The world-wide debate on Communism is over and the Communists lost.

Sure, they killed around 100,000,000 people, and that's kind of bad.

Worse than that, they encouraged the notion that central planning is a productive way to manage an economy. In doing so they guaranteed that the work and lives of 2,000,000,000 people would be less productive.

It's unlikely that all nations of the world could be as productive as the US, which is a pretty productive culture. But look at what the last fifty years have done for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. Imagine what the world would be like today if the people of China and India saw a similar increase in productivity. Imagine if their ideas, their energy, their work was put into a productive system and not just wasted.

Yes, we'd have a lot more problems... but we'd also have a lot more solutions, a lot less hunger, a lot more medicine, a lot more culture, a lot more education, a lot less desperation.

About 20 years ago the Chinese leaders took notice that their economy had fallen so far behind the West that something had to be basically wrong with their approach, and since then they have introduced capitalistic reforms and the result is a booming China like nobody can believe.

And to make claims for Cuba today is to ignore the vital Cuba that was before Castro came along. The Cuba that wound up supported by the former USSR for decades, and the hundreds of thousands of people who survived being infants in the system long enough to desperately want to escape as adults.

Communism works in a commune, and it might work in a Star-Trek-like future where energy and production are all but free. On a large scale, with limited resources, it is not self-sustaining, and requires an increasingly autocratic central authority, which destroys the point of communism in the first place.

I love it when people say Cuba is poor because of the US. How many other nations could and do trade with Cuba? Well, not Cuba do they? Because you don't trade with anyone but Castro and his corrupt cronies do you?
That is why Cuba is poor and why no one wants to have anything to do with them.
The US is only one nation.
Castro stole land that US companies legitimately paid for, we don't want to do business with him, it is a no-brainer.

Not exactly. Canada and Mexico (among others) trade with Cuba. It depends what is traded. If trading food, Castro (and his cronies) have little influence on that trade other than to permit it.

You work in a factory. Is that factory free market or communist? Well you break a drill bit. If a communist operation, then you must get a boss (and maybe his boss) to approve a new drill bit. Communism. In a free market operation, you make the decision to buy and order a new drill bit. The company automatically pays without question because you are now responsible.

That is the difference between a communist and non-communist operation. And yes, in onecustom design firm, any part that costs more than $5 (their costs) meant two managers must approve the request. A 2732 Eprom (that was obsolete technology) was still listed at more than $5. Since this was a communist operation, then almost one half hour was required to get appropriate signatures. So I demanded 3 - only needed one; just in case. Communism or cost control management - no difference. Both stifle innovation and productivity for same reasons.

& we should extend the embargo to those companies & their products from Mexico and Canada that purchased the stolen land and property that is rightfully owned by US companies.

If they are having such success trading without the US they have nothing to complain about.

Gee, thanks. BTW, my AOL chat is not RichLevy and I never really used the ID I did have. I am also sure that whoever this RichLevy in AOL was, he probably formed an equally interesting opinion of you.

I think the major difference in us is that as a liberal, I actually try to see your point. I make a concious effort to do so. In fact, sometimes the feeling I get trying to follow your logic is a lot like the one I get when I really have to take a crap and spend the first minute passing a huge log. It's uncomfortable as heck, but I know that the effort is important and that getting past it will allow me to get on with other things.:D

Still, as a liberal I have to consider your opinion, so I do. As a conservative, you have the advantage of being able to be true to your principles by deliberately not considering any other point of view.

BTW, I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, anymore than I am anti-car by agreeing that people should have drivers licenses before commanding the ability to cause a catastrophe.

As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. She has seen me in person enough times to probably make a clinical observation. Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaintence in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.:nuts:

Maybe you should meet her. Just make sure she has time to pack the long sleeves 'just in case'.

From ABC News of 1 Jun 2006:

Be honest, Rich....you don't live in her jurisdiction.:lol:

When did the US decide an attack on Iran was not possible? The Economist suggest that German Chancellor Angela Merkel may have finally persuaded George Jr to stop his attacks on Iran; to actually solve the problem without military conflict. This may have averted (or delayed) an American 'Pearl Harboring' of Iran. Interesting insight from the Washington Post of 4 Jun 2006: Some are still asking if this new policy is simply an attempt to win back momentum by requiring Iran to meet unilateral preconditions before any talks can occur. Did the Washington Post get it right or is the Washington Post being uses as part of a new anti-Iran campaign?

I think what persuaded him was the idea that to support a war in 3 countries would mean reinstating the draft, which would have finally brought the cost of war home to the American people.

It's easier to be an armchair patriot when your kids are safe at home.

Okay, Ibram, I see you and I are going to be at loggerheads for a bit. Thought it might be coming.

The "basic theory of communism" is not supportable because it does not mesh with human nature. To mesh with human nature, you must harness the profit, or self-interest, motive. The basic theory is so systemically flawed that no implementation by any human agency can make it work beyond the farm kibbutz scale, and I have my doubts about even any agriculture so lightly collectivized as a kibbutz.

