit.  And their would be no capacity remaining for the palaces or the Republican Gaurd.  Furthermore, there is a good chance they'd be detected heading into Iraq - while the Iraqi's could not pinpoint them, suspicious radar readings would likely end up with Saddam in a bunker, and possibly the Republican Gaurd depolying into a state of "readiness" making its total destruction much less likely.



The point was always why a four block area of death via a WMD was needed to create a national security outcome based on specific intelligence that a JDAM never could achieve.  And that this was worth the political consequences  for our government in the administration.  



> If we were to have done something like this it would have needed to be achieve total surprise and near total destruction of the target objectives, and conventional bombs just do not pull off that trick (at least not until we have a lot more B1 bombers than we do now).
> 
> Finally, there would have been no denying we'd done it.



And the point being why do we need take out 4 square blocks instead of a single buidling?  And how would the highly advanced nuclear attack be less of a giveaway then a conventional strike?  Or why would it achieve advantageous results?  And why does the world like us better for it? And are Americans who behind it from 9/11 anyways?


----------



## wade

Comrade said:
			
		

> If this is a US hosted site, and if the government comes busting in, email us with your story.  Until then I will roll my eyes.



The government is already starting to quell the voices of dissent.  It will only increase until the people take a stand.





> Communism is not a half way step along to true Democracy.
> 
> When you grant the state ownership of all property and wealth under a single party revolutionary movement the idea of personal rights cannot coexist in the primacy of the Marxist state.
> 
> From the beginning of the process in *siezing* all personal property for the state, the rights of the individual are subect to mob rule barely bound by the will of crony favoritism among the revolutionary command structure.
> 
> That's the nature of all Communist reality as we've seen it unfold in history.
> 
> At some point why don't you just give up the hope?



I have no such hope.  I think that in the current world this step should not be necessary.  When a country has a revolution we (the international community) should step in and help them to restructure their country fairly, including wealth and land reform where appropriate.  Only when the international community fails to do this, and instead supports and sustains the status quo in such a nation does communism make sense.  But communism is a risky thing - it too easily turns totalitarian.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> That presumes the good of the many is based upon stripping all wealth and property from individuals and that bestowing all means of production and sustenance into the hands of a core of revolutionary leaders for eventual distrubution based on their direction is a good idea in general.



This is exactly what is done during in the USA periods of total war (Civil War, WWII).

Again, look at Vietnam.  Vietnam is an example of Communism headed toward democracy.  If the system works right, the proletariat have control of the leadership.  The leadership is selected to pursue the best interests of the people, and when the society is ready for it, the best interest is democracy and capitalism.



> Something about this whole plan begs the question, what do you know about Saddam's location the US intelligence failed to connect on?



The US intelligence was unable to track Saddam's location over time.  But there were occassions when it was known to a high degree of certainty.  Given no immeadiate external threats, he was almost certain to preside over a meeting of the Baath party congress - his ego demanded it.  But, even if Saddam somehow escaped, with the Baath party gone, the Rep. Gaurd gone, Saddam's palaces gone, and his sons dead, Saddam's days in Iraq would be over anyway.



> Nukes are not supposed to be popular, are they?



Of course not.  But neither is pre-emptive unilateral war.  No matter what course we followed it was going to be unpopular.  But a neutron bomb attack cutting off the head of the tyrant would have been over and done with 2 years ago, and the world would forget that all too quickly.  An extended invasion with all its implications and secondary consequences gets burned into the minds of everyone over time.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> Americans are not ready to accept first use of neutron bombs and the logic of this proposition is not convincing based on the motive and the effect of using them.



I dissagree.  Within 3 months of 9/11 I am confident Americans would have had no problems with this at all.  Even within a year it probably would have been acceptable.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> On the one hand you distrust US motives and its role in spreading Democracy by conventional warfare.
> 
> On the other you suggest using a first strike WMD to depose a foreign regime and then denied, is fine by your book.



There is no "war for oil" implication with a neutron bomb attack.  There is no political implications either, beyond "piss us off and your neck will meet the axe".



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> The point was always why a four block area of death via a WMD was needed to create a national security outcome based on specific intelligence that a JDAM never could achieve.  And that this was worth the political consequences  for our government in the administration.
> 
> And the point being why do we need take out 4 square blocks instead of a single buidling?  And how would the highly advanced nuclear attack be less of a giveaway then a conventional strike?  Or why would it achieve advantageous results?  And why does the world like us better for it? And are Americans who behind it from 9/11 anyways?



Four blocks just happens to be the size quoted in the mini-neutron bomb literature I read.  It does not go into sufficent depth for me to know if smaller areas of effect could be impimented.  I believe from what I've read that the size could indeed be made smaller, and the size relationship given of a baseball sized weapon taking out a four city block area was just an example (of what terrorists might have).

However, the kill zone has to be large enough to take out a small stadium (the Iraqi congress hall) and the entourage area around it, since Saddam would not always be within the hall itself.  So while 4 city blocks seems reasonable to me, if a smaller bomb could not be built, this would be acceptable.  Ideally something tailored to take out just the desired area (the congressional hall and supporting strurctures) would be preferred.

The advantage to the US is that it takes out Saddam (and the rest of the Baathist regime) and forces a restructuring of the Iraqi government without requiring an invasion or occupation.  It saves the USA a trillion dollars and several thousand lives too.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Wade.  How do you deem a society to be "ready" for capitalism?


----------



## wade

The distrubution of wealth has to be sufficent that more than the top few percent have any power.  The population has to be educated enough to understand what democracy is and how it will work.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> The distrubution of wealth has to be sufficent that more than the top few percent have any power.  The population has to be educated enough to understand what democracy is and how it will work.



So according to you, is america ready now?


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So according to you, is america ready now?



LOL!  Now that is funny


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> LOL!  Now that is funny




 

But seriously, wade. Do we fulfill your criteria in our current state?


----------



## wade

I believe so RWA.  The concentration of wealth is no where near as lop sided as it is in most dictatorship/monarchy nations which need land-reform, where generally speaking the top 1/2% hold about 30%, the next 4.5% hold about 50%, the next 10% hold about 15%, and the remaining 85% hold about 5% of the land and wealth.

But if things continue as they have been going for the last 30 or so years...


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> I believe so RWA.  The concentration of wealth is no where near as lop sided as it is in most dictatorship/monarchy nations which need land-reform, where generally speaking the top 1/2% hold about 30%, the next 4.5% hold about 50%, the next 10% hold about 15%, and the remaining 85% hold about 5% of the land and wealth.
> 
> But if things continue as they have been going for the last 30 or so years...



We will no longer be ready for capitalism?  You're intellectually subpar.


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We will no longer be ready for capitalism?  You're intellectually subpar.



LOL - no RWA, we will be ready for fascism or revolution, I'd bet in that order.

I wish there was an intelligence test we could use that cannot be easily cheated on.  It'd be fun.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> LOL - no RWA, we will be ready for fascism or revolution, I'd bet in that order.
> 
> I wish there was an intelligence test we could use that cannot be easily cheated on.  It'd be fun.
> 
> Wade.



Oh silly, silly wade.

Determining the depths of your mental dysfunction would be quite entertaining.  

Your "sky is falling" outlook belies your dogmatic belief in every dem talking point.  You wrap your stuff in the deli paper of contrived  verboseness, but we can all see it's just an ignorance strudel.


----------



## Annie

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Oh silly, silly wade.
> 
> Determining the depths of your mental dysfunction would be quite entertaining.
> 
> Your "sky is falling" outlook belies your dogmatic belief in every dem talking point.  You wrap your stuff in the deli paper of contrived  verboseness, but we can all see it's just an ignorance strudel.



  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao: 

I'm unsure of all that you just said, but I liked the way you said it!  :halo:


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Kathianne said:
			
		

> :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:
> 
> I'm unsure of all that you just said, but I liked the way you said it!  :halo:



Thanks K,  everything I do is for the people!


----------



## Comrade

wade said:
			
		

> The government is already starting to quell the voices of dissent.  It will only increase until the people take a stand.



I wish the government would indeed quell this four year old caniption fit and actually live up to your assertations, just to prove you right.



> I have no such hope.  I think that in the current world this step should not be necessary.  When a country has a revolution *we (the international community)* should step in and help them to restructure their country fairly, including wealth and land reform where appropriate.



Wishfull thinking about the almighty international community is a leftist fantasy.



> Only when the international community fails to do this, and instead supports and sustains the status quo in such a nation does communism make sense.



Communism doesn't make sense, period.  The international community always failed to do a damn thing.



> But communism is a risky thing - it too easily turns totalitarian.



_It always turns to totalitarianism, period._ 



> This is exactly what is done during in the USA periods of total war (Civil War, WWII).



Hogwash.   A 40% tax rate, is not communism.  A working US democracy, guaranteeing private ownership, is not communism.



> Again, look at Vietnam.  Vietnam is an example of Communism headed toward democracy.  If the system works right, the proletariat have control of the leadership.



If the tyrant in control of a comminist state says he speaks for the proletariat, why would we believe him, huh?  

The totalitarian communist party leadership always controls from the top down, in every case.  The proletariat are extinct after communism makes them equal, remember?



> *The leadership is selected to pursue the best interests of the people,* and when the society is ready for it, the best interest is democracy and capitalism.



That kind of claim makes me want to blow chunks.     

The dear leader is being so benevolent by acting in the 'best interests of the people' and you buy this line in a heartbeat, don't ya?



> The US intelligence was unable to track Saddam's location over time.  But there were occassions when it was known to a high degree of certainty.



Specifically that would be ... ?



> Given no immeadiate external threats, he was almost certain to preside over a meeting of the Baath party congress - his ego demanded it.



As if like Saddam cares what his congress thinks?  C'mon!  A poser speech to his 'Congress' is definately a job for one of his doubles.  Congress was a puppet of Saddam and knew damn well they were.



> But, even if Saddam somehow escaped, with the Baath party gone, the Rep. Gaurd gone, Saddam's palaces gone, and his sons dead, Saddam's days in Iraq would be over anyway.



There you go with nuetron bombs an pinpoint intelligence all _all of the regime_ again.   

And if you amazingly succeed despite all odds, how could you expect something better, let alone something remotely democratic?



> Of course not.  But neither is pre-emptive unilateral war.  No matter what course we followed it was going to be unpopular.  But a neutron bomb attack cutting off the head of the tyrant would have been over and done with 2 years ago, and the world would forget that all too quickly.  An extended invasion with all its implications and secondary consequences gets burned into the minds of everyone over time.



Nuking Iraq isn't more effective or more popular.   It's just silly. 

How could you possibly stand there and tell us you'd be happy with Bush after he nuked and murdered thousands to get at Saddam, and that something good would have come from the regime after it was 'purged' and left alone to stabilized from the lower echelon of the corrupt regime.

No, you'd be pissed as hell about it.  We know your type.



> I dissagree.  Within 3 months of 9/11 I am confident Americans would have had no problems with this at all.  Even within a year it probably would have been acceptable.



Why don't you start a poll and we'll see how acceptable it was to all of us  here,  if you want to speak for Americans.    I wonder how many think casually tossing a few nukes out just to get Saddam would serve any eventual goal or help world opinion on the US overall.  I'd oppose it, based on principle and on effectiveness.



> There is no "war for oil" implication with a neutron bomb attack.  There is no political implications either, beyond "piss us off and your neck will meet the axe".



There is no 'war for oil' implication, no free Iraqi oil.  



> Four blocks just happens to be the size quoted in the mini-neutron bomb literature I read.  It does not go into sufficent depth for me to know if smaller areas of effect could be impimented.  I believe from what I've read that the size could indeed be made smaller, and the size relationship given of a baseball sized weapon taking out a four city block area was just an example (of what terrorists might have).



If they have it they'd use it.  



> However, the kill zone has to be large enough to take out a small stadium (the Iraqi congress hall) and the entourage area around it, since Saddam would not always be within the hall itself.



Why should he?  WTF did Saddam ever care for the Congress?  Apparently you have timetables or something.



> So while 4 city blocks seems reasonable to me, if a smaller bomb could not be built, this would be acceptable.  Ideally something tailored to take out just the desired area (the congressional hall and supporting strurctures) would be preferred.



Neat.  But irrelevent.



> The advantage to the US is that it takes out Saddam (and the rest of the Baathist regime) and forces a restructuring of the Iraqi government without requiring an invasion or occupation.  It saves the USA a trillion dollars and several thousand lives too.



You took a dab of international intrigue and a smatter of wishfull thinking to use nukes to 'decapitate' the regime.   Saddam is GONE and what-ifs and should-haves by now are moot, who cares?   And the one hand you make pains to point out 'international law' and on the other propose the proper solution would have been to use nukes in a casual was and that would somehow satisfy every party concerned.

That's ridiculous.


----------



## wade

Comrade said:
			
		

> I wish the government would indeed quell this four year old caniption fit and actually live up to your assertations, just to prove you right.



Then you are a fascist.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> _It always turns to totalitarianism, period._



This does not appear to be the case in Vietnam.  And it certainly had no signs of going that way in Chile.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> Hogwash.   A 40% tax rate, is not communism.  A working US democracy, guaranteeing private ownership, is not communism.



Ummm.. 40% was the minimum corporate tax rate.  40% was also about the average personal tax rate, but the rate did go as high as 90% at the top bracket.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> If the tyrant in control of a comminist state says he speaks for the proletariat, why would we believe him, huh?



The same can be said of tyrant leaders in control of "democracies".  Hitler and Marcos are two examples.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> The totalitarian communist party leadership always controls from the top down, in every case.  The proletariat are extinct after communism makes them equal, remember?



What?  Under communism everyone is a member of the proletariate.  The system is supposed to be an effective republic, with the collectives voting on issues.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> That kind of claim makes me want to blow chunks.
> 
> The dear leader is being so benevolent by acting in the 'best interests of the people' and you buy this line in a heartbeat, don't ya?



You refer to one example, Kim of NK.  You have a double standard.  When communism degenerates into authoritarian rule, you still want to call it communism.  But when democracy degenerates into authoritarian rule, you wish to reclassify it as dictatorship.

There are many examples of Democracies, which have reverted to dictatorships.  Germany, Italy, the Phillapines, El Salvador, etc...

Today, something like 40% of the UN membership are considered to be failed democracies (from S. America, Africa, and indochina).

----

You seem to think it is a given that democracy will work in Iraq.  Everything in history is against it.  Of the 121 nations classified as democracies in the world today - NOT ONE IS ARAB!

Already something around 12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war as the immeadiate result of allied military action.  Fewer would have been killed by a neutron bomb attack.  Furthermore, the infrastructure of the nation would have been virtually untouched.  Water and power would have continued to flow.

I do not say we would have know exactly where Saddam was.  I say we would have had a very good idea where he would have been - we we would have had a very high chance of getting him by hitting the Baath Party congress while it was in session and Saddams palaces in a simultanous strike.  And even if we had somehow failed to get him, without the Baath's or the Republican Gaurd, his power would have been ended.

Finally, why the kit gloves?  These people allowed a terrorist and harborer of terrorists to rule thier country for decades.  Don't you think it is about time that we put the Arab world on notice that to do so is to invite ruin?  It is time to start making the Arabs realize that they cannot look the other way while Al-Queda and other terrorists operate in their midst, and that if they do the consequences are grave.

Face it, the Iraqi's are never going to be grateful for their liberation.  The truth is the Arabs hated us before, they hate us now, and they will hate us tommarow.  The idea that we are going to make friends of the Arabs in our lifetimes is pure fantasy.  We need to make them respect and fear us.  They think differently than we do, they do not value individual life the way we do. Simply invading and occupying their countries is not going to do the trick - as soon as we are gone they will revert right back to their old ways.  They will say what you want to hear to your face, make promises, whatever to appease you, never meaning even one word of it.  Only by demonstrating absolute power are we ever going to get them to realize they must change or die.  And that is not going to be accomplished using conventional tactics.

Wade.


----------



## Comrade

wade said:
			
		

> Then you are a fascist.



_Gadzooks!  My cover is blown!_



> This does not appear to be the case in Vietnam.



Vietnamese vote?



> And it certainly had no signs of going that way in Chile.



Chile was a communist state?



> Ummm.. 40% was the minimum corporate tax rate.  40% was also about the average personal tax rate, but the rate did go as high as 90% at the top bracket.



Yes, _40% was also about the average personal tax rate._  Not  communism, is it.



> The same can be said of tyrant leaders in control of "democracies".  Hitler and Marcos are two examples.



And not true of democracies.



> What?  Under communism everyone is a member of the proletariate.  The system is _supposed to be_ an effective republic, with the collectives voting on issues.



_supposed to be_



> You refer to one example, Kim of NK.  You have a double standard.  When communism degenerates into authoritarian rule, you still want to call it communism.



Communism is authoritarian rule.



> But when democracy degenerates into authoritarian rule, you wish to reclassify it as dictatorship.



I must be crazy!  



> There are many examples of Democracies, which have reverted to dictatorships.  Germany, Italy, the Phillapines, El Salvador, etc...



Because Democracy is BAD!



> Today, something like 40% of the UN membership are considered to be failed democracies (from S. America, Africa, and indochina).



Cause Democracy sucks!     



> You seem to think it is a given that democracy will work in Iraq.  Everything in history is against it.  Of the 121 nations classified as democracies in the world today - NOT ONE IS ARAB!



Aren't you the closet racist!



> Already something around 12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war as the immeadiate result of allied military action.  Fewer would have been killed by a neutron bomb attack.  Furthermore, the infrastructure of the nation would have been virtually untouched.  Water and power would have continued to flow.



Probably shouldn't drink the water, though, just to be safe.



> I do not say we would have know exactly where Saddam was.  I say we would have had a very good idea where he would have been - we we would have had a very high chance of getting him by hitting the Baath Party congress while it was in session and Saddams palaces in a simultanous strike.  And even if we had somehow failed to get him, without the Baath's or the Republican Gaurd, his power would have been ended.



And without *the Iraqi Congress* how could Saddam ever survive?  



> Finally, why the kit gloves?  These people allowed a terrorist and harborer of terrorists to rule thier country for decades.  Don't you think it is about time that we put the Arab world on notice that to do so is to invite ruin?  It is time to start making the Arabs realize that they cannot look the other way while Al-Queda and other terrorists operate in their midst, and that if they do the consequences are grave.




Now listen, I'm going to tell you what me grandaddy told me.  There were two Bulls on a hilltop looking down on a bunch of cows.    The younger bull said, "Dad, we should run down there and fuck ourselves on of them thar cows".   But Daddy bull, see, he was a smart feller.  Dadd said to his son, he said, "Son, I've got a better idear.  Let's say we _walk down_ this hill and fuck 'em all."



> Face it, the Iraqi's are never going to be grateful for their liberation.  The truth is the Arabs hated us before, they hate us now, and they will hate us tommarow.  The idea that we are going to make friends of the Arabs in our lifetimes is pure fantasy.  We need to make them respect and fear us.  They think differently than we do, they do not value individual life the way we do. Simply invading and occupying their countries is not going to do the trick - as soon as we are gone they will revert right back to their old ways.  They will say what you want to hear to your face, make promises, whatever to appease you, never meaning even one word of it.  Only by demonstrating absolute power are we ever going to get them to realize they must change or die.  And that is not going to be accomplished using conventional tactics.



Your talking crazy, man.  Wade, I think you have the SPACE MADNESS!!!


----------



## Annie

Wade, I am so confused by you.  You seem to argue that the US is a 'democracy' out of control. That it will fail, inevitably. Yet that same system, you want to basically lay waste to a substantial area of another country, just because we CAN:



			
				wade said:
			
		

> These people allowed a terrorist and harborer of terrorists to rule thier country for decades. Don't you think it is about time that we put the Arab world on notice that to do so is to invite ruin? It is time to start making the Arabs realize that they cannot look the other way while Al-Queda and other terrorists operate in their midst, and that if they do the consequences are grave.



Then you post nonsense, that I've sourced many times to be false http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1095603440.shtml :



			
				wade said:
			
		

> Face it, the Iraqi's are never going to be grateful for their liberation. The truth is the Arabs hated us before, they hate us now, and they will hate us tommarow. The idea that we are going to make friends of the Arabs in our lifetimes is pure fantasy. We need to make them respect and fear us. They think differently than we do, they do not value individual life the way we do. Simply invading and occupying their countries is not going to do the trick - as soon as we are gone they will revert right back to their old ways. They will say what you want to hear to your face, make promises, whatever to appease you, never meaning even one word of it. Only by demonstrating absolute power are we ever going to get them to realize they must change or die. And that is not going to be accomplished using conventional tactics.



You may be well schooled, but you are far from educated.


----------



## wade

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Wade, I am so confused by you.  You seem to argue that the US is a 'democracy' out of control. That it will fail, inevitably.



You are confusing "democracy" with "capitalism".  I'm saying that capitalism has been subverted and our democracy is not protecting us from this subversion.  If something is not done to rectify this, then the democracy is at risk of failing.



			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Yet that same system, you want to basically lay waste to a substantial area of another country, just because we CAN:



Where did I say that?  Or do you consider a couple of city blocks "substantial"?



			
				Kathianne said:
			
		

> Wade said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it, the Iraqi's are never going to be grateful for their liberation. The truth is the Arabs hated us before, they hate us now, and they will hate us tommarow. The idea that we are going to make friends of the Arabs in our lifetimes is pure fantasy. We need to make them respect and fear us. They think differently than we do, they do not value individual life the way we do. Simply invading and occupying their countries is not going to do the trick - as soon as we are gone they will revert right back to their old ways. They will say what you want to hear to your face, make promises, whatever to appease you, never meaning even one word of it. Only by demonstrating absolute power are we ever going to get them to realize they must change or die. And that is not going to be accomplished using conventional tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> You may be well schooled, but you are far from educated.
Click to expand...


Kathianne, I worked for a year on the communications grid for one of the major nations we are frequently discussing, one very close to Afgahnistan.  I worked side-by-side with Iranians, Palastinians, Pakistanis, and even an Iraqi EE.  I worked with these people closely, ate dinner on a few occasions with their families, and starting about half way though the project I had opportunity to listen in on their private conversations and have them translated for me.  I know what kind of people we are dealing with far far better than you ever will.  They have no compunction whatsoever about lying, especially to an American.  They have absolutely no respect for our society or our culture or our values.  In fact, they hate us.

Wade.


----------



## Annie

Wade, I'll grant all you have said. From your selling shorts, to owning 2 businesses, to working in ME. 

Now, explain why I should believe that your anecdotal experiences, which may well be accounted for by your personality, should lead the rest of us to join in your views.


----------



## wade

I only visited the ME, I did not work there.  Most of the work was done here.

I wish I could go into detail.  If I could you'd realize that my views about how the Arabs see us are true.  But I cannot.

Wade.


----------



## Annie

wade said:
			
		

> I only visited the ME, I did not work there.  Most of the work was done here.
> 
> I wish I could go into detail.  If I could you'd realize that my views about how the Arabs see us are true.  But I cannot.
> 
> Wade.



That's fine. Nothing to be done, just realize that your views are not widely accepted and you can convince more people by backing up your points with authorities you can site and a bit of fraternity, rather than superiority. Calling me stupid or whatever that was, was not a smart move.


----------



## Comrade

wade said:
			
		

> You are confusing "democracy" with "capitalism".  I'm saying that capitalism has been subverted and our democracy is not protecting us from this subversion.  *If something is not done to rectify this, then the democracy is at risk of failing.*



Kind of a catch 22... democracy refuses to allow it, but to force it to would kill democracy.   I say live with it.




> Kathianne, I worked for a year on the communications grid for one of the major nations we are frequently discussing, one very close to Afgahnistan.  I worked side-by-side with Iranians, Palastinians, Pakistanis, and even an Iraqi EE.  I worked with these people closely, ate dinner on a few occasions with their families, and starting about half way though the project I had opportunity to listen in on their private conversations and have them translated for me.  I know what kind of people we are dealing with far far better than you ever will.  They have no compunction whatsoever about lying, especially to an American.  They have absolutely no respect for our society or our culture or our values.



They respect our power, for sure.



> In fact, they hate us.



But they really hate the Jews, though.  We can use that.


----------



## NATO AIR

i don't believe the majority of iranians and palestinians hate us.  

the majority of iranians (especially the younger generations) continue to have a favorable view of the US and long for American leaders to take a greater role in helping them to achieve freedom from their failed theocracy and its mullah oppressors.

palestinians may feel very frustrated with pres. bush openly embracing israelis over them (a mistake IMO) but they still view Americans favorably.  they recognize America as the only one who has the power to make their dreams happen (their own state and freedom from the israeli occupation and its many negatives).  hell our own admiral onboard this ship served as a peace monitor on the palestinian side and if you ask him during a Q&A quarters, he'll tell you palestinians are the nicest people on Earth, they've just been taking bad advice for 50 odd years and they've been living with the consequences ever since, in a manner that has driven some foolishly to terrorism. 

 the hatred of jews and israelis is natural nowadays due to the israeli occupation.  there are very few occupations in the world that endear themselves to the occupied population.


----------



## Comrade

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> i don't believe the majority of iranians and palestinians hate us.
> 
> the majority of iranians (especially the younger generations) continue to have a favorable view of the US and long for American leaders to take a greater role in helping them to achieve freedom from their failed theocracy and its mullah oppressors.
> 
> palestinians may feel very frustrated with pres. bush openly embracing israelis over them (a mistake IMO) but they still view Americans favorably.



Americans who as not already rapidly pro-Palestinian probably don't feel safe talking politics in Palestine.

Palistinian gripes do get tiresome though.   They danced on 9-11.  Saddam was their patron in 1991 and remain so, in no small numbers.



> they recognize America as the only one who has the power to make their dreams happen (their own state and freedom from the israeli occupation and its many negatives).



If the Pals can't establish their own free government even under occasional Isreeli intervention they are useless.

No one stops them from adopting an open liberal Democracy except their own corrupt leaders and the people blind to it all.

PLO principles to establish Sharia law seem the common outlook after the Jews are beat and given their mass cultural mandate of hate I don't see much encouragement is need for them to slaughter all Jews ruthlessly under any victory scenario.



> hell our own admiral onboard this ship served as a peace monitor on the palestinian side and if you ask him during a Q&A quarters, he'll tell you palestinians are the nicest people on Earth, they've just been taking bad advice for 50 odd years and they've been living with the consequences ever since, in a manner that has driven some foolishly to terrorism.



I find that with every terror bombing of Jews by a Palestinian, broadcasts go out of this mass murder, posters go up, and even trading cards for children get printed.  The family still gets paid (Saddam or not), and a huge funeral is put on, with the Mom tearfully weeping over the family photo but if you interview the family I more often than not sense the pride they have for the act.

Celebrating mass murderers is a sign of a sick society, one certainly not reedemable by making Jews give in to them.

Palestinians are far worse than the Nazi's ever were, in their pursuit of Jew hatred.




> the hatred of jews and israelis is natural nowadays due to the israeli occupation.  there are very few occupations in the world that endear themselves to the occupied population.



Palestinian and the rest of Arab Islam never needed the excuse of occupation to war on Jews, they simply follow the example of genocide practiced under Mohammad againt early Jews in Islam, a religious mandate passed down through generations of learned scholars of the 'holy testaments'.

And no matter how self destruction to their own future they are in carrying out either direct sponsorship or passive acceptance of these acts, the pressure on Pals to kill Jews is immense.  The Arab states need to keep the issues focused on Jews as the whipping boy, and the EU likes to play along.   Everyone offers all kinds of money and doesnt ask where it goes.

The EU 'legitamacy' even grants Arafat a freakin Nobel Peace Prize, of all things.

The Palestinians are willing parties to the hate parade and show little sign in public and on the street of no dissention or lack of inhibition in expressing it.

What kind of society lets their children dig around for bloody martyr bits?  

What kind of PARENT would allow their kids to run around as they do and throw rocks at armed soldiers?

The problem lies in the inability of Palestine to forget past greivance with the Jews and create their own future in the land almost all Palestinians have now been born and raised in.   They are not helpless, and the Jews aren't stopping them.

The problem is also that no Arab state and most of the EU doesn't really want to see such Palestinian independance apart from Isreal and standing on its own.   Arab leaders need the Jews to blame for all of modern Islams' barbarity and backwardness which make them failed states.


----------



## wade

Comrade,

It was the Zionists (Jews) who initiated the terror in the region, not the Arabs.  I do not care for Arabs or their culture, as you probably already know, but the facts are the facts.



> *MASSACRES*
> 
> Immediately after the vote of the UN Partition Plan of 1947, the Zionists aimed at confirming Jewish dominance over the 50% Arab living in the proposed Jewish state, and to expand those limits so as to include the greatest possible area--if not all Palestine--before Britain withdrew from the country on May 14, 1948. (Bitter Haevest, by Sami Hadawi,p.85) The Zionist plan of intention was disclosed during a conversation in December 1947 between a British officer of the Jordan Arab Legion and a Palestinian Government Jewish official. The former is reported to have asked the latter, whether the new Jewish state would not have many internal trouble in view of the fact that the Arab inhabitants of the Jewish state would be equal in number to the Jews. The Jewish official is reported to have replied, oh no! That will be fixed. A few massacres will get rid of them. Glubb, op. cit, p.81)
> 
> To the outside world the Zionists have often tried to excuse crimes as isolated incidents, unpremeditated incidents, acts of ultra-extremists, and other whitewashes that have misled the world public opinion.
> 
> In fact all Zionist war crimes and crimes against humanity are planned in advance and executed for a desired effect, with malice, aforethought and full knowledge of the consequences involved in order to serve the Zionist objective, namely, the annihilation of the Palestinian people and the establishment of the Jewish State.(Encyclopedia of Palestine, p.269)
> 
> The Zionists claimed that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, but the Zionists killed more than 100,000 Palestinians and committed genocide by destroying the existence of Palestinians as a nation and made Palestinians refugees living in exile. Massacres are massacres, whether six million or one hundred thousand.(p.269)
> 
> THE KING DAVID MASSACRE:
> 
> Many massacres were first aimed at dislodging the British from Palestine. A major one was the King David Hotel massacre. According to Yitshaq Ben Ami, a Palestinian Jew who spent 30 years in exile after the establishment of Israel, investigating the crimes of the ruthless clique heading the international Zionist Movement, The Irgun had conceived a plan for the King David attack early in 1946, but the green light was given only on July first. According to Dr. Sneh, the operation was personally approved by Ben-Gurion, from his self-exile in Europe. Sadeh, the operation officer of the Haganah, and Giddy Paglin, the head of the Irgun operation under Menachem Begin agreed that thirty-five minutes advance notice would give the British time enough to evacuate the wing, without enabling them to disarm the Explosion. (Yitshaq Ben Ami, Years of Wrath, Days of Glory, 1982,p.377)[Enc. p.269]
> 
> The King David Hotel explosion of July 22, 1946, resulted in the death of 92 Britons, Arabs and Jews, and in the wounding of 58, was not just an extremist act of Jewish extremists, but a premeditated massacre conducted by the Irgun in agreement with the highest political authorities in Palestine, the Jewish Agency and its head David Ben Gurion. The Jewish Agency motive was to destroy all evidence the British had gathered proving that the terrorist crime waves in Palestine were not merely the actions of fringe groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang, but were committed in collision with the Haganah and Palmach groups and under the Jewish Agency itself.
> 
> The following is a statement made in the House of Commons by then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee:
> 
> On July 22, 1946, one of the most dastardly and cowardly crimes in recorded history took place. We refer to the blowing up of King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
> 
> Ninety-two persons lost their lives in that stealthy attack, and 45 were injured, among whom there were many high officials, junior officers and office personnel, both men and women. The King David Hotel was used as an office housing the Secretariat of Palestine Government and British Army Headquarters. The attack was made on 22 July at about 12 oclock noon when officers are usually in full swing. The attackers, disguised as milkmen, carried the explosives in milk containers, placed them in the basement of the hotel and ran away."(Enc.of,P.,p.267-8)
> 
> THE SEMIRAMIS HOTEL MASSACRE:
> 
> The Jewish Agency escalated their terror campaign against Palestinian Arabs. They decided to perpetrate a wholesale massacre by bombing the Seniramis Hotel in the Katamon section of Jerusalem, in order to drive out the Palestinians from Jerusalem. The massacre on January 5, 1948, was a direct responsibility of the Jewish Agency leader David Ben Gurion and the Haganah leaders Moshe Sneh and Yesrael Galili.
> 
> A description of the Semiramis Hotel from the UN documents reveals: 5 January 1948, Haganah terrorists made a most barbarous attack at one oclock in the early morning of Monday, 5 January 1948, at Semiramis Hotel in the Katamon section of Jerusalem killing innocent people and wounding many. The Jewish terrorist forces blasted the entrance to the hotel by a small bomb and then placed bombs in the basement of the building. As a result of the explosion the whole building collapsed with its residents. As the terrorists withdrew, they started shooting at the houses in the neighborhood. Those killed were 19, beside 16 more were wounded, among them women and children. (UN Security Council official Records, Supplements 1948, Doc. S /740.(Encyclopedia of Palestine,p.270)
> 
> DEIR YASSIN MASSACRE:
> 
> The first major most notorious massacre in the 1948 War was the massacre of Deir Yassin, a small village near Jerusalem, on April 9/10, 1948. It was designed to spread terror and panic among the Palestinian population in every city and village of Palestine in order to frighten the defenseless people into fleeing their homes out of fear for their lives, so that their homes and land could be confiscated for the use of Jewish colonialist settlers.
> 
> Two hundred and fifty people were slaughtered. Mutilating the bodies, even before death, the culprits cut off parts and opened the bellies of others. Nursing babies were butchered on the bosoms of helpless mothers. Of those 250 people, twenty-five pregnant women were bayoneted in their abdomens while still alive. Fifty-two children were maimed under the eyes of their own mothers, then slain and their heads cut off. Their mothers were in turn massacred and their bodies mutilated. About sixty other women and girls were also killed and their bodies mutilated. Such are the historical facts concerning the horrible crime perpetrated against the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin.(Encyclopedia of Palestine, Vol.I,.p.271).
> 
> The marauders were not satisfied with what they had committed. They gathered the women and girls who were still alive and after removing all their clothes, they put them in open cars, driving them naked through the streets of the Jewish section of Jerusalem, where the onlookers were cheering and jeering. Many even took pictures as souvenirs. Jon Kimche, author and correspondent who was in Jerusalem at the time, described the attack as the darkest stain on the Jewish record He added, ...it is historically important because it was to become the beginning of a second legend with which the terrorists sought to serve their cause and justify their deeds. Just as they claimed credit for the British decision to leave Palestine as being the result of terrorists attack on British troops, so later they justify the massacre of Deir Yasin because it led to the panic flight of the remaining Arabs in the Jewish state and so lessened the Jewish casualties. (The Seven Pillars, [New York Times: F.A. Praeger, 1953] p.228, quoted in Bitter Harvest by Sami Hadawi,p.85.)
> 
> Dov Joseph, one-time Governor of the Israeli sector of Jerusalem and later Minister of Justice, called it a deliberate and unprovoked attack,(The Faithful City: The Seige of Jerusalem, 1948(NYT:Simon and Schuster,1960)p.71. Meanwhile British historian Arnold Toynbee described it as comparable to crimes committed against the Jews by the Nazis. (A study of History,[London, Oxford University Press, 1953-54, Vol. VIII, p.290.) Quoted in Sami Hadawis Bitter Harvest,p.85)
> 
> Yet the great perpetrator of this massacre, Menachem Begin who in the 70s became Prime Minister of Israel, glorified the act saying, The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state without the victory of Deir Yassin. (Jewish Newsletter, October 3, 1960) quoted in Sami Hadawis Bitter Harvest,p.85)
> 
> Other unpublished massacres similar to the massacre of Deir Yassin, later came to light through an article written by Ariel Yitzhaqi, historian and researcher, published by Yediot Aharanot in its issue of April 14, 1972, in which the writer accuses the Palmach of similar operations that he states were not restricted to ETZEL and LEHI. If we assemble the facts, writes Yitzhaqi, we realize that, to a great extent, the battle followed the familiar pattern of the occupation of an Arab village in 1948. In the first months of the War of Independence, Haganah and Palmach troops carried out dozens of operations of this (Deir Yassin) kind, the method adopted being to raid an enemy village and blow up as many houses as possible in in. In the course of these operations, Yitzhaqi then listed the Arab villages raide and the number of Arabs killed as follows:
> 
> 1. The village of Balad Esh-Sheikh was attacked. In this operation, more than 60 of the enemy, most of them non-combatants, were killed in their houses.
> 
> 2. The village of Sasa was attacked.. In this operation, which was for many years to be regarded as a model raid because of the high standard of its execution, 20 houses were blown up over their inhabitants, and some 60 Arabs were killed, most of them were women and children.
> 
> 3. In the battle for Kattamon Quarter of Jerusalem, Arab women working in the St. Simon Monestry as servants were killed.
> 
> 4. In Lydda town, the Palmach claim that the local population rose in revolt, and to suppress the revolt, orders were given to fire on anyone seen in the streets. Yeftah troops opened fire on all passers-by and suppress the revolt mercilessly in a few hours, going from house to house and firing at every moving target. According to the commanders report 250 Arabs were killed in the fighting.(Sami Hadawi, p.88. The Journal of Palestine Studies. Vol.I, No.4, Summer 1972, pp.142-46)
> 
> Another massacre of Arab civilians occured in October 1948 in the Lebanese-border village of Hula, and only recently came to light as a result of the appointment of Shamuel Lahis as the new Secretary-General of the Jewish Agency who had been convicted for his part in the crime.
> 
> According to a report by Dov Yirmaya, there had been no resistence in the village, that there was no enemy activity in the area, and that about a hundred people were in the village. They had surrendered and had requested to be allowed to stay.
> 
> The men--some fifty of them ranging between the ages of 15-60 years-- were kept in one house. When asked by the troop commander if he should send them away to follow the rest of the villagers, Yermaya states that he ordered Lahis to keep them and made sure that they had whatever they needed until he had asked the brigade what to do with them.
> 
> Yermaya goes on to say that, when I returned to the village the following morning with an order to send the villagers away, I found that while I was away, two of the troops officers had killed all the captives who were in the house with a sub-machine gun, and had then blown up the house on top of them to be their grave. (R. Barkanin Al-Hamshmar, quoted from Journal of Palestine Study, Vol.VIII, No.4, Summer 1978) 18 p.89.) [Encyclopedia of Palestine,p.


----------



## wade

(Cont.)



> THE MASSACRE OF DAWAYMA:
> 
> Another unpublished massacre that took place on October 29, 1948. The following is a testimony of a soldier who partisipated in the occupation of the Palestinian village of Dawayma(in Haifa sub-district) on October 29, 1948 is only the most recently disclosed item in a long chain of evidence:
> 
> ...They killed between eighty to one hundred Arab men, women, and children. To kill the children, they (soldiers) fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one home without corpses. The men and women of the village were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite them.
> 
> One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a building he was about to blow up...Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman and her baby was made to clean up the place for a couple of days, then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered good guys...became base murderers, and this is not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better.[Davar, June 9, 1979]. Encyclopedia of Palestine, p.272; and in Bitter Harvest by Sami Hadawi, p.89. Sami Hadawi says there were 200 people ages between 70 and 90 years who could not make it to the borders and took refuge in the village mosque were murdered and the building blown over them to be their grave.
> 
> THE MASSACRE OF KIBYA:
> 
> The government of Israel claimed that the massacre was carried out by civilian Jewish settlers. But records showed that it was sanctioned by acting Prime Minister Moshe Sharrett, and was planned by Defence Minister Pin Has Lavon, the Chief of General Staff Mordacai Maklet, and Chief of Operations, General Moshe Dayan, in concert with vacationing Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion.
> 
> The massacre of Kibya on October 14, 1953, was a continuation of such brutal massacres.
> 
> At 9:30 p.m., on Wednesday, October, 1953, Israeli troops attacked the border Jordanian village of Kibya, Northwest of Jerusalem. Seven hundred regular Israeli troops participated in the attack in which morters, machine guns, rifels and explosives were used. Forty-two houses as well as the school and the mosque of the village were dynamited. Every man, woman, and child found by the criminal attackers was killed; all in all, seventy-five innocent villagers were murdered in cold blood that night. Later, the attackers turned the fire on the cattle, killing 22 cows. The attack was the bloodiest and most brutal Zionist crime since the infamous Deir Yassin massacre in 1948.(Enc.p.273)
> 
> On October 26, General Van Bennike testified before the UN Security Council. He gave irrefutable evidence that the attack on Kibya was undertaken by regular army units of Israel and not by irregulars as claimed by official Israeli sources. The following is some exerpts of the text:
> 
> Bullet-riddled bodies near the doorways and multiple bullet hits on the doors of the demolished houses indicated that the inhabitants had been forced to remain inside until their houses were blown up over them. There were several small craters along the western peremeter of the village, and the tails of two-inch morter shells were found...Fragmants easily identified as parts of Bangalore torpedoes were found near those gaps.(Encyclopedia of Palestine, p.274)
> 
> The following comments are made by Passionist Father Ralph Gorman, Editor of the Sign, National Catholic Magazine of the USA:
> 
> Terror was a political weapon of the Nazis. But the Nazis never used terror in a more cold-blooded and wanton manner than the Israelis in the massacre of Kibya.
> 
> Then followed an orgy of murder that would be incredible if it had been verified by reliable neutral testimony. Women and children as well as men were murdered delibrately, systematically, and in cold blood.(Bitter Harvest,p.119)
> 
> The only response the Israelis have made to outraged protest of the civilized world had been one of defiance and self-justification. Prime Minister David Ben Gurion excused the murderers. Israeli newspapers openly gloated over the deed, and even American Zionists showed little concern other than a fear that American dollars might not continue to flow as freely as before into the coffers of the new state.(Enc.,p.275)
> 
> John Barwick is an American citizen who was for many years YMCA's representative in the Middle East and was then living in Jerusalem wrote:
> 
> FA 43, that is what is stamped on the rim of the shell. There is a dent in the copper center which means it had done its job. But it was still vigorous enough at midnight on October 14, 1953 to penetrate a babys skull as it lay in his mothers lap. Its fellows in the magzine of that gun did the same for a three-year old boy, his four-year old sister and their mother. Their bodies were bowed as in prayer when the stones of their home were lifted off them. Those who made the cartridge hoped it would keep the Nazis behind the Rhine.[Tension, Terror and Blood in the Holy Land, pp.127-128 - quoted in Encyclopedia of Palestine, p.275.]
> 
> No less a Zionist figure than I.L. Kenen, the founding father of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affair Committy), the official Israeli lobby inthe USA reveald in his memoir: I was on my way home on the subway, headed for Riverdale, when I heard a brief news flash in the World Telegram discussing that 66 Arabs had been killed at Kibya...I did not know until years later that the raid was ordered by Ariel Sharon, the Israeli commander who led the invasion of Lebanon in 1982.(I.L. Kenen, All My Causes, p.60) quoted in Encyclopedia of Palestine,p..
> 
> THE MASSACRE OF KAFR KASSIM:
> 
> The Israeli daily, Kol Haam, on Wednesday, December 19, 1956, on its front page under the title, This Way Were the forty- nine Inhabitants of Kafr Kassim Slautered.
> 
> On October 29, 1956, the day that Israeli Frontier Guards started at 4 p.m. what they called a tour of the Triangle Villages. They informed the Mukhtars and the rural councils that the curfew in those villages was from that day onwards to be observed from 5 p.m. instead of 6 p.m., and that the inhabitants were required to stay at home as from that instant.
> 
> One of the villages was Kafr Kassim, a small village situated near the Israeli settlement of Betah Tekfa. The villages there received the alert at 4:45 p.m., only 15 minutes before the new curfew time. The Mukhtar tried to convince the officer that the villagers whose work took them outside the village would not be able to able to receive the warning in time. The officer told him that his soldiers would take care of that. The villagers who were home complied. Meanwhile the officers posted themselves at the village gates. Before long the first batch of villagers, home-bound on bicycles, came into sight unaware of the curfew. They were met by the soldiers who shot them at a close range. Others, unaware of the danger awaiting them, started to reach the village entrance. They were met with the same fate. When the massacre finished, officers moved around to finish off whoever still had a pulse beating.
> 
> According to their soldiers,There will be no wounded. The blood bath was not restricted to the entrance or outskirts, but was carried right into the village itself. The next day, 31 October, a curfew was imposed and during the curfew, the Israeli police brought over some villagers from the neighboring Gagoulia and ordered them to bury the corpses, which included fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters.
> 
> With two or three exceptions, the press has been party to a conspiracy of silence, throwing a veil over the incident. It wrote of condemned men instead of killers; instead of a killing in Kafr Kassim, it wrote of amistake and a misfortune and a regrettable incident. When it mentioned the victims of the calamity, it was difficult to tell whom it meant, the dead or the killers.[Ner, August-October 1959, Baaz Evron; and Haaretz, 18 Nov. 1959 - quoted in Bitter Harvest by Sami Hdawi, pp.155-57.]
> 
> SABRA AND SHATILA MASSACRE:
> 
> All the above mentioned massacres are particularly pale compared to the carnage at Sabra and Shatila Palestinian Camps in Beirut, Lebanon in 1982, during the Israeli invasionof Lebanon.
> 
> The mass murder of 2,750 men,women,and children(according to a body count taken by the International Red Cross on September 23, 1982), whose only crime was to be homeless exiles from their native land, by Phalangist puppets of the Israelis.
> 
> The studies disclosed that any rational person would place the responsibility on the Israelis for inspiring the massacres. Without question it has been established that the Israelis bear responsibility for the killing.
> 
> The principal war criminal bearing legal responsibilty for the massacre was the then Israeli Minister of Defence, General Ariel Sharon--the perpetrator of the Kibya Massacre nearly 30 years before. He was aided by the Foreign Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, who previously had criminal responsibility associated with Deir Yassin Massacre and other massacres and the assasination of UN Represntative Count Folke Bernadotte. Responsibility was shared by by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, guilty of war crime atrocities in both King David Hotel, and that of Deir Yassin massacres. (Encyclopedia of Palestine, p.284.)
> 
> These senior Israeli Generals were found to have Command Responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila war crime. Chief of Staff General Rafael Eitan, Commanding General of the Northern Command, General Ami Drori, and the Field Commander for the IDF division occupying West Beirut, Brigadier General Amos Yaron, were all found guilty of criminal responsibility related to the Sabra and Shatila massaxre.
> 
> Commander Burnett concluded in the issue No. 107 of Military Law Review, the official legal periodical of the USA Department of Defence; The screams of the victims at Dunbo, My Lai, and Sabra and Shatila should never be forgotten. In assessing the blame for such atrocities, command responsibility must play a key role.(Military Law Review, No.107, Winter Issue 1985, p.186) quoted in Enc.O.P.,p.284.
> 
> CONCLUSION:
> 
> "Systematic analysis of these massacres indicates the presence of a pattern:
> 
> 
> "These war crimes were not isolated incidents erratically performed by fringe groups of military units which had lost their coherence, but instead were conducted with predetermined objectives.
> 
> "Each massacre was planned in advance for a political rather than military purpose.
> 
> "Each massacre was conducted for psychological terroristic impact not solely related to the massacre itself.
> 
> "Each massacre was conducted under the auspises of a well-defined chain of command descending from a political authority to a terroristic organization or a military structure.
> 
> "The individuals who are actually the war criminals were never conscripts, but voluntary leaders sharing Zionist ideological fervor; and regardless of political party affiliations, those individuals with proven guilt in war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, such as Ben Gurion, Dayan, Begin, Shamir, Rabin, Sharon, and Peres, as examples, seem to have ensured political dominance in Israel by individuals who were guilty of these war crimes in their past. This would seem to indicate a criminal conspiracy to ensure that those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide would never be brought to justice, and that those who would oppose the perpetration of these crimes would always be excluded from achieving real political power in Israel. (Encyclopedia of Palestine)
> 
> And if you wonder why such brutal and unjust massacres occured, Professor Israel Shahak has the answer. Shahak draws our attention to a booklet in which An Army Rabbi Calls for the Killing of Civilians. The call is paraphrased as: When our forces encounter the civilians during the war or in course of pursuit or a raid, the encountered civilians may and by Halachic standards even must, be killed. The Rabbi reffered to was Lt. Col. Rabbi Abraham Avidian (Zemel), chief Rabbi of the Central Command.(Sami Hadawi, p.89)
> http://www.angelfire.com/ia/palestinefoever/massacre.html


Deir Yassin Remembered - by: Daniel A. McGowan
list of the massacres committed by the Zionists
Jewish/Israeli Massacres and Terrorism
Interview with Ariel Sharon published in the Israeli daily Davar Dec. 17, 1982


Lets not mistake the situation here.  The Israelis and their policies of racism and land theft are what has created this whole mess in the Middle East.  It has come to bite us in the ass because we have supported them without regaurd to justice in Israel-Palastine.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

I say they deserve a little slice of earth after almost being genocided out of existence by SOCIALISTS LOOKING TO BLAME THE ILLS OF SOCIETY UPON AN ECONOMICALLY SUCCESSFUL GROUP.  Sound familiar?


----------



## wade

Well we agree.  I think the Jews had a right to a homeland, if that is what they wanted.  I just don't agree they had the right to pick an area already occupied by a another culture who had been living on that land for over a thousand years, especially without compensation to those people.

But that is beside the point - the point is that Terrorism in the modern ME was initiated by the Zionists, not the Arabs.

Think of how much better the world would be today if the Zionists had setup their Jewish homeland in Argentina or Brazil.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> Well we agree.  I think the Jews had a right to a homeland, if that is what they wanted.  I just don't agree they had the right to pick an area already occupied by a another culture who had been living on that land for over a thousand years, especially without compensation to those people.
> 
> But that is beside the point - the point is that Terrorism in the modern ME was initiated by the Zionists, not the Arabs.
> 
> Think of how much better the world would be today if the Zionists had setup their Jewish homeland in Argentina or Brazil.
> 
> Wade.



Wade,  nearly every ongoing violent conflict in the world involves muslims.  Weren't you just saying how beyond repair their entire culture is on another thread? Now it's the jews fault.  Make up your mind, John Kerry.  (That's the worst thing you could ever call anyone!)


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Wade,  nearly every ongoing violent conflict in the world involves muslims.  Weren't you just saying how beyond repair their entire culture is on another thread? Now it's the jews fault.  Make up your mind, John Kerry.  (That's the worst thing you could ever call anyone!)



You are putting words in my mouth.  I didn't say they are beyond repair, I said they are not ready for and do not want Democracy.  I guess to you the two things are equal.

What has created the situation with the Arab nations is, more than anything else, the existance and actions of the state of Isreal in Palastine.

There is no conflict in my statements at all.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> You are putting words in my mouth.  I didn't say they are beyond repair, I said they are not ready for and do not want Democracy.  I guess to you the two things are equal.
> 
> What has created the situation with the Arab nations is, more than anything else, the existance and actions of the state of Isreal in Palastine.
> 
> There is no conflict in my statements at all.
> 
> Wade.



No.  Your opinion seemed solidly that democracy could never work there.  That means beyond repair in my book. Here we go with the backpedalling and revisionism.  There is conflict.  When you were trying to be mr. xenophobic hawk, trying in a misguided attempt to curry favor here by posing as what you think we are, you said exactly that very thing.  Now you say it's the jews fault.  Total conflict in my book.  Go ahead,  scream and cry about it.  You're intellectually dishonest to the core and a worse flip flopper than Kerry.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Wade, the truth is a cruel mistress, but serve her and nothing else, and you will be rewarded tenfold.


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  Your opinion seemed solidly that democracy could never work there.  That means beyond repair in my book. Here we go with the backpedalling and revisionism.  There is conflict.  When you were trying to be mr. xenophobic hawk, trying in a misguided attempt to curry favor here by posing as what you think we are, you said exactly that very thing.  Now you say it's the jews fault.  Total conflict in my book.  Go ahead,  scream and cry about it.  You're intellectually dishonest to the core and a worse flip flopper than Kerry.



No, what I am saying is that democracy cannot work with this generation of Iraqi's, because they don't want it.  It is contrary to a lifetime of being taught the ways of the Qu'ran.

To be racist, I'd have to be saying it was genetics that made them unfit for democracy, I'm not.  It is their culture that makes them extremely unlikely to accept democracy.

And I don't blame the Jews, I blame the Zionists for this whole mess.  They just had to take back land they'd not owned for almost 2000 years in a part of the world where it was obvious they would not be accepted.  If not for Israel being in Palastine this whole mess would not exist.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> No, what I am saying is that democracy cannot work with this generation of Iraqi's, because they don't want it.  It is contrary to a lifetime of being taught the ways of the Qu'ran.
> 
> To be racist, I'd have to be saying it was genetics that made them unfit for democracy, I'm not.  It is their culture that makes them extremely unlikely to accept democracy.
> 
> And I don't blame the Jews, I blame the Zionists for this whole mess.  They just had to take back land they'd not owned for almost 2000 years in a part of the world where it was obvious they would not be accepted.  If not for Israel being in Palastine this whole mess would not exist.
> 
> Wade.



Then the whole generation of them will die.  If that's what it takes.  Must the world tolerate a completely dysfunctional generation of young men, created by tyrants?  I think not.

Oh.  And I think the Zionists are jews.


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Then the whole generation of them will die.  If that's what it takes.  Must the world tolerate a completely dysfunctional generation of young men, created by tyrants?  I think not.



Perhaps.  Alternatively we could think forms of government that will be acceptable to the existing generation and allow the next generation to learn enough to desire democracy.



			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Oh.  And I think the Zionists are jews.



Ahh.. yes... All Zionists are Jews.  But not all Jews are Zionists.


----------



## theim

wade said:
			
		

> No, what I am saying is that democracy cannot work with this generation of Iraqi's, because they don't want it.  It is contrary to a lifetime of being taught the ways of the Qu'ran.
> 
> To be racist, I'd have to be saying it was genetics that made them unfit for democracy, I'm not.  It is their culture that makes them extremely unlikely to accept democracy.
> 
> And I don't blame the Jews, I blame the Zionists for this whole mess.  They just had to take back land they'd not owned for almost 2000 years in a part of the world where it was obvious they would not be accepted.  If not for Israel being in Palastine this whole mess would not exist.
> 
> Wade.



Silly Jews, thinking they had a right to live in a tiny sliver of land in their ancestral homeland after the holocaust. If the Arabs hadn't tried to invade them then Isreal wouldn't have had to beat their asses and take Gaza and WB. I don't know what those Palestinians are all uptight about. It isn't like theres not another dozen theocratic Islamic dictatorships in that region for them to live in.


----------



## wade

theim said:
			
		

> Silly Jews, thinking they had a right to live in a tiny sliver of land in their ancestral homeland after the holocaust. If the Arabs hadn't tried to invade them then Isreal wouldn't have had to beat their asses and take Gaza and WB. I don't know what those Palestinians are all uptight about. It isn't like theres not another dozen theocratic Islamic dictatorships in that region for them to live in.



But that sliver of land was already occupied.  Just because the Germans were evil to the Jews does not justify the Jews being evil to the Arabs.

They claim it is there ancestral home - but they really have no "proof".  The Arabs living on the land however, did have proof, as they and their families had been living there for over 1000 years.

When someone comes and steals the lands that your family has been living on for 30+ generations and says "I don't know what you're all uptite about, there are pleanty of other places you can live" lets see how you respond.

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> But that sliver of land was already occupied.  Just because the Germans were evil to the Jews does not justify the Jews being evil to the Arabs.
> 
> They claim it is there ancestral home - but they really have no "proof".  The Arabs living on the land however, did have proof, as they and their families had been living there for over 1000 years.
> 
> When someone comes and steals the lands that your family has been living on for 30+ generations and says "I don't know what you're all uptite about, there are pleanty of other places you can live" lets see how you respond.
> 
> Wade.



Every land invasion was wrong.  Let's undo them all, all throughout history.

Get over your leftist self, wade.  Your mind is a quagmire of  ridiculousness.  I don't see how sense can prevail.  You'd better pull out.


----------



## Zhukov

> They claim it is there ancestral home - but they really have no "proof". The Arabs living on the land however, did have proof, as they and their families had been living there for over 1000 years.



Are you seriously saying you don't believe the jews were there first?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> Perhaps.  Alternatively we could think forms of government that will be acceptable to the existing generation and allow the next generation to learn enough to desire democracy.




The very existence of Israel is not acceptable to them.  You know that.


----------



## Zhukov

theim said:
			
		

> I don't know what those Palestinians are all uptight about. It isn't like theres not another dozen theocratic Islamic dictatorships in that region for them to live in.



There aren't.  Those dictatroships actively deny the refugees entrance into their countries because as long as there exists a 'palestinian problem' they can continue to condemn Israel for being an oppressive occupying force.


----------



## dilloduck

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Are you seriously saying you don't believe the jews were there first?


http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/histcult.html
Ethno-Cultural & Linguistic Origins 

While the origins of the Sumerians, whose language appears related to no known linguistic family, remain a mystery, the other people of the region were chiefly Semites - Canaanites (the Levant), Amorites (southwestern desert people), Akkadians and Assyrians (Mesopotamia), Arameans, Habiru (Hebrews) and Bedu (Beduin Arabs of the southern desert). The languages of these groups are closely related, and also related more distantly to Hamitic languages, which include ancient Egyptian, Coptic, and Ethiopian.

Throughout the Bronze Age there was a sporadic influx of nomads from Arabia into the area, hostile at first, but soon incorporated into the existing culture. Later, Indo-European peoples migrated into the area. Among them were the Hurrians, who moved from Turkey in the North to Iraq in the 3rd milleneum BCE and brought the light horse-drawn chariot and composite bow to the Levant. Another group sailing from the West were the so-called "Sea Peoples," whose origin is still unknown, but who were probably north-eastern European. The various Indo-Europeans intermingled with and were absorbed into the Semitic cultures, an exception being the Persians who maintain their Indo-European culture and language up to this day.

2. Cities founded by Canaanites/ Phoenicians

Most of these ancient cities are still inhabited, or newer towns have been built near the mounds (tells) covering the ancient ones.


INLAND: 
Syria - Charchemish; Arslan Tash; Ebla (2500-2250 BCE) Aleppo; Hamath; Qadesh; Damascus;
Israel / Palestine - Hazor; Megiddo (Armageddon); Bethshan; Gezer; Shechem; Jericho; Jerusalem; Hebron; Beer-Sheba 
COASTAL: 
Syria - Ugarit = Ras Shamra (2000-1200 BCE) main temples to Baal & Dagon; Arad = Ruad; Marathus = Amrit; Simyra; 
Lebanon - Tri-polis; Gebal = Byblos (now Jebail) - major trade port with ancient Egypt; Beryt(us) = Beirut; Tsydon = Sidon; Tsyr = Tyre (now Sur); Sarepta;
Israel / Palestine - Akko = Acr*; Dor; Joppa = Jaffa, Haifa; Ashkelon; Gaza; Ezion-Geber (on the Red Sea) 


maybe not first?


----------



## Zhukov

dilloduck said:
			
		

> maybe not first?



Between the two.


----------



## dilloduck

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Between the two.


 

between the two tribes ? They are all Semitic. Pretty hard to make any differentiation. I know of no way to settle land disputes other than by treaty between the two parties or a military victory. Being the first doesn't hold much water.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

dilloduck said:
			
		

> between the two tribes ? They are all Semitic. Pretty hard to make any differentiation.



So how do you know they WEREN'T there first?  Not that it matters to me, but others seem hung up on it.


----------



## Zhukov

Between the jews and the so-called palestinians.



			
				dilloduck said:
			
		

> Pretty hard to make any differentiation.



They don't seem to think so.



> I know of no way to settle land disputes other than by treaty between the two parties or a military victory.



No argument there.

I'm wouldn't and didn't say being first entitles them to anything, I'm just saying that they were there before the moslems.


----------



## dilloduck

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Between the jews and the so-called palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't seem to think so.
> 
> 
> 
> No argument there.
> 
> I'm wouldn't and didn't say being first entitles them to anything, I'm just saying that they were there before the moslems.



ok I gotcha---the Jewish religion was there first ! ( Didn't Judaism officially begin in Egypt )


----------



## wade

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Between the jews and the so-called palestinians.
> 
> I'm wouldn't and didn't say being first entitles them to anything, I'm just saying that they were there before the moslems.



But the Jews were not there "before the Arabs".  The Arabs are, as best I can tell, decendants of the same peoples as the Jews, simply not descended from Abraham.  Abrahman defined a new tribe and went his own way, leaving the rest of his tribe behind.  That tribe later became what we now call the Arabs.

As for who was there first - it was the Ketamites (however it's spelled), who were there when the "chosen" were led by Moses to the "promised land", and who were wiped out man, woman, and child.

What we do KNOW for a fact is that Arabs who'd had their homes on specific lands for a thousand years had that land stolen out from under them by the Zionists when the state of Israel was created.  We also know that this is contrary to US stated policy concerning world borders after WWII - no change of borders by force is to be condoned.

My point is, the Jews have no proof they ever held the land.  To have such proof, they have to be able to say, at the very least, "my relative so-and-so lived right here".  They cannot do this.  The claim is invalid in every legal respect!

The Zionist claim is aburd.  It is bascially - "my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather lived somewhere in this general area, so this plot here rightfully is mine, get off it or I'll kill you - you squatter!"

Pretty silly huh?

Wade.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

well the jews have learned to live by the rules of every society they went to and done so quite well .  The arabs stayed in one place and became ethnocentric and intolerant.  So that's why I choose the jews.


----------



## dilloduck

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> well the jews have learned to live by the rules of every society they went to and done so quite well .  The arabs stayed in one place and became ethnocentric and intolerant.  So that's why I choose the jews.



RW--there are arabs living all over the world!


----------



## Zhukov

dilloduck said:
			
		

> ok I gotcha---the Jewish religion was there first ! ( Didn't Judaism officially begin in Egypt )



No idea.  I don't think that's the story.




			
				wade said:
			
		

> But the Jews were not there "before the Arabs". The Arabs are, as best I can tell, decendants of the same peoples as the Jews, simply not descended from Abraham. Abrahman defined a new tribe and went his own way, leaving the rest of his tribe behind. That tribe later became what we now call the Arabs.
> 
> As for who was there first - it was the Ketamites (however it's spelled), who were there when the "chosen" were led by Moses to the "promised land", and who were wiped out man, woman, and child.



That therefore makes the jews the first  group of people there who are still extant,  and therefore, logically, they were there before the so-called palestinians.


----------



## dilloduck

Zhukov said:
			
		

> No idea.  I don't think that's the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That therefore makes the jews the first  group of people there who are still extant,  and therefore, logically, they were there before the so-called palestinians.



Which would logically make the USA Indian Land


----------



## Zhukov

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Which would logically make the USA Indian Land



No because, again, I never claimed the jews were entitled to anything for being there first.

The land that currently makes up the U.S. did once belong to others, but we killed most of them and evicted the rest and so now it's ours.

If the Arab's all join together and wipe out the jews and take their land, so be it.  They don't seem to be able to though, try as they might.


----------



## 5stringJeff

wade said:
			
		

> We also know that this is contrary to US stated policy concerning world borders after WWII - no change of borders by force is to be condoned.
> 
> My point is, the Jews have no proof they ever held the land.  To have such proof, they have to be able to say, at the very least, "my relative so-and-so lived right here".  They cannot do this.  The claim is invalid in every legal respect!



Except for the fact that the UN sanctioned the creation of Israel.  So it was legal, and not accomplished by force - except for the small invasion of Israel by 5 neighboring countries that got their asses kicked by the infant nation.


----------



## dmp

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that the UN sanctioned the creation of Israel.  So it was legal, and not accomplished by force - except for the small invasion of Israel by 5 neighboring countries that got their asses kicked by the infant nation.




Right - it's a clear case of "bullies attack a newbie country, taking some of their land.  Newbie country kicks them out of their land, and takes a bit MORE than they had to begin with.  Bullies start boo-hoo'ing and strapping bombs to children and women abord newbie-country busses.  And there are SOME people who agree with that practice..."


----------



## Zhukov

wade said:
			
		

> My point is, the Jews have no proof they ever held the land. To have such proof, they have to be able to say, at the very least, "my relative so-and-so lived right here". They cannot do this. The claim is invalid in every legal respect!



What about Roman taxation and historical records?  For a few centuries the jews enjoyed a certain autonomy under Roman law, and considering they clearly didn't migrate into Judea during Roman occupation, they were there beforehand.  Which puts us around 200 BC, or about 700 years before Mohammed and his merry men began to raise hell.

Of course they were there before the Romans arrived, and there are probably ancient Persian records detailing a jewish land there back several centuries more.

_Palestinian_, on the other hand, is a concoted term that refers to a occupation area drawn by the British.


----------



## dilloduck

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Right - it's a clear case of "bullies attack a newbie country, taking some of their land.  Newbie country kicks them out of their land, and takes a bit MORE than they had to begin with.  Bullies start boo-hoo'ing and strapping bombs to children and women abord newbie-country busses.  And there are SOME people who agree with that practice..."



OK well lets talk reality here----The Jews own Israel because they have a better army than anyone in the region. The UN ( the same one that calls the Iraqi War ILLEGAL ) gave them an inch and the arabs gave them "reason" to take a mile. That's why they have it now and with continued financial support from American citizens and private jews throughout the world they will keep it. Let's quit pretending they have it because GOD said so !


----------



## wade

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> well the jews have learned to live by the rules of every society they went to and done so quite well .  The arabs stayed in one place and became ethnocentric and intolerant.  So that's why I choose the jews.



Ummm... you are showing your ignorance of history again.

The Zionist movement started back in the mid 1800's.  When they first started moving to Palastine, in the years prior to WWII, they were welcomed by the arabs who lived there!  They started purchasing land and living in the communities and they were still welcomed.  It was not until they started talking about forming a Jewish state in the "holy land" of palastine, that the Arabs stopped being quite so accepting.  After WWII the Zionist movement got major backing from the USA, espeically US Jews.  The British were resistant to the Zionist requests that they create and acknowlege a Jewish state in Palastine.  The Zionists responded with terrorism, as shown previously, at first directed mostly against the British but then after the British decided to pull out it was directed against the indiginous Arab population.

Prior to the Zionist terrorist attacks on Arabs and the creation of Israel, there was no history of hatred between Jews and Arabs.  Jews made up a significant (but small) population in almost every Arab nation, where they'd lived in peace for thousands of years.

Wade.


----------



## wade

dilloduck said:
			
		

> OK well lets talk reality here----The Jews own Israel because they have a better army than anyone in the region. The UN ( the same one that calls the Iraqi War ILLEGAL ) gave them an inch and the arabs gave them "reason" to take a mile. That's why they have it now and with continued financial support from American citizens and private jews throughout the world they will keep it. Let's quit pretending they have it because GOD said so !



They pretend they have a right to it because GOD said so.  It is the basis of their claims.  US support of Israel makes US stated doctrine concerning boundary changes by force a complete sham.

Wade.


----------



## dilloduck

wade said:
			
		

> They pretend they have a right to it because GOD said so.  It is the basis of their claims.  US support of Israel makes US stated doctrine concerning boundary changes by force a complete sham.
> 
> Wade.



If that doesn't work, the next argument is that they were there first--then comes the UN--then comes the arab attacks blah blah blah---always the same. Now it is simply "we do what we have to do in order to defend themselves". Americans can relate to that one now !


----------



## wade

Zhukov said:
			
		

> What about Roman taxation and historical records?  For a few centuries the jews enjoyed a certain autonomy under Roman law, and considering they clearly didn't migrate into Judea during Roman occupation, they were there beforehand.  Which puts us around 200 BC, or about 700 years before Mohammed and his merry men began to raise hell.
> 
> Of course they were there before the Romans arrived, and there are probably ancient Persian records detailing a jewish land there back several centuries more.
> 
> _Palestinian_, on the other hand, is a concoted term that refers to a occupation area drawn by the British.



Palastine is the term used by the British to define the geographical region we are discussing.  Please lets not complicated the discussion with symantics.

Yes, I do not dispute that Jews were in the region dating back to well before Christ.  But so were "Arabs".  As I said before, I'm pretty sure that modern day Arabs consist largely of other members of the tribe which Abraham lead into the region.  Remember, to be a real Jew, you have to be able to trace your lineage back through an unbroken line of women to Abraham.  Surely Abraham was not the only adult male in his tribe.  What happend to the rest?  Those are the Arabs!  The Jews and Arabs are Brothers!

But that is not the point I was making.  A claim to stolen anscetrial lands requires at least:

1) you can identify exactly what plot of land was "stolen" from exactly what anscetor, and can prove this.

2) you can prove that the lands were stolen, not sold or abandon.

The Zionists can do neither of these.  But even if they could, I have serious reservations about any recognition of such claims going back so far.  Lets say there was a plot of land owned by a Jew back in the year 2500 BC, that was "stolen" from him by the Egyptians.  Lets say that by some means the descendants of that Jew could be determined.  There would likely be thousands of them, all with a claim on a few acres of land.

So what it comes down to is FORCE.  The Zionists have used force to steal the land from the Arabs, and the Arabs have chosen not to accept this and are using force to try to take it back.  Because the Zionists are backed by the USA, and thus have an overwhelming direct force advantage, the Arabs have chosen to use the same tactic the Zionists used against the British when faced with the same problem - TERRORISM!

Wade.


----------



## wade

dilloduck said:
			
		

> If that doesn't work, the next argument is that they were there first--then comes the UN--then comes the arab attacks blah blah blah---always the same. Now it is simply "we do what we have to do in order to defend themselves". Americans can relate to that one now !



Well, my orginal point was that the Zionists should not have been appeased.  They should not have been allowed to steal the Arab lands in palastine and delcare a new state there.  They should either have had to buy the land, or they should have established the State of Israel in another place.

What they have in effect done is become the new Natzi's, throwing away the concepts of right and wrong because it suits their interests, and oppressing a peoples to achieve their own goals.

Wade.


----------



## dilloduck

wade said:
			
		

> Well, my orginal point was that the Zionists should not have been appeased.  They should not have been allowed to steal the Arab lands in palastine and delcare a new state there.  They should either have had to buy the land, or they should have established the State of Israel in another place.
> 
> What they have in effect done is become the new Natzi's, throwing away the concepts of right and wrong because it suits their interests, and oppressing a peoples to achieve their own goals.
> 
> Wade.


Agreed but it's a bit too late now isn't it?  The US cannot or will not detatch it self from Israel now for MANY reasons.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> Ummm... you are showing your ignorance of history again.
> 
> The Zionist movement started back in the mid 1800's.  When they first started moving to Palastine, in the years prior to WWII, they were welcomed by the arabs who lived there!  They started purchasing land and living in the communities and they were still welcomed.  It was not until they started talking about forming a Jewish state in the "holy land" of palastine, that the Arabs stopped being quite so accepting.  After WWII the Zionist movement got major backing from the USA, espeically US Jews.  The British were resistant to the Zionist requests that they create and acknowlege a Jewish state in Palastine.  The Zionists responded with terrorism, as shown previously, at first directed mostly against the British but then after the British decided to pull out it was directed against the indiginous Arab population.
> 
> Prior to the Zionist terrorist attacks on Arabs and the creation of Israel, there was no history of hatred between Jews and Arabs.  Jews made up a significant (but small) population in almost every Arab nation, where they'd lived in peace for thousands of years.
> 
> Wade.



My arguments are not based on history, except for the broad assertion that jews have succeeded by the laws of societies they live within.  

When I think about which group of people I wish to succeed in that area, I choose the jews, because arab culture is f'ed.  It's totally intolerant and based on islamic tyranny.  So I don't know which historical point you think I got wrong, considering I made no reference to anything historical.


----------



## Zhukov

wade said:
			
		

> Yes, I do not dispute that Jews were in the region dating back to well before Christ.  But so were "Arabs".  As I said before, I'm pretty sure that modern day Arabs consist largely of other members of the tribe which Abraham lead into the region.  Remember, to be a real Jew, you have to be able to trace your lineage back through an unbroken line of women to Abraham.  Surely Abraham was not the only adult male in his tribe.  What happend to the rest?  Those are the Arabs!  The Jews and Arabs are Brothers!
> 
> But that is not the point I was making.  A claim to stolen anscetrial lands requires at least:
> 
> 1) you can identify exactly what plot of land was "stolen" from exactly what anscetor, and can prove this.
> 
> 2) you can prove that the lands were stolen, not sold or abandon.
> 
> The Zionists can do neither of these.  But even if they could...



I actually believe there are a precious few families of jews who have lived there continuously for the past 2000 years or so in an unbroken line, but I'm not really interested in who 'stole' what from who.  All land owned today was 'stolen' from some earlier inhabitant who was either driven off, marginalized, or killed.

I just thought you were saying you didn't believe jewish occupation of present-day Israel predated the occupation of that land by the palestinians.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

wade said:
			
		

> Well, my orginal point was that the Zionists should not have been appeased.  They should not have been allowed to steal the Arab lands in palastine and delcare a new state there.  They should either have had to buy the land, or they should have established the State of Israel in another place.
> 
> What they have in effect done is become the new Natzi's, throwing away the concepts of right and wrong because it suits their interests, and oppressing a peoples to achieve their own goals.
> 
> Wade.



Even if the jews pull out, osama bin laden will still hate america.  It's still an intolerant, bigoted backward culture, incompatible with the modern world.  Since the lead tyrants know this, they have been prepping a generation of their young to die to defend their regimes, by state controlled media and preaching hatred and backwardness.   The WOT is not about eliminating muslims; they're welcome to change their culture so it's a little more friendly to people who are SLIGHTLY different.  Get a clue.


----------



## wade

Zhukov said:
			
		

> That therefore makes the jews the first  group of people there who are still extant,  and therefore, logically, they were there before the so-called palestinians.



No, the Arabs were there from the same point in history as the Jews.  They were in fact the same peoples at the time, all followers of the laws of God provided though Moses, who lead them all to the promised land.

The difference is that the Jews abandoned the land when the going got tough, the Arabs chose to stay.

Wade.


----------



## dmp

wade said:
			
		

> No, the Arabs were there from the same point in history as the Jews.  They were in fact the same peoples at the time, all followers of the laws of God provided though Moses, who lead them all to the promised land.
> 
> The difference is that the Jews abandoned the land when the going got tough, the Arabs chose to stay.
> 
> Wade.




History



> In the second century A.D. the Romans killed half a million Jews, and hundreds of thousands more were sold into slavery. The Romans renamed Israel as "Syria Palestine." Jews living there became known as Palestinians until the second half of the 20th century.
> 
> During World War II, the British army had a Palestinian Brigade made up entirely of Jewish volunteers. The Palestinian culture was Jewish, the language was Hebrew, the schools were all Jewish, the Palestinian Symphony Orchestra was all Jewish, and the Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper.
> 
> In 1948, Arabs who had fled from Israel in accordance with calls from Arab nations attacking Israel that "all Arabs get out," began to claim they were the true Palestinians and that the land of Israel had always belonged to them. The liberal-left press to this day eagerly promotes that lie, but yet in 1948 Arabs owned a mere 3 percent of so-called Palestine.
> 
> Israels claim to the land goes back 4,000 years to the purchase Abraham made in Hebron. For 3,000 years Jerusalem was the capital of Israel, and the 35-acre Temple Mount, currently in the center of the dispute, was purchased by King David from Ornan the Jebusite.
> 
> It was the site of the first and the second Jewish temples. Those who call themselves Palestinians today do not have their own language and culture. They are all Arabs by birth, language and culture, and are close relatives to Arabs in surrounding countries from where most of them came, attracted by Israels prosperity.
> 
> The fact is that Israelis are not the criminals, but Yasser


more

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/palestinians.html#rethep


----------



## wade

Zhukov said:
			
		

> I actually believe there are a precious few families of jews who have lived there continuously for the past 2000 years or so in an unbroken line, but I'm not really interested in who 'stole' what from who.  All land owned today was 'stolen' from some earlier inhabitant who was either driven off, marginalized, or killed.
> 
> I just thought you were saying you didn't believe jewish occupation of present-day Israel predated the occupation of that land by the palestinians.



Exactly, but the USA's post-WWII policy specifically opposes such invasions for the purpose of aquiring land.  Only in the case of Israel have we not held to this principal.

Again, I think both jews and arabs occupied the land, side by side, back in the pre-roman period.  I'm not sure of the years, but certainly it pre-dates the Egyptians, who enslaved the Jews (and others) to build the pyramids.  The point is that through that period and through the Roman occupation of the region, the Jews chose to leave for other more fruitful places.  Some stayed but relatively few.

In the end, I think the whole "God gave us this land" argument is pure crap.  And I think you agree with this don't you Zhukov?

Wade.


----------



## dmp

wade said:
			
		

> Exactly, but the USA's post-WWII policy specifically opposes such invasions for the purpose of aquiring land.  Only in the case of Israel have we not held to this principal.




When since ww2, has Israel aquired land which wasn't the result of them defending themselves?


----------



## wade

-=d=- said:
			
		

> History



LOL - nice self-serving Zionist recollection of history you found there.

Frist off, the Romans enslaved and killed lots of people, the Jews were no special case of Roman persecution.

The argument that all the schools and other aspects of organized society in the region were Jewish is pure crap.  That is Zionist revisionist history.  They must define a school as being run by Jews.  It is true that Zionists had been immigrating to the region for about 20 years by that point, but they were still not the dominant population in the region.  They brought with them aspects of European culture, such as Orchestras, but that does not make them the rightful owners of the land by a far stretch.



			
				-=d=- said:
			
		

> "In 1948, Arabs who had fled from Israel in accordance with calls from Arab nations attacking Israel that "all Arabs get out," .."



And I suppose the fact that Zionist death squads were butchering whole communities of Arabs had nothing to do with their fleeing?

Are you denying the genocidal war of the Jews against the Ketemites?

Wade.


----------



## dmp

wade said:
			
		

> LOL - nice self-serving Zionist recollection of history you found there.
> 
> Frist off, the Romans enslaved and killed lots of people, the Jews were no special case of Roman persecution.
> 
> The argument that all the schools and other aspects of organized society in the region were Jewish is pure crap.  That is Zionist revisionist history.  They must define a school as being run by Jews.  It is true that Zionists had been immigrating to the region for about 20 years by that point, but they were still not the dominant population in the region.  They brought with them aspects of European culture, such as Orchestras, but that does not make them the rightful owners of the land by a far stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> And I suppose the fact that Zionist death squads were butchering whole communities of Arabs had nothing to do with their fleeing?
> 
> Are you denying the genocidal war of the Jews against the Ketemites?
> 
> Wade.




see my previous post.  Israel acts in defense of it's nation.


----------



## wade

-=d=- said:
			
		

> see my previous post.  Israel acts in defense of it's nation.



I do not question that.

I simply point out that had the nation of Israel been established somewhere other than in already occupied by Arab lands in the Middle East, this whole terrorism mess we are suffuring today would very likely not exist.

Wade.


----------



## 5stringJeff

Wade, your posts have the term 'Zionist' more times than a Hamas press release.


----------



## wade

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that the UN sanctioned the creation of Israel.  So it was legal, and not accomplished by force - except for the small invasion of Israel by 5 neighboring countries that got their asses kicked by the infant nation.



I see.  So the UN is the determining factor in what is and is not legitimate?  Right and Wrong have nothing to do with it?


----------



## 5stringJeff

wade said:
			
		

> I see.  So the UN is the determining factor in what is and is not legitimate?  Right and Wrong have nothing to do with it?




Well, you tell me.  Have you not derided for Bush going to war against Saddam because the UN didn't sanction it?  But yet you also cry about Israel, even though it was sanctioned by the UN.  So which is it - is a UN resolution satisfactory for an action to take place?  If so, quit whining about Israel's existence.  If not, quit whining about Bush going to war against Saddam without UN approval.


----------



## dilloduck

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Wade, your posts have the term 'Zionist' more times than a Hamas press release.


Is the word "Zionist" offensive?


----------



## 5stringJeff

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Is the word "Zionist" offensive?



No, but the fact that Wade uses "Zionist" instead of "Jewish" or "Israeli" says a lot about his viewpoints...


----------



## dilloduck

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> No, but the fact that Wade uses "Zionist" instead of "Jewish" or "Israeli" says a lot about his viewpoints...


 Maybe he IS referring to zionists-----you weren't tempted to say he was anti-semitic were you?


----------



## Zhukov

wade said:
			
		

> No, the Arabs were there from the same point in history as the Jews.



I didn't think when Abraham split from the rest of the semites he was in present-day Israel, but I could be wrong.  I thought he was more around present-day Jordan or Iraq.  At any rate, as the story goes, the only people who were there when the jews got to the 'holy land' after their enslavement were the cannanites whom the jews exterminated.  As far as I know there is no book, or any other record, as old as the bible which claims that land for the palestinians.  Now, if the Philistines come back they get to claim 'first', but they'll still have to kill the jews if they want the land back.



> Exactly, but the USA's post-WWII policy specifically opposes such invasions for the purpose of aquiring land. Only in the case of Israel have we not held to this principal.



There was no invasion.  There was a mass migration followed by mass eviction with UN approval (which at the time was a much different institution than it is today).

Additionally, the creation of a jewish state was part in parcel with the formation of the UN and the rest of the post-WWII plan.



> In the end, I think the whole "God gave us this land" argument is pure crap. And I think you agree with this don't you Zhukov?



Well, it certainly wouldn't sway me if that's what you mean.  But is anyone here making that argument?


----------



## wade

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Well, you tell me.  Have you not derided for Bush going to war against Saddam because the UN didn't sanction it?  But yet you also cry about Israel, even though it was sanctioned by the UN.  So which is it - is a UN resolution satisfactory for an action to take place?  If so, quit whining about Israel's existence.  If not, quit whining about Bush going to war against Saddam without UN approval.



Actually no.  I've never been a big supporter of the UN, look at my positions on it in previous posts.

My problem is that we really don't have much meaningful support at all.  The USA has 140,000 troops in Iraq.  Britain (UK) has 9000.  No other nation has more than 3000 (Italy), and the total of these other nations combine amounts to about 11,000.  Not only that, but most of these other nations troops perform very limited duties, and are not really fighting.  Monitarily the situation is even more lop sided.

If we were going to do this w/o UN support, we should have lined up better support from our "Allies".  So far, only Great Britain (UK) has really stepped up - sort of.  The UK has about 60 million people, a bit over 1/5th our population, so if they were "doing their part" we'd expect them to have about 35,000 troops in Iraq.  We'd expect Austrailia to have more troops there than the Brits do now.  Each of our "Allies" is sending the fewest number of troops they can and many of them are demanding only the least dangerous types of duties.  And we are footing the bill.

As I've said before, as now structured the UN is a useless body.  As long as the "big 5" have veto power, its functionality is limited at best to humanitarian aid except in rare instances where all of the "big 5" can agree - and that's not likely. 

And in 1948 the UN was nothing more than a rubber stamp for US policy.

Wade.


----------



## drac

wade said:
			
		

> .....And in 1948 the UN was nothing more than a rubber stamp for US policy.


Nop, disagree here. The result of WW2 was a birth of 2 superpower and 2 camps divided by ideology. Both powers had a veto power in UN, so UN policies we not US policies at that time.


----------



## wade

drac said:
			
		

> Nop, disagree here. The result of WW2 was a birth of 2 superpower and 2 camps divided by ideology. Both powers had a veto power in UN, so UN policies we not US policies at that time.



Umm... If this is true how do you explain the UN's part in the Korean War?  Clearly the USSR was opposed to the UN intervention in Korea, but its veto power (which it did excercise) was meaningless in the UN of that time.

Wade.


----------



## Zhukov

The Soviet Union was protesting the UN (because of China) at the time and abstained from voting.


----------



## drac

Zhukov said:
			
		

> The Soviet Union was protesting the UN (because of China) at the time and abstained from voting.


Thank you, saved me some search on this one, 
those chinese did not want to play "little brother" part if i remember correctly


----------



## Zhukov

The UN was recognizing the nationalist government-in-exile, not the Communists.

The Soviets were protesting in response.

For some reason, and something I would like to one day exhaustively investigate, Stalin gave the green light to Kim but didn't bother to drop his petty U.N. protest to veto the U.N. resolution to use force against North Korea.  Serious blunder.


----------



## wade

Opps I just read your earlier posts and realized my post (deleted) was in error.  You are right the Soviets were protesting and did not veto the Korean war declaration.

But seriously, do you think that would have stopped the USA or the other Western Allies?

Wade.


----------



## Zhukov

wade said:
			
		

> Opps I just read your earlier posts and realized my post (deleted) was in error.  You are right the Soviets were protesting and did not veto the Korean war declaration.
> 
> But seriously, do you think that would have stopped the USA or the other Western Allies?
> 
> Wade.



I think it would have, at the least, delayed us long enough so as to made retaking the peninsula much more difficult.  It's hard to say what the U.S. would have done in the face of a Soviet veto back then.  It was a different world, the U.N. was new, and it would have hardly served the purpose of gaining international respect for that body if less than ten years after it's creation we were already ignoring it.


----------



## waltky

No-fly zone needed over Aleppo...

*Hospital Workers Rush to Evacuate Infants in Aleppo Bombing*
_Nov 18, 2016 | Doctors and nurses at a pediatric hospital in Aleppo scrambled to evacuate babies to safety after the facility was bombed._


> Doctors and nurses at a pediatric hospital in eastern Aleppo scrambled Friday to evacuate babies in incubators to safety from underground shelters after the facility in the besieged Syrian city was bombed for the second time this week.  Medics and aid workers also reported a suspected attack involving toxic gas in a district on the western edge of the rebel-held area. At least 12 people, including children, were treated for breathing difficulties, said Adham Sahloul of the Syrian American Medical Society, which supports health facilities in Aleppo.
> 
> Claims of toxic gas attacks are common in Syria, and reports by international inspectors have held the government responsible for using chemicals in attacks on civilians, which Damascus denies.  Airstrikes also hit a village in rural areas Aleppo province, killing seven members of a family, including four children, opposition activists said.  Friday was the fourth day of renewed assaults by Syrian warplanes on eastern Aleppo districts, a rebel-held enclave of 275,000 people. The onslaught began Tuesday, when Syria's ally Russia announced its own offensive on the northern rebel-controlled Idlib province and Homs province in central Syria.  Since then, more than 100 people have been killed across northern Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smoke rising and fires burning after airstrikes hit the Al-Shaar neighborhood of Aleppo, Syria​
> Friday's airstrikes in Aleppo hit a complex of four hospitals that had been attacked two days earlier. The latest strikes forced the pediatric hospital and a neighboring facility to stop operating.  "Now it is being bombed. ... I am sorry. ... I have to go to transfer the children," the head of the pediatric hospital wrote in a text message to The Associated Press. The doctor identified himself only by his first name of Hatem because he fears for reprisals against his family.
> 
> The incubators already had been moved underground for safety, but with bombs falling all around the facility, hospital workers had to rush them to a safer place despite the danger.  Hatem rushed 14 babies in incubators to another facility a 10-minute drive away while airstrikes continued, he said in a later message.  "As we drove out with the ambulance, warplanes were firing and artillery were shelling," he wrote. "But thank God we were not hurt."  Some of the survivors of the suspected gas attack were taken to the children's hospital.
> 
> MORE


----------



## waltky

Russians and Syrian army destroy hospitals in Aleppo...

*Eastern Aleppo hospitals unusable: officials*
_Mon, Nov 21, 2016 - All hospitals in Syria’s besieged rebel-held eastern city of Aleppo are out of service after days of heavy airstrikes, the provincial health directorate and the WHO said, although the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said some were still functioning._


> US National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the US condemned “in the strongest terms” the latest airstrikes against hospitals and urged Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to take steps to halt the violence.  Intense airstrikes have battered the eastern part of the city since Tuesday last week, when the Syrian army and its allies resumed operations after a pause lasting weeks. They launched ground attacks against insurgent positions on Friday.  The observatory said 48 people, including at least five children, had been killed in eastern Aleppo on Saturday by dozens of airstrikes and barrel bombs and dozens of artillery rounds.  That brings the number of people killed by the increased bombardment of Aleppo and the surrounding countryside over the past five days to about 180, including 97 in the city’s besieged eastern sector, the observatory added.
> 
> Warplanes, artillery and helicopters continued bombarding eastern Aleppo on Saturday, hitting many of its densely populated residential districts, the observatory said.  There were intense clashes in the Bustan al-Basha district, it added.  “This destruction of infrastructure essential to life leaves the besieged, resolute people, including all children and elderly men and women, without any health facilities offering life-saving treatment ... leaving them to die,” Aleppo’s health directorate said in a statement sent to reporters late on Friday by an opposition official.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A damaged Civil Defence ambulance is pictured on Saturday in a rebel-held area of Aleppo, Syria.​
> Elizabeth Hoff, who is the WHO representative in Syria, on Saturday said that a UN-led group of aid agencies based over the border in Turkey “confirmed today that all hospitals in eastern Aleppo are out of service.”  The observatory said some hospitals were still operating in besieged parts of Aleppo, but said many residents were frightened to use them because of the heavy shelling.  Medical sources, residents and rebels in eastern Aleppo say hospitals have been damaged by airstrikes and helicopter barrel bombs in recent days, including direct hits on the buildings.  “The United States again joins our partners ... in demanding the immediate cessation of these bombardments and calling on Russia to immediately de-escalate violence and facilitate humanitarian aid and access for the Syrian people,” Rice said in a statement.
> 
> However, with the US awaiting the inauguration in late January of US president-elect Donald Trump, who has been critical of Washington’s Syria policy without laying out detailed plans himself, diplomatic efforts appear stalled.  UN and Arab League Envoy to Syria Staffan De Mistura was yesterday expected to meet Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Walid al-Muallem in Damascus after recent talks in Turkey and Iran, another diplomat said.  “He will push on Aleppo, perhaps on a ceasefire, but on the political file there won’t be anything until [UN secretary-general-designate Antonio] Guterres is in office,” the diplomat said.
> 
> Eastern Aleppo hospitals unusable: officials - Taipei Times



See also:

*Eight children killed in rocket launch at school in Aleppo*
_Nov. 20, 2016  -- At least eight children died by rebel rocket fire that hit a school in government-held west Aleppo, Syrian state media said Sunday._


> In all, 10 people were killed and 59 wounded in the attack on the Furqan neighborhood.  A medical source told the Syrian Arab News Agency that eight students between 7 and 12 years old were killed, another 27 students injured and a female teacher had a leg amputated.  Also, Al Jazeera reported a family of six in eastern Aleppo was killed.  Two medics said the al-Baytounji family -- four children and a married couple -- died from the barrel bomb laced with chlorine gas in the Sakhour district at about midnight. Damascus has denied use of the gas, which is forbidden by the international Chemical Weapons Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SANA also said shells were fired on the Faculty of Law and the neighborhoods of al-Sabil, al-Mogambo, al-Furqan and al-Midan, killing two persons and injuring 32 others in west Aleppo. The opposition now holds the eastern part of the city.  Syria's military and Russia's air force had stopped bombarding eastern Aleppo, except for the front-lines, for three weeks, but recommenced strikes Tuesday.  Aleppo Gov. Hussein Diab inspected al-Furqan School for basic education and urged for it to be repaired immediately. He also visited those injured in the attacks at the University Hospital, stressing the necessity of providing medical services.
> 
> About 240 people have been killed in east Aleppo and the rebel-held countryside to the west of the city since Tuesday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.  On Sunday, the United Nations' Syria envoy, Staffan de Mistura, warned time was "running out" for eastern Aleppo. He arrived in Damascus for talks.  Foreign Minister Walid al-Moalem said de Mistura suggested an autonomous administration in eastern Aleppo, but Damascus completely rejected the idea. An elected city council oversees services there.  Moalem said the civilians of eastern Aleppo were held hostage in this controlled distribution of food.
> 
> Eight children killed in rocket launch at school in Aleppo


----------

