The country is run by the military establishment, not unlike how this country is being run. The will of the people in America to end the war didn't end it, and the will of the Israeli people to find a solution won't mean negotiations or reconciliation. There is too much money to be made killing innocent people.
they want to pretend that this is what Israeli people want to get support for their crazy ideas. i point out that is not true.only their extremists.they are the ones that don't care about what israeli people want.
I'm not an expert on this by any means, but from what I have read, the Jews don't exactly have a monopoly on that territory based on history. What records are you referring to? Oh, go hide under your bed while innocent people get killed in the "war on terror". I can agree that a step to peace is agreeing that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation-state, but I don't buy this homeland stuff. I don't think they have any more claim to that land than anyone else whose ancestors has lived there. You're the historical fact man. Got something to back up the assertion that only Jews have a claim on it as a homeland? And btw, I think that whole line of thinking is ridiculous anyways. If the native Americans want their land back, should they get it? Do you think the US government will support the Lakota secession the way they support Israel? I don't. First you conflate my position to being equal to a terrorist, then you associate Iraqis with terrorists, when most if not nearly all of them are not. See what I mean, these are neocon tactics by someone without a strong position or facts for argument. You have to attack me personally. Which means you have lost before you have began. I never mentioned Israel re: Iraq, did I? Again, you're trying to associate me with things that are untrue or haven't been said. The UK was clearly in on the conspiracy. Perhaps you have heard of the "Downing Street Memo"? Many of the people who laugh off conspiracy are just terribly under-informed. Go educate yourself. I think you like to say I hate America (or Jews as you wrote before) because you don't want to answer why 500,000 kids were killed under Food for Oil. Or why chemical weapons were used in Fallujah. I don't think you want to be engaged, and take some personal responsibility for what your government does in your name. You'd rather bury your head in the sand, and claim it's not happening. Guess what? Hamas probably doesn't care if it kills 1,000 babies either. I mean, the Vietnam war was totally contrived, over a million Vietnamese died, 60,000+ American troops, it bankrupted this country and drove us off the last remnant of the Gold Standard. That was a conspiracy. Operation Northwoods is a conspiracy. Only an idiot doesn't believe in the truth or investigation. These "conspiracies" been exposed countless times, in the MSM, through the FOIA, and qualified scholars. For f**ks sake, most people still think that the Vietnamese attacked us. A crap ton of people believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Obviously, you believe some stories which have been debunked or challenged. That's your shortcoming, not mine. Now apparently I am a 9-11 truther. Boy, you have no problem trying to paint me as things I am not. You might be second only to GTech in discrediting the person you are debating. My POV is realistic. It's backed up by facts, history and evidence. I'm sorry if it doesn't make you feel good inside, but then maybe you should lose your smug arrogance and do something about it, instead of trying to deceive yourself and others into blissful ignorance. If you want to challenge my POV, challenge the facts. Don't play the childish character assassination game, because you are not as good at it as GTech, and I have thoroughly rwned him at that. I'm not down on people, I'm down on the warmongers, the establishment apologists, the power hungry, the murderers and the corrupt. And I'm not down on this country, it's worth fighting for, and it's soul is worth saving. And we're going to do it with good people, who believe in real peace and prosperity.
Which underscores my earlier point about dishonesty. Those numbers have been discredited many times and I have corrected you on them numerous times. But then you are not interested in facts. It's the perfect illustration of what I was saying about how someone can hate their country so much, they would willfully use dishonesty to tear it down. That's the problem and now it makes even more sense what browntwn was suggesting. Your mission is to make a case for something that paints your country in a bad light and you are using dishonesty to do so. I can't think of anything that says "I hate my country" more than that. I'm not uncomfortable with dishonest canards, because they simply are not true. What I'm uncomfortable with, is the blatant dishonesty used to attempt to portray the country you reside in as the evil of the world. This entire response from you, proves that point. The US is not committing genocide. It doesn't surprise me though, that you would paint our military in that role. Typical guerilla. When backed into a corner, you want to pretend that you "support our troops." You want to pretend to honor a commitment to send a donation to our troops on a lost bet, but when asked about it, you simply claimed "the check is in the mail." Meanwhile, al qaida and islamic terrorists were killing Iraqis by the hundreds every month, until the surge started working (which has apparently upset you by the fact that you insist it isn't working, even when the reluctant media is being forced to admit it is). Nope, never a bad word for a terrorist. In fact, you often suggest "if my home was blown up, I'd probably go to extremes," which in my view, is lending sympathy to those killing people you want to assign blame to your country for. This is not accurate, which isn't surprising. Previously you tried to blame the country you reside in (I can't bring myself to say "your" country) for saddam's chemical weapons when I proved you wrong (or in your egotistical term...rwned) and sourced those facts. Yet the presence of those facts doesn't seem to prevent you from reasserting them again and again and again and again. Further, we didn't stand by saddam for that. It severely damaged any potential relations and was the start of the turn towards bad relations. Further, Gulf War 1 was the result of saddam invading a country that is an ally. Nothing dishonorable there, yet it appears that you are suggesting the country you reside in (not sure if you were actually "residing" here during that time) is the evil one for stopping the atrocities he committed during that "occupation." Further, Clinton did carry out bombing missions when saddam failed to cooperate. You know, when he was hiding those WMD that he had, but didn't have...used, but didn't have. It also illustrates that democrats thought/knew saddam had wmd long before Bush was ever in office. The remaining two options are most likely made up as well. Blame America first, always. A million in mass graves, yet not a single bad word about saddam. Only reserved for the country you reside in. Not everyone is happy saddam is gone, right? Saddam was not our ally. Two years ago, information was discovered by the NYTimes on a government website about saddam's nuclear program. He had the ability and capability. Saddam did have bio weapons. Remember? You like to blame the country you reside in for giving them to him, even though the real facts (that you don't care for) show they came from Germany and other countries. You can't have it both ways. I won't let you. We did overthrow saddam. Remember? Not everyone is happy about it. Isn't it interesting that you want to pretend "both sides" are at blame when the palestinians repeatedly attack Israel, but have you ever noticed that it's only Israel you actually comment on and have a bad word for? I've noticed it. Just see your comments above. Re-read your comments in this thread. If you want to hide behind "both sides" and pretend you want to be fair, you're going to have a hard time when all you ever criticize (everything in the world is always wrong, isn't it?) is the US, Israel, our and their soldiers. Never a bad word for others though. It's an illuminating observation. You actually make that point very clear. I'm simply pointing it out. Like the way you pick and choose that Israel and the US are the bad guys? Do as I say, not as I do? Really? You know this for sure? Isn't it odd that you only single out Israel, again, when trying to convince others that "both sides" are bad? Question is, do you believe anyone really buying it? You could probably muster an "attaboy" from AGS, but seriously...there's not much value on that. You posts sicken me. I deal with it. I can't fathom what sort of miserable life someone must have had, to consistently offer so much negativity towards the country that gives them the very voice to ceaselessly criticize it. In grade school, we called people like that "crybabies." Just sayin' Once again, singling out Israel again. Never a bad word for islamic terrorists. You've gotta know the pattern is so illuminating, Ray Charles could see it if he were still with us. Ah, so you don't like it that terrorists are painted as "the bad guys." That makes perfect sense to me. I've known that for a long time. It is true...parts of Israel's lands are still "occupied" by muslims. After all, Israel was Israel before islam was invented. It's strange you don't take issue with all the islamic occupation that has taken place over that entire region over the years. palestinians hide behind their children while killing Israeli kids. Let's look at Iraq. Obviously you don't care about Iraqis, because 1) you wanted the US to pull out so terrorists could take over. That's not going to happen now, and I'm sure it's a disappointment. 2) You never have a bad word for those killing Iraqis...al qaida and terrorists. Instead, you blame it on the country you reside in to apparently absolve those terrorists. So it's clear you don't care about Iraqis. You certainly don't care about the soldiers of the country you reside in. This is demonstrated above by suggesting they are conducting genocide and oft assigning the blame of terrorists on them, or taking credit of soldiers away and giving it to the terrorists there. Now, the terrorists doing all the killing over there...they seem to be immune from "your" criticism. They get understanding, their killing is assigned to soldiers from the country you reside in. But never a bad word. In fact, you even go so far as to compliment them by suggesting the surge that you believe isn't working, but actually is, is due to the kindness of terrorist groups over there laying down their weapons. I tell ya, it's a real tear jerker! So tell me, guerilla...if it's not the Iraqis you care about and it's not the soldiers doing a great job of reducing the violence, building schools, helping Iraqis and committed to making a difference that you care about, what group is it that you care about when it comes to Iraq? The group you never have a critical comment for? Your opinion as an apologist for islamic terrorists to make the case that Israel and the US are the evils of the world have no substantive proof of action. "Hamas cares, because...THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS!" Always singling Israel out? I can't help but wonder if you really believe you construct your words well enough to mask it. It's really pretty obvious. Far be it from me to offer advice on how to make it appear you are not on a particular side. It's amazing that what you believe you see in others, you cannot see in yourself. It's as if projectionism is being used as a catalyst for a defensive mechanism. Whom have you singularly taken issue with? I can see who you are taking a stand for. I'm just wondering if you see it too? It seems like every post you make is about who is wrong. The US and Israel. I never see a bad word for any other group. Given your history and reverification in this post, it's clear you don't hate palestinians or islamic groups that kill others. It certainly isn't so clear about Israel and Jews. Have you considered proofing what you type, so it's not so ambiguous? Again, far be it from me to offer advise, but I believe in this case, it's warranted. You pull it on yourself by the comments you make. If you are ashamed of others pointing out those very things by the very comments you make, stop telling everyone on a public and open forum that those are things you support. No one is making you say those things. You say them of your own free will. And when you do, *some* will take issue with them. If you don't want people to take issue with your views, or are ashamed of it when people do, then stop posting those views. Seems pretty simple to me.
That's a nice essay GTech, no surprise to see you are still trying your very best to see things from your own blinkered perspective. You play this BS against Guerilla saying that he "hates his country." From what I can see that couldn't be further from the truth, you use this tired approach every time and it is failing miserably, just like your lover Bush has failed miserably.
History is witness to the fact that one who controls the Gold, makes the rules. There have been endless wars throughout history in order to gain money and power. These criminals, imperialists, colonialists still exist, and their only motive is to gain more wealth and power. Average people are just pawns, puppets to be used to further the imperialistic ambitions of a few. History is written by the Victors. These victors have the power to label anyone a terrorist, proclaim anyone a good guy. If the American war of independence would have failed, you would have read about George Washington, not as a Hero, but as a rebel and terrorist and a murderer. There is so much injustice in the world at the hands of these powerful imperialists. It will take more than humans to create a revolution to take back America. Maybe we should all wait for the second coming of Jesus Christ (PBUH), coz thats the only hope........
Did GTech post another one of his copy+paste diatribes? He must be responding to my post to someone else. Funny how he barely even registers around here... I have him on ignore. Go easy on him AGS. This is the guy who said the economy was fine only a few months ago. I don't believe in waiting for divine intervention. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. (That's the Mises.org motto)
Do you mean Gtech, mia, debunk,.. have changed their mind about economy and don't post how great economy is doing and how smart bush is with economic plans any more?
Radical forces in the Middle East have rewritten the international rulebook in a way designed so "they can't lose." That is, there's no easy response to their behavior and strategies. What's even more worrisome is the widespread failure in the West even to realize this is happening. Hamas and Hizballah fire from among civilians and use civilian homes for military purposes; Syria or Iran deploy disinformation, radical regimes pretend moderation, and there are plenty of suckers to take the bait. Extremism makes many believe that kind words and concessions can transform them; intransigence produces a response that if they won't give up we must do so. Here are some new rules in which "we" represents such disparate forces as Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaida, Syria, the Taliban, and others including radical Arab nationalists. These forces are not all alike or allied but do often follow a parallel set of rules quite different from how international affairs have generally been conducted. 1. We'll never give up. No matter what you do, we will continue fighting. No matter what you offer we will keep attacking you. Since you can't win you should give up. 2. We're indifferent to pressure you put on us. We will turn this pressure against you. Against us, deterrence does not exist; diplomacy does not convince. Neither does the carrot buy us off, nor does the stick make us yield. There are no solutions that can end the conflict. You cannot win militarily nor make peace through diplomacy. 3. If you set economic sanctions we'll say you are starving our people in an act of "collective punishment." Moreover, sanctions will cost you money and generate opposition among those who lose profits. 4. In response to military operations we'll attack your civilians. Casualties will undermine your internal support. We will try to force you to kill civilians accidentally. We won't care but will use this to persuade many that you are evil. Thus, we will simultaneously murder your civilians and get you condemned as human rights' violators. 5. If you try to isolate us we will use your own media and intellectuals against you. At times, we'll hint at moderation and make promises of change. We won't do so enough to alienate our own followers but enough to subvert yours. They will demand you engage us, which means you making concessions for nothing real in exchange. 6. Talking to our own people, we foment hatred and demonize you. Speaking to the West, we will accuse you of fomenting hatred. We will hypocritically turn against you all the concepts you developed: racism, imperialism, failure to understand the "other," and so on. These, of course, are our ideas but your feelings of guilt, ignorance about us, and indifference to ideology will make you not notice that fact. 7. We will claim to be victims and "underdogs." Because you are the stronger and more "advanced" that means you are the villains. We're not held responsible for our deeds or expected to live up to the same standards. There is no shortage of, to quote Lenin, "useful idiots" who will echo our propaganda. 8. Since our societies are weak, undemocratic, and have few real moderates, you will have to make deals with phoney moderates and dictatorial regimes weakened by corruption and incompetence. 9. Even the less radical regimes, often our immediate adversaries, partly play into our hands. Due to popular pressure–plus their desire to mobilize support and distract attention from their own shortcomings–they trumpet Arab and Islamic solidarity. They denounce the West, blame all problems on Israel, and revile America, even as they accept your aid. They glorify interpretations of Islam not too far from ours. They cheer Iraqi insurgents, Hizballah, and Hamas. They don't struggle against Iran getting nuclear weapons. They lay the basis for our mass support and recruits, as Lenin said selling us the rope to hang them as well as you. 10. There's no diplomatic solution for you, though you yearn to find one. There's no military solution for you, whether you try that or not. You love life, we love death; you are divided, we are united; you want to get back to material satisfaction, we are dedicated revolutionaries. We will outlast you. 11. Finally, our greatest weapon is that you truly don't understand all the points made above. You are taught, informed, and often led by people who simply don't comprehend what an alternative, highly ideological, revolutionary worldview means. In effect, we will try, and often succeed, to turn your "best and brightest" into the worst and dimmest who think you can persuade us, blame you for the conflicts, or expect that we will alter our course, and we will use those mistakes against you. [Emphasis added]. The above analysis seems pessimistic but actually is the opposite. Most of this strategy's power is based on spreading illusions, depending on gullibility. [Emphasis added]. Much of the rest relies on their enemies' psychological weaknesses. In a sustained conflict, the radicals' technological and organizational weaknesses, along with their mistaken assessments and unrealistic ideology, will bring inevitable defeat. They will lose even if they never surrender. They can kill people but not overcome societies determined to grow, prosper, and survive. The keys to a successful response are steadfastness and understanding. To paraphrase Francis Bacon and Franklin Roosevelt, there is nothing to fear but fear–and gullibility–itself.
Arnie, here is your source link. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546441060&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull It's well crafted propaganda, but then looking at Barry Rubin's list of books authored, I wouldn't expect anything else. .
No Arnie. It's the kind of stuff one would expect to read in Orwell's 1984. It's the usual demonizing of the enemy. If you write that about Palestine, and someone protests, they are a terrorist sympathizer. If you write that about Israel, and someone protests, they are antisemitic. It's a f**ked up double standard, and what has got me so ticked off in these threads. All murder is wrong. All terror is wrong. Dropping bombs on civilians, or demolishing a camp with bulldozers while civilians are still in it, is terror, and it's wrong. Just as wrong as using children as suicide bombers or launching rockets into civilian neighborhoods or attacking buses.
I never read 1984 but 'Homage to Catalonia' and 'Down and Out in London and Paris' were on my reading list.
I figured as much Bogart. The one place we tend to disagree, is that you are worried about Muslims the way cold warriors were obsessed with Communists. Meanwhile, the state loves to play up these massive bad guys as an excuse to grow their power, and to remove individual liberty.
Sadly only a few have. For some reason, it's ok to kill civilians if we call it collateral damage. It's ok to send soldiers into war without the right equipment, not in self-defense of this nation, and then when they come home, we throw them away. The most frustrating thing is the people who argue for these things, as though the person bringing them up is crazy. Murder is unacceptable, and collateral damage is murder. Political violence against civilians is terror. Those are pretty straight forward definitions. The failed doctrine of pre-emptive war is a lesson we have to learn over, and over, and over again.
The military needs to learn how to fight cheaper. There's a lot of reliance on missles and air support which are expensive. When the war in Agganistan started there were not enough 105 mm guns and they had to take back guns they have loaned ski resorts for avalanche control. The M16 is proving inadequate in places like Afganistan and they are bringing back the M14. I can't figure out way the Navy doesn't have any ships with guns large than 5 inch. A couple of pocket battle ships with 14" guns around 18,000 tons would be a lot cheaper than the heavy use of aircraft carriers and save a lot of money.
Uhm... yeah. But my point was that we should try not to fight wars at all, certainly not ones that have nothing to do with defense of America (directly). Not that they need to be fought cheaper.