And since when is being anti the indecent itself indecent??? Is it not better to understand evil and to not merely oppose it but to prevail over it, in pursuit of its annihilation? Think, youngster, think! I've lived inside a totalitarian social order and I've seen communism. No one with experience of these has anything nice to say about Marx's prescription for genocide, waste, poverty, and ideologically driven idiocy. Exposure to these is what makes me a libertarian. Communism is a horror and nothing but. It can bait the naive in, and often as not directly slays them too, in service of the nightmare. Unlike you, I l never took that bait at any point in my life, and never will. It's not too late for you to reject it also.

Okay, to exhaust this part of the topic:

I suppose the coincidence would simply have been too much.

This is not well thought out. What is here instead is an expression of prejudice -- your unjustified belief that conservatives must somehow never be intellectuals. Commentary, The World Jewish Review, and National Review all demonstrate just how unjustified that view is, monthly or quarterly.

Now there is the situation that in this forum what is written and read is the end product of years if not lifetimes of thought, and not the process or the development; you don't see any of the points at which a given idea was weighed and then accepted or rejected. This produces spaces between positions and philosophies, and some careless accusations of closedmindedness get thrown around, sometimes rightly, sometimes not.

Tolerable, but less strongly anticrime or antigenocide than my approach to it.

Well, yeah, you have -- I can tell as much by reading your posts, you know. :cool: I really don't think I'd have to check with Wolf. Wolf likes me, btw.

Hee hee hee -- I'm a good sport. :p

WOLF likes YOU? I know Wolf is a right winger, but give me a break! So are you two going steady?

UG, its not worth my time to answer your hysterical posts with well thought out replies. The last time I did that, you ran and cowered in the woodwork for weeks until the thread was long cold. Big waste of time.

Congrats on your engagement with Wolf, the poor girl.

Nah, we're both married, to other people. ;) :p IIRC.

Now Mari, since when do I give you a break? C'mon. Out here where everybody can see, anyway. (PM's are a different story; as soon as I write it, I'm going to shoot you a short essay I've been crystallizing in my fevered RW-Lib brain. ;) )

Speaking of, are you planning on stopping by this thread anytime soon, UG? I believe you owe someone an apology. Or at least a blustering, handwaving dismissal.

As you see. And I never bluster, but pop heads like zits, in those instances where they only contain pus.

Marichiko, whatever her virtues may be, is older than I am, which is old enough to know better -- and she doesn't.

I didn't make any claims about intelligence, just about open-mindedness. There are perfectly rational intellectuals who believe that the world is less than 6000 years old.

There appears to be other factors that recently changed George Jr's attitude. We heard it in comments about learning humility. Forgot the exact text, but he almost apologized for the "Bring it on" statement and then moved on to express how he needed to become more mature.

But I think there are some other factors here. Some of Cheney's responses lately may be put him at loggerhead with Karl Rove. George Jr may not be taking orders from Cheney anymore. I also got a very distinct impression that Laura laid into him about his cowboy attitudes. I think maybe his low popularity ratings finally got Laura to tell George off - to get him to take stock of his attitude.

And finally, I believe Condi Rice is getting educated by State Department veterans and world leaders. This too would be influencing how George Jr reacts. Condi is saying things she would have never said three and four years ago.

Of course underlying all this are the lowest popularity polls in recent history. It's hard to believe that Richard Nixon all but openly tried to pervert this nation's government and still did not have such low numbers. Apparently that may have finally caused George Jr to take a realistic world perspective.

I don't know what kind of company you work for -- my boss' boss does sign for the 50-cent purchases. Actually, most of the time, he vetos them. Bastard. :rar:

UG is married, I am on the market.

But I do like him, in a way that cannot be used against him in a divorce proceeding, AFAIK.

Stock brokers are crying that interest rates are too high; will create recession. Fools. Recession in inevitable due to an administration that spends money on wars, tax cuts, a corporate welfare like the top man was an alcoholic. Too much money overseas. Unacceptable trade imbalances. But worst of all, a government so fiscally irresponsible as to not even put the Mission Accomplished war in the budget - because you might really see those costs. Top 10 PBGC (government) rescues of corporations and their dates. Notice who is doing most of it - and larger *rescues* are coming: But it has only started. A government that does believe deficits don't matter. Financial responsiblity is for the foolish? From CBSMarketWatch of 20 Jun 2006 are some interesting quotes: Remember this is the same president who wanted to change Social Security on some myth that SS has problems. In reality, the only problem with SS is that George Jr's administration takes money out of SS to pay for things like a Mission Accomplished War, and leaves no IOU.

