Well Do You See Peace Lasting Here

[jedi_knight01]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6906348/

Hopefully they will learn to live next to each other, and not try to destroy each other....

[mbossman2]

the rank and file of both sides need to put aside past differences and work for a better tomorrow, but that, more than likely, will not happen....far easier to chuck a grenade than it is to suck up and extend/accept the olive branch (one is an action based on visceral reactions and the other is based upon logical thought...gut actions are the easier, but not always, the right path).

[sun]

Pretty tough to "un-train" an entire generation of gun toting adolescents.

I think many of the older generations on both sides can see the wisdom of ending this long standing conflict but I don't see the younger radicals suddenly changing their minds or their violent ways.

[themistocles]

One would think the death of Arafat might mean a chance for real peace, but, no, this is only a temporary respite. The racism there is too deep. The Israelis and Palestinians will be killing each other as long as they both exist.

[themistocles]

Mideast Peace Process: 2005-2005, we hardly knew ya....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=1312&e=8&u=/afp/20050208/ts_afp/mideastsummitceasefire_050208163408

GAZA CITY (AFP) - Palestinian Islamist militant movement Hamas said that it was not bound by the ceasefire announced by Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas at a Middle East peace summit in Egypt.

[heyhey]

It's a conundrum that will probably not be solved in our lifetime. We are probably the most equipt outsiders to intervene in the process... but no matter what side of the aisle is in power in the US we don't seem to make enough strides.. I think it's just that we can't really understand the roots of the conflict. Islam is not going away. and as long as there is islam there will be militants and terrorism.....Palestine will never live up to it's potential in the minds of militant islam... and Isreal will always feel to vunerable to give more then self-preservation allows....

I think we really as a nation need to put alot more emphasis at embracing Islam and understanding the whole and our enemies more as well..... or just stay out of the region all together.. but with what's under the sand and our culture of consumerism that just isnt going to happen.... of course science may ultimately prove the answer to overcome the problmes of religion.... progress... it's our destiny...and may hold the promise of peace.... hopefully....

[themistocles]

IPalestine will never live up to it's potential in the minds of militant islam.

This may sound a bit bizarre, but I do believe there is definately a cultural acceptance, and even desire for victimhood in some elements of the Islamic world. If the Palestinians really only wanted a homeland, they would have had it by now. This may sound irrational or counterintuitive, but I think it comes with this different worldview.

[heyhey]

maybe you are correct about militants... but dont you agree that some Isrealites are guilty of the same persecution syndrome.......I mean the whole idea of..Zionism is based on this is it not? not that either group weren't persecuted in history.. but you would think they would try to focus more on their simliarities then differences. The problem at its roots is this inherent belief by both sides that self-preservation depends on the failure of the other.

[Gintaras]

Heyday,
It was very, very strange of what you said here.

Israel-Palestina problem may be solved, but it won't be with A.Sharon in the office. US media kept brainwashing people that it was Arafat. But if you look back before year 2000, it was pretty quite over there. Everything changed after that criminal was elected by israelis. Does anyone remember how it stasrted? About A.Sharon's "visit"- provocation to so called Holy site of muslims?

No peace over there, untill A.Sharon will be in the office. And US on his side.
Judge for yourself:
$10 billion of US "help" for Israel vs. $75 mil. for Palestine.
Only Themi with his arrogance or anyone like him would dare to claim there is no bias against Palestina.
$10 billion of US taxpayers money for a country of 6 million? Think for yourself.... :rolleyes:
And of course..... :rolleyes: ...there's no ZOG.

Ever wondered, why palestinians never are called anti-semites? Even if they kill jews in Israel? Maybe, just because palestinians are semites too? As rest of arabs. Why jews are never called anti-semites because of murdering palestinians, who are semites as well?
It's just all non-semites, christians can be anti-semites? doesn't it sound this way?

You know what, I'm not afraid to tell anybody, even jews I know know, that I used to be anti-semite. No one, anymore, with sober mind could accuse me being anti-semite. But I'm Anti-zionist, because zionism is worse than nazism or fascism.
Don't believe me? Read The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion. I DO KNOW PRETTY WELL that so many will be against me, because The Protocols "supposedly to be a forgery". But that would claim someone who's brainwashed and WHO NEVER HAVE READ IT.
So, let me ask, how do they know is it forgery or not? What's In There Is a Forgery?

I like to learn Things, and for that purpose I do read this or that.

I even think, that WWIII would start because of conflict in Mid-East:
US and Israel on one side, EU, Russia, China and Arab World on the other....

A.Sharon can't travel to EU, so, Rummie is afraid to go to Germany now. Why? Is Israel and US so good, and EU so bad?
Germany, France, rest of EU aren't killing people in other countries, US and Israel do kill people in other countries. What is good, and what is bad?

"Choosen" ones? No one would get repect from me for such claim that jews are God's choosen people. I would look at those like they just been released from mental hospital, or like people who have no self-respect.

GOD DID NOT CHOOSE NO ONE- PEOPLE CHOOSE GOD!!!!!

Don't believe me?
I do, because I do know one jewish girl who has converted to Catholic Faith.
Think, how "choosen" one can choose another God?
Is it hard or not?

Does anyone remember about all the noise ADL made about Mel Gibson's "Passion"...how anti-semitic movie would it be, it would promote anti-semitism. It's just a very good exsample who do need anti-semitism- Zionists. That's why I don't like antisemites.
"Passion" even was run in Israel, and there no one complained about anti-semitism, there was none...
The other day, I was watching russian-american RTVi TV channel, someone there said, that Mel Gibson should pay jews lot of $$$ because of promotion of his "Passion".... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Some just completelly don't have self-respect:
First you mix someone with "brownies", then you ask for money.... :rolleyes:
Nice, isn't it?

My opinion on this problem:
-It never will be solved while criminal A.Sharon is in the office- you can NOT trust this murderer not even a WORD, I would not trust him an ONE LETTER.
If you combine Sharon & Jorge, it might became just like Mussolini & Hitler.

I don't believe in solving that problem any soon.

And,
Themi, I don't need your arrogant comments on this subject, I watch, and I see different things than you do, incl. RTVi which is pro-israel, but some things shown on there would be a taboo for american public.

[heyhey]

you have to also consider the largely anti-western sentiments as well. It goes back to the Roman empire... through British colonialism.... and they see the extension of this in both American corporate and political military interest in the region.... they view Isreal as no more then a state created by Winston Churchill to preserve colonialism upon the fall of the british empire....and maintianed by an empirical US. Isreal certianly would have never maintianed it's power without help from the west..... I think the roots of hatred aren't as much anti-semitism or anti-judiasm as they are anti-colonialism.

[themistocles]

And of course..... ...there's no ZOG.

Do you honestly believe that Jews run this country?

Don't believe me? Read The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion. I DO KNOW PRETTY WELL that so many will be against me, because The Protocols "supposedly to be a forgery". But that would claim someone who's brainwashed and WHO NEVER HAVE READ IT.

There is not a reputable scholar who would agree that they are real.

I even think, that WWIII would start because of conflict in Mid-East:
US and Israel on one side, EU, Russia, China and Arab World on the other....

China's in our pocket.

A.Sharon can't travel to EU, so, Rummie is afraid to go to Germany now. Why? Is Israel and US so good, and EU so bad?

I would trust the EU less than I trust Russia if the EU were actually important.

Germany, France, rest of EU aren't killing people in other countries

You can say that when nobody cares about Cote d'Ivoire.

Themi, I don't need your arrogant comments on this subject, I watch, and I see different things than you do, incl. RTVi which is pro-israel, but some things shown on there would be a taboo for american public.

You also believe "Protocols..." is the gospel truth.

you have to also consider the largely anti-western sentiments as well. It goes back to the Roman empire... through British colonialism.... and they see the extension of this in both American corporate and political military interest in the region.... they view Isreal as no more then a state created by Winston Churchill to preserve colonialism upon the fall of the british empire....and maintianed by an empirical US. Isreal certianly would have never maintianed it's power without help from the west..... I think the roots of hatred aren't as much anti-semitism or anti-judiasm as they are anti-colonialism.

To a great extent, in a modern context, I think we should reject the legitimacy of this "anti-Western" attitude. It is real, it is profound, and it is important, but I don't think we should think of it as an unassailable sleeping dog that we have to let lie. It is the very ethnocentrism we claim to loathe as a culture, and I don't think we should feel any different about it when we see it in practice.

[heyhey]

To a great extent, in a modern context, I think we should reject the legitimacy of this "anti-Western" attitude. It is real, it is profound, and it is important, but I don't think we should think of it as an unassailable sleeping dog that we have to let lie. It is the very ethnocentrism we claim to loathe as a culture, and I don't think we should feel any different about it when we see it in practice.

I don't know Themis, Legitimate or not in your eyes, I suspect that is exactly what motivates more of militant Islam then anything else. Again I go back to my theory of science being the answer to solve a conundrum that comes out of religion. ...Even if not for that reason... we have to sooner or later come to the conclusion that fossil fuel availability is finite.

Plus who is more ethnocentric on this planet then us?

Maybe in reality the world does revolve around those with the bigest guns and most greenbacks. But when we go around openly gloating about it and formulating our entire foreign policy agenda on that premise it tends to get us in big trouble.

[themistocles]

I don't know Themis, Legitimate or not in your eyes, I suspect that is exactly what motivates more of militant Islam then anything else.

I think the motivation of radical Islam is internal: they find glory in being victims, they glorify the courageous warrior, they glorify martyrdom, and they are pious to the point of being brainwashed. They are not rational and they are not democratic.

Again I go back to my theory of science being the answer to solve a conundrum that comes out of religion. ...Even if not for that reason... we have to sooner or later come to the conclusion that fossil fuel availability is finite.

This will sort itself out naturally. So long as fossil fuel is readily available, it is cheap, and if it's cheap, then it's an obvious product for consumption. When it becomes more rare, it will price itself out as a commodity. The smart companies will be cornering the market for alternatives. We're slowly marching towards high efficiency of fuel consumption and those alternatives. I don't think it's something we should view with doomsday anxiety.

Plus who is more ethnocentric on this planet then us?

Is it easier to be a Muslim in Michigan or a Jew in Tehran?

Maybe in reality the world does revolve around those with the bigest guns and most greenbacks. But when we go around openly gloating about it and formulating our entire foreign policy agenda on that premise it tends to get us in big trouble.

What is the evidence that we go to war because we are rich? In fact, it would seem that war would be the last thing an affluent nation would be interested in.

[heyhey]

What is the evidence that we go to war because we are rich? In fact, it would seem that war would be the last thing an affluent nation would be interested in.

Themis. C'mon. I know you know better then that. Do you realize that are a lot of people making a great deal of money on this war in Iraq ????..
Especially the some of the most affluent among us.........

What do you know about the military-industrial complex in this country???? not just today but historically.........

[themistocles]

The "military industrial complex" makes money in times of peace. In fact, it is more costly to go to war than not to.

There are other affluent nations with spectacular militaries that are currently not at war.

[heyhey]

The "military industrial complex" makes money in times of peace. In fact, it is more costly to go to war than not to.

There are other affluent nations with spectacular militaries that are currently not at war.

more costly to who? to taxpayers yes but..... to the major defense corporations... hmmmmmmmm. lets see with raw numbers, you figure it out:

Lockheed Martin: Stock price in Feb 11 1999- $ 37.50, Sept 10th 2001- $37.95, September 17th 2001,- $46.00, Mar 20, 2003- $48.63
today- $59.65.

Boeing Feb 11 1999- $ 34.25, Sept 10th 2001- $44.90, September 17th 2001,- $35.65, Mar 20, 2003- $27.90, today- $53.75

Halliburton - Feb 11 1999- $ 30.50, Sept 10th 2001- $28.28, September 17th 2001,- $29.40, Mar 20, 2003- $20.50, today- $42.05

[themistocles]

Should stocks in general be higher since previous months/years were economically slow and now we are entering something of an economic apogee?

[heyhey]

Should stocks in general be higher since previous months/years were economically slow and now we are entering something of an economic apogee?

well if you are comparing stocks from 2001 to 2005 yes some stocks in general are higher. but many in fact are lower.

but if you noticed I gave numbers from Feb 1999 prior to the tech bubble burst and 9-11. just compare the margin between February 1999 and today.

go look at retail, computer technology etc stock prices on those benchmark dates
6 years ago, the day before 9-11, the first wall st day after 9/11, just after when we invaded Iraq and today and you will not see such profits in general.

of course it had to do with who got the defense contracts... for instance Northrup Grumman isnt doing as well as Lockheed. but it is clear those who got the contracts and its investors are clearly profiting from this war. They are also major contributors and lobbieiyest to this adminstration....

you'll see a similar profit margin for pharmaceutical companies for that same reason.

[themistocles]

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

Is it, then, merely a coincidence that defense budgets have risen with the value of defense company stocks?

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy1998/fy1998_greenbook.pdf

FY1999, $257b estimated defense budget.

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2004/fy2004_greenbook.pdf

FY2004, $380b estimated defense budget.

In increase in defense spending certainly would explain an increase in stock prices, since contractors would likely be awarded funds for building or research. A war isn't necessary for increasing the defense budget.

Your argument is based upon circumstantial evidence, and it would seem that the only way to reach the conclusion that we went to war to line up the pockets of profiteers is through assumption, and nothing else.

[heyhey]

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

Is it, then, merely a coincidence that defense budgets have risen with the value of defense company stocks?

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy1998/fy1998_greenbook.pdf

FY1999, $257b estimated defense budget.

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2004/fy2004_greenbook.pdf

FY2004, $380b estimated defense budget.

In increase in defense spending certainly would explain an increase in stock prices, since contractors would likely be awarded funds for building or research. A war isn't necessary for increasing the defense budget.

Your argument is based upon circumstantial evidence, and it would seem that the only way to reach the conclusion that we went to war to line up the pockets of profiteers is through assumption, and nothing else.

I didn't say we went to war exclusively to line the pockets of profiteers. but there ARE people profitting from war.

This is true historically as well. And happens with both Republican and Democratic adminstrations.

You'd have to go back to the begining of WW2 to see how this works when FDR switched from sealed bid contracts to negotiated contracts where contracts were not given by the lowest bidder but based on intimate relationships the defense (then called War department) developed with certain contractors. These relationships stregthened even stronger during the cold-war era .... people made BIG money in the cold-war as well. With fall of the Soviet Union the concentration shifted once again. Hawks who maintained these "intimate" dual relationships with the pentagon and the defense industry (with of course the energy industry as well) needed to shift gears to keep the military industrial complex strong. Hence comes a little organization called Project For a New American century... who got togther in 1992 and wrote Bill Clinton a letter in 1998... long before 9-11 and being attacked:

-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

now look at some of the people who make up PNAC and signed that letter(along with Rumsfiled and Dick Cheney) Now let's not even talk about Cheney's ties to Halliburton... lets look beyond that to some other Hawks who have long wanted this war and thier ties to the defense and enegry industries:

Elliot Abrams-in 1992- was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony about his role in illicitly raising money for the Contras but pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term.
Richard Perle- served as co-secy of defense under Bush 1 Had to resign as a member of Bush 2's defense council board because of a conflict of intrest and his involvement in Trireme Partners L.P., a venture-capital company whose main business is to invest in companies dealing with homeland security and defense.
William Owens,Served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sits on boards of five companies that received more than $60 million in defense contracts last year. He was president, chief operating officer and vice chair of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), among the ten largest defense contractors.
Lewis Libby current chief of staff to Dick Cheney- rumoured to may have been involved in the Valerie Plame leak, Former adviser to Northrop Grumman.
Paul Wolfowitz- under secy of state-to Donald Rumsfield one of the PNAC founders- longtime neocon policy writer. Former consultant to Northrop Grumman.
Robert Zoellick-deputy to Condi Rice while she was national security advisor, became a key figure shaping post-Cold War economic policy as a senior officer in both the Treasury and State Departments and a personal adviser to the elder Bush. Formen consultant to ENRON.
Stephen J. HadleyNational Security Adviser. was a partner in a major DC law firm representing major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

maybe we should heed the words of former president Dwight D Eisenhower:

......in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

[themistocles]

I didn't say we went to war exclusively to line the pockets of profiteers. but there ARE people profitting from war.

Then I'm not sure what the importance of pointing this all out is in the first place. I mean, Iraqis have taken part in a free election. They've profitted from the war, politically. Saddam Hussein, a war criminal by anyone's standard, is also in the hands of justice. Justice has profitted from the war, as well.

Hawks who maintained these "intimate" dual relationships with the pentagon and the defense industry (with of course the energy industry as well) needed to shift gears to keep the military industrial complex strong.

Is there anything sinister or unusual about this? When the Department of Education employs policy makers, advisers, analysts, and such, we expect them to have a level of familiarity with education. When the Department of Agriculture does the same, we expect to see people who have been involved in agribusiness. Do we expect farmers and high school teachers to make defense policy?

-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

Do you think Saddam Hussein was Iraq's legitimate ruler? Don't you agree that he was a war criminal?

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

Some of the same people who opposed our war are the same people who mock our "abandoning" of Shi'ite and Kurdish rebels after the first Gulf War.

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

Not an unnatural position to hold if you agree with the first two points. We never left the Middle East after the first Gulf War. A lot of time passed between the cease fire agreement and 1998.

maybe we should heed the words of former president Dwight D Eisenhower:

Ike was also classically literate, and anyone reading between the lines can draw the conclusion that he was against a standing army. The fear of a standing army is a traditional republican fear. The Romans, the British, and our own colonials didn't have the threat of Soviet tanks and nuclear missiles breathing down their back, either. We had no choice but to pick our poison. I'll take a standing army run by an elected government than mistake the Soviets for pacifists.

[Gintaras]

TRIVIA: Which One is REAL THEMI?

In fact, it is more costly to go to war than not to.


A war isn't necessary for increasing the defense budget

I bet, one of them do know what they talk about...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[themistocles]

Increased expenditures on defense in a period of peace is not mutually exclusive from increasing expenditures during war.

You're really grasping at thin air, gingivitis.

[heyhey]

Ike was also classically literate, and anyone reading between the lines can draw the conclusion that he was against a standing army. The fear of a standing army is a traditional republican fear. The Romans, the British, and our own colonials didn't have the threat of Soviet tanks and nuclear missiles breathing down their back, either. .

Well we no longer are under a soviet threat...or threat of any superpower or standing army....isn't it interesting that today's Republicans... (even pre-9/11) don't have a traditional conservative approach to military spending....????

[themistocles]

Well we no longer are under a soviet threat...or threat of any superpower or standing army...

Are you suggesting we should engage in a general disband of the military? That is the traditional action we undertake after a war.

isn't it interesting that today's Republicans... (even pre-9/11) don't have a traditional conservative approach to military spending....????

What is a "traditional conservative approach to military spending"?

If you were going to take a hyperbole of conservatism to its extreme, the military is probably the first, if not the only thing the government should be spending its money on.

[heyhey]

What is conservative spending is largely a matter of perspective:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html

[themistocles]

I would gladly love to see our spending reduced dramatically. I can understand high spending for the military, and especially in a time when our soldiers need it. But I would prefer we cut expenditures across the board, otherwise. It is my single greatest criticism of Bush. Interesting to note, Pat Buchanan views little difference between Bush and Lyndon Johnson, really.

But, at a time when "hypocrisy" is a trendy accusation to make, I might note the discomfort some critics of the administration have voiced that our troops are "poorly equipped", which would suggest that we're not spending enough. I also recognize the fact, that were Bush a true conservative with regards to expenditures, that those who currently are his critics would malign him for "cutting programs", which they already are for the projected FY2006 budget, despite how remarkably minimal these cuts are.

This conversation has come a long way from the original post of Israel/Palestinian faux peace. :D

[Gintaras]

Do you honestly believe that Jews run this country?

No, this country is run by americans and their president..... :rolleyes:

And Themi,
Jews are different- sionists, anti-sionists, who don't care.
Sionists do label anti-sionists as anti-semites, but if a jew is anti-semite, then they don't label him[her] anti-semite, but rather "self-hating jew".

Who runs whom...I would discuss with you, because you believe in what you want to believe, without any logic. That's why.


There is not a reputable scholar who would agree that they are real.
Reputable scolar? Who's that?

As in previous my reply- you don't have any logic, just Beliefs you WANT to have.

I would compare those scholars and their judging of Protocols with ADL morons and their judging of Mel Gibson's "Passion". Do you remember what ADL said of M.Gibson's "Passion" while they even haven't seen it?

Prolly, you still believe that Mel Gibson's movie is anti-semitic?




China's in our pocket.

Pretty soon YOU might be in China's pocket.... :rolleyes:

Made in China is everywhere in The World, Made in USA isn't. If The Trend will continue, not only YOU and US will be in China's pocket, but EU either......



I would trust the EU less than I trust Russia if the EU were actually important.

Of course Russia is better than EU. Just read papers, watch main TV News.
France is so bad that almost should be attacked, Germany is not much better either. Look, Euro is rising, $ is falling- EU must be evil.
You not brainwashed... God forbid, NO
Just believe in what you want to believe.

You missed some News in that case. Russia is accused to sell some missiles to Syria. Israel and US doesn't want it.
But it's a market, and why Russia should listen to US and Israel what and whom to sell or not to?
Did US listen to Russia in 80's when Bin Laden was trained by CIA in Afganistan? There died ~50,000 russians. I guess, they wouldn't liked back then when YOU trained and supported Bin Laden. You thought different, and what do you think about NOW?

[themistocles]

Reputable scolar? Who's that?

Name the historians that believe the "Protocols" are genuine.

Prolly, you still believe that Mel Gibson's movie is anti-semitic?

No, I never did.

Pretty soon YOU might be in China's pocket....

Made in China is everywhere in The World, Made in USA isn't. If The Trend will continue, not only YOU and US will be in China's pocket, but EU either......

Shared financial interests reduces military tensions.

Of course Russia is better than EU. Just read papers, watch main TV News.
France is so bad that almost should be attacked, Germany is not much better either. Look, Euro is rising, $ is falling- EU must be evil.
You not brainwashed... God forbid, NO
Just believe in what you want to believe.

You missed some News in that case. Russia is accused to sell some missiles to Syria. Israel and US doesn't want it.
But it's a market, and why Russia should listen to US and Israel what and whom to sell or not to?
Did US listen to Russia in 80's when Bin Laden was trained by CIA in Afganistan? There died ~50,000 russians. I guess, they wouldn't liked back then when YOU trained and supported Bin Laden. You thought different, and what do you think about NOW?

I wasn't complimenting Russia.

[Glorified Ape]

To a great extent, in a modern context, I think we should reject the legitimacy of this "anti-Western" attitude. It is real, it is profound, and it is important, but I don't think we should think of it as an unassailable sleeping dog that we have to let lie. It is the very ethnocentrism we claim to loathe as a culture, and I don't think we should feel any different about it when we see it in practice.

I'd say anti-Western sentiments in the ME are extremely legitimate given the way we've treated them (especially you and Britain).

As for ethnocentrism, few things are more laughable than an American accusing someone of ethnocentrism.

[themistocles]

I'd say anti-Western sentiments in the ME are extremely legitimate given the way we've treated them (especially you and Britain).


These anti-western thoughts preceded any of the current actions we've taken. And it is our very actions that lend little credence to these anti-western thoughts. Perhaps you can be a little bit more clear as to what is legitimate about either fascism or religious fundamentalism.


As for ethnocentrism, few things are more laughable than an American accusing someone of ethnocentrism.

So says the self-righteous Quebecois.

[Gintaras]

Name the historians that believe the "Protocols" are genuine.


Those who feel libeled by the Protocols have most obvious remedy in the world; all they have to do is to ruse and to denounce the policy of them, instead of denying the authorship....But when you come to read them how can any reasonable man deny the truth of what is contained in them?????

Norman Jaques, M.P.,
In Canadian Houseof Commons, July 9th, 1943

[mbossman2]

Norman Jaques, M.P.,
In Canadian Houseof Commons, July 9th, 1943

an MP is not exactly a historian...

[themistocles]

Norman who?

[mbossman2]

The problem with asking for "back up" on the Protocols, is that there is a ton of anti-jewish sentiment floating around and some from "respectable" folks and those bigoted folks will latch onto anything that even vaguely supports their belief.

Like any good hoax, the Protocols have suckered in a lot people who have written a lot of sensible sounding comments, which are then quoted out of context by folks like gintaris and then held up as proof that the protocols are valid.

Using that argument is akin to getting a whole bunch people to point at the sky and go: "Look, the sky is green". All those folks pointing and exclaiming does not make the sky green...

[Gintaras]

The problem with asking for "back up" on the Protocols, is that there is a ton of anti-jewish sentiment floating around and some from "respectable" folks and those bigoted folks will latch onto anything that even vaguely supports their belief....

mbossman2,
My mother liked to describe people like you: If you cut someone in pieces- pieces would jump up.
Why i'm telling so, because everytime you like to mix jews with zionists. Could you stop doing so? Are you either some delusional-talmudic jew, or some submissive goyim(if so, I wouldn't be surprised to learn if your wife or g/f spanks you with a paddle...)

Zionists and jews are Worlds apart. And...ever heard of Christians-Zionists?


Like any good hoax, the Protocols have suckered in a lot people who have written a lot of sensible sounding comments, which are then quoted out of context by folks like gintaris and then held up as proof that the protocols are valid.....

Please, prove "those sensible sounding comments".
You MUST...And you do know why.....

You don't want to be known as a bullshiter? do you?
If you can prove above- you'll be the one...


Using that argument is akin to getting a whole bunch people to point at the sky and go: "Look, the sky is green". All those folks pointing and exclaiming does not make the sky green...

mbossman2,

Aren't you the one who's pointing to the sky and telling that the sky is green? As your Masters told you to do so?

[themistocles]

We're still waiting for a citation of scholars who support the validity of the Protocols....

[mbossman2]

We're still waiting for a citation of scholars who support the validity of the Protocols....

why? it'll never happen.

[Gintaras]

We're still waiting for a citation of scholars who support the validity of the Protocols....

WE? who we?

Themi,
your mind is shaped already and made up. I'm not trying to change you. No one will be able change you unless you want to.

Are you a historian(as you claim)? For me no, for some here ...maybe.
I don't care about your so-called "scholars". Not they, but I'n in control of my own mind. However, I do care, and listen people who aren't bullshiters(it's pretty easy to figure out who's who).

I do read books written from "different angles", and after I make my mind.

And I don't judge about movies from "movie-reviewers" like you, mr.bossman plus some others do.

[themistocles]

Oh, well I guess it was too much to ask for evidence. Your imagination appears to be the only requisite for proving the "Protocols..." were real. :rolleyes:

[Lucifer]

Just stop and think for a while. Why does Israel matter? Why is it such a HUGE issue? Why is America so involved?

The fact is Israel is a tiny no-account piece of desert thousands of miles from America and not part of Europe. Why should we give a rat's ass what happens there? (They don't even have oil!)

Little central African countries can butcher each other to their heart's content and it hardly raises a yawn in the West. Yet all my life hardly a day has passed without "Israel" or "The Middle East Situation" being on the news.
Why?

[themistocles]

Just stop and think for a while. Why does Israel matter? Why is it such a HUGE issue? Why is America so involved?

The fact is Israel is a tiny no-account piece of desert thousands of miles from America and not part of Europe. Why should we give a rat's ass what happens there? (They don't even have oil!)

Little central African countries can butcher each other to their heart's content and it hardly raises a yawn in the West. Yet all my life hardly a day has passed without "Israel" or "The Middle East Situation" being on the news.
Why?

That Israel has no oil and many of their enemies do should dispel the myth that oil is a primary factor in our geopolitical decisions.

Israel is an ally. Allies tend to concern themselve with each other's welfare.

[Gintaras]

Israel is an ally. Allies tend to concern themselve with each other's welfare.

In which newspaper did you read about this?

[themistocles]

You answer the question, gintaras....why are we interested in Israel?

[Gintaras]

You answer the question, gintaras....why are we interested in Israel?

Themi,

Do you want me to tell who do you remind me?
In a Co where I work, we have a lady(40+y.o., 2 kids, a husband) who told me at work(!!!) that "she never takes a shit while at work"(!!!)(do co-worker have to share such things?).

Themi,
You're asking me a question that you already answered:

Israel is an ally. Allies tend to concern themselve with each other's welfare.


Themi, I could lend you a screwdriver to tie up those few loose screws in case you need....... :rolleyes:

[themistocles]

I don't know what the fuck you're babbling about. Why don't you answer the question? Why does the United States care about Israel?

[Gintaras]

I don't know what the fuck you're babbling about. Why don't you answer the question? Why does the United States care about Israel?

Want an answer?

You have one already:

Israel is an ally. Allies tend to concern themselve with each other's welfare.

What about you answering this one:

<h3>Just stop and think for a while. Why does Israel matter? Why is it such a HUGE issue? Why is America so involved?

The fact is Israel is a tiny no-account piece of desert thousands of miles from America and not part of Europe. Why should we give a rat's ass what happens there? (They don't even have oil!)

Little central African countries can butcher each other to their heart's content and it hardly raises a yawn in the West. <font color=red>Yet all my life hardly a day has passed without "Israel" or "The Middle East Situation" being on the news.<h3>


<h1>Why?</font></h1>

[themistocles]

I was asking you what your opinion is.

[Gintaras]

I was asking you what your opinion is.

Themi,

Stop making an ass out of yourself,

You sure do know that my opinions are wrong, and yours are right.

I'm just want to save your time and mine to type un-needed "discussion".

That's all

[themistocles]

Yes, to confound my opinions with fact is easy to do considering their interchangeability. :)

[Gintaras]

Yes, to confound my opinions with fact is easy to do considering their interchangeability. :)

Facts....

How long did you live in Israel?
Are you jewish?
Are you an american born jewish or an jewish immigrant from some other country?
What did you do(if you ever lived in Israel?)
Why Israel is an ally to US?

I can ask even more logic from you.

Not replying/answering...you do know what it means?

[themistocles]

Israel is an ally to the United States because we have aligned with them in the past.

Israel did not invade its neighbors, it has primarily fought defensive war, so firstly, Israel is a stalwart of order in a region of disorder, and a region in which stability is important because of the economic importance of oil and the canal.

Secondly, Israel was aligned againts nations that were Soviet client states. They were a natural ally during the Cold War. Because they were an ally then, it is illogical to stab them in the back after having such good relations with them for awhile.

Third, they are the most Western nation in the region. Israel, aesthetically, is a familiar nation. It's aggressive neighbors have been despots. We have a natural affinity towards the democratic and nation of Western civilization nature than one that is aggressive, despotic, and unfamiliar.

All three of these reasons put together are especially strong explanations for our alliance with Israel. Israel is aligned with us because they know they can reasonably depend upon us for the support allies offer. They have a stake in all three reasons I have stated, if for inverted characterizations.

[heyhey]

Israel did not invade its neighbors.




Ha! I have two words for you:

WEST BANK

[themistocles]

Ha! I have two words for you:

WEST BANK

Now wait a minute, a little dishonesty there.

Who originally ruled the West Bank? Why was the West Bank created in the first place?

[Lucifer]

Let's see.. Didn't Israel attack Egypt back in the 50's? England and France bribed them to with nuclear technology because they wanted help to keep the Suez canal.

In '67 Israel attacked it's neighbours, not the other way around.
What about the deliberate sinking of the USS Liberty?
What about the "Lavon Affair" where Israelies posing as arabs made a terrorist attack in Egypt?

Wasn't there some scandal where Israeli spies stole atomic secrets from America and sold them to the Chinese?

Who invaded Lebanon?

With good friends like this who needs enemies?

[Lucifer]

Anyway, like it or lump it, this is the situation:

Israel (including the captured territory) is a no-acount little piece of desert with no natural resources. I doubt it could function as a viable country without constant aid money from outside.

If the Palestinians got every inch of their land back to the 1967 border (which is what the United Nations has demanded all along) then they MIGHT be viable as a third-world country. With anything less they have no chance.

Israel would like ALL the land but that can't happen because what about all the poor schmucks who live there?

Israel could (but won't) declare the area one country. They won't because then all the Arabs would have to be full citizens. Eventually they would be in the majority and then it wouldn't be a "Jewish" state.

So what they want (and are doing) is to grab every bit of land worth having and push the Palestinians into little walled "Bantustans" or "Indian Reservations" where they can be used as a pool of cheap forced labor.
(Can anyone say "Warsaw Ghetto"?)

And you wonder why the Palestinians are not overjoyed at this prospect?

[heyhey]

Anyway, like it or lump it, this is the situation:

Israel (including the captured territory) is a no-acount little piece of desert with no natural resources. I doubt it could function as a viable country without constant aid money from outside.

If the Palestinians got every inch of their land back to the 1967 border (which is what the United Nations has demanded all along) then they MIGHT be viable as a third-world country. With anything less they have no chance.

Israel would like ALL the land but that can't happen because what about all the poor schmucks who live there?

Israel could (but won't) declare the area one country. They won't because then all the Arabs would have to be full citizens. Eventually they would be in the majority and then it wouldn't be a "Jewish" state.

So what they want (and are doing) is to grab every bit of land worth having and push the Palestinians into little walled "Bantustans" or "Indian Reservations" where they can be used as a pool of cheap forced labor.
(Can anyone say "Warsaw Ghetto"?)

And you wonder why the Palestinians are not overjoyed at this prospect?


Actually I heard Chomsky talk in this subject once on c-span. In addition to what they are willing to offer being "Basntustans" they are stratgically very separte from one another in a delibrate attempt to isolate the Palestians from one another to decrease any attempt at organization and self-rule... Chomsky compared the Bush-Sharon road map to the effots of South Africa during Aparthied....

Too bad everyone can't just get along and it can't be one country in Palestine..
Hey in a much less volatile but still volitile, none-the-less, country it seems to have worked for awhile in Nothern Ireland... but with that recent IRA murder over there all the witnesses are being so closed lips about, I dont think that conflict will ever truly truly end...and there they are all "Christians".. maybe those electing these leaders catering to the Christian right here at home should consdier that some as well.... Also makes you wonder just how successful The new Iraq can ever be.... fundamentalists whether they be Christian, Jewish or muslim just dont get the whole concept of Nationalization over Theocracy... although I think given history the Israeli people themselves (and not the conservative leadership or fundamentalist religous groups) may be more ready then most for such a concept.......Juts read Haertz... the Israeli newspaper and you can see there is a large Jewish progressive populaus that supports A Palestinain state or at least more cooperation offered from there leaders or the West could drum up...

Religion does cause more wars (with the assistance of poliltical and economist-intrest oportunists and imperialists (like the US and Great Britain))

Makes you think about John Lennon and the idealistic truth in his "Imagine" song...

[Lucifer]

I think Northern Ireland is similar to the Israel situation.

The Orangemen are not (strictly speaking) Irish. They are the descendents of English and Scottish people brought in by Cromwell. They own the factories and shipyards. The working class prods got a better deal than the catholics which is why the catholics started protesting for fairer public housing in the late 1960's.
At that time the IRA was almost extinct but they were attacked by the prods so they armed themselves and fought back.

Now, the IRA are always thought of as the "bad guys" and in a way they are. They set off a lot of bombs and killed a lot of innocent people.

But if they (and they alone) are such bad guys, why is it that far more catholics have been killed in "The Troubles" than protestants? Why don't we hear their side of the story?

[themistocles]

Yeah, the Palestinians are in Bantustans because they keep strapping bombs to retarded children and putting them on buses and in shopping centers to kill as many innocent people as possible. Oh, how horrible it must be to live in such isolated shit holes.

Maybe some people see a chicken and egg situation here, but the Palestinians can't expect to rise up by killing innocent people. You may not like it, but that's how it is.