Why then was he not concerned about a far more serious problem - PBGC? The solution was simple if performed years ago. Require PBGC corporations to fully fund their pension funds. But then GM would have to admit financal problems long before those problems became worse. Its easier when a public believes myths of WMDs; to also pretend a PBGC problem does not exist. Then when resulting recessionary forces strike, others will be blamed. Mental midget is not so dumb; is he? He knows who remains in denial - and it's not the president.

Perfectly rational? No, sir. "Not clinically insane" is about as far as I can go. "Uninformed" is another adjective that comes to mind.

From the Washington Post of 24 July 2006: Actions by the 4th ID were on paper (the short term perspective) some of the best in Iraq. However the article demonstrates why the 4th ID may have done more than any other unit to create the insurgency. Also called a 'big dic' attitude.

Officially, the insurgency probably started 7 Aug 2003 with a bombing of the Jordanian Embassy. Recently, the civil war may be defined when Sunnis entered a Shi'ite town, lined up all the residents, and massacred them. Currently about 3000 Iraqis are being murdered this way - more the instability directly traceable to an American that even insisted there was no looting.

This was how Lebanon's civil war started. This is but again what America created by violating basic military doctrine from 500 BC. We disbanded the police and army because Bremmer and White House extremists did not even understand basic military science principles. But then where was the president when basic military doctrine was being taugh to his National Guard unit?

This and following Washington Post articles cite confidential military studies that demontrate why we are losing a "Mission Accomplished" war. I will not even attempt to highlight this article because it contains numerous fundamental points that every citizen should understand - some concepts having been posted previously even in The Cellar.

Military experts now say we will probably need at least 100,000 troops in Iraq even 10 to 15 years from now. Deja vue Vietnam.

From the Washington Post of 23 July 2006:
Some here in the Cellar insisted that Iraqis welcomed Americans. When that Saddam statue was brought down, those in denial refused to acknowledge a damning fact - almost no Iraqis in the street because Americans were not welcome. The fact did not jib with their propaganda. So they falsely insist the majority of Iraqis still feared to be in the streets. Instead they believed the George Jr / Rush Limbaugh lies. Few Iraqis were in that plaza pulling down Saddam's statue because: How deep is denial of reality then as it remains today within the mental midget president? How easy do we recruit for the insurgency? We even tortured and called that good. Some in the Cellar even deny anything wrong with toture. Deja vue. We now see what torture caused - another problem directly traceable to the George Jr administration that openly advocates both torture and extraordinary rendition. These are crimes worthy of impeachment. Deja Vue Vietnam. I was posting it how long ago? Long before we 'Pearl Harbored' Iraq. Anyone want to acknowledge how predictable this all was because someone first learned history - ie read the Pentagon Papers?

Is Iraq in civil war? Priniciples from previous civil wars to define when that war started now exist in Iraq. Only time will tell whether Iraq gets worse because we invaded iraq as Israel invaded Lebanon. An invasion justified by lies at the highest level of government, without a strategic objective, and therefore has no exit strategy. Deja vue Vietnam.

The insurgency dwindles as it is hit, but it is replaced with sectarian violence which kills many more people. This is the civil war that Michael Yon predicted... not very pretty.

Clearly we are winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan - every night. From the Washington Post of 8 Aug 2006: Saddam could provide electricity 24 hours every day in Iraq with antiquated infrastructure and while under a decade long embargo. Taliban could provide electricity 24 hours in Afghanistan. George Jr administration - after five years of 'reconstructiion' - those hours of electricity have dropped from 24 to only five hours.

Just another way to recruit centrists into the ranks of extremists - also called nationalists. No wonder so many American troops must stay another four months in Baghdad - where we are winning the war - just like in Vietnam.

Not only did we not bring in enough troops and do virtually no reconstruction. We cannot even provide enough kilowatts. But kilowatts are so easily produced even with antiquated equipment. Saddam could do it. Taliban could do it. God's chosen president could not?

From EE Times of 31 July 2006

Ending the Neocon Nightmare

Ideologically misguided??:eyebrow: You won't find the ideology coming from Israel, they just finally hit their braking point. Would you really prefer to see Israel forced to retreat and the whole process to begin all over? If they did that all that would happen would be that Hezbollah would be screaming about how powerful and great they are to have defeated the Israeli infidels. That entire 20 mile region should be turned into an uninhabitable wasteland, a proper retribution for all these years of bombings. Next time a group of terrorists starts getting any ideas about strapping on the explosives again all Israel needs to do is run some photos of the devastation on the news with the caption "think hard first".

That ideology is called "Zionism".

Perhaps three-quarters of Israelis and Palestinians are eager for peace and compromise, while a quarter on each side – often fueled by extreme religious zeal – wants a complete victory over the other. Radical Palestinians want to destroy Israel, while radical Israelis demand control over the entire West Bank, through either continued occupation or even (according to a tiny minority) a forcible removal of the Palestinian population.

Every time when peace appears to be close at hand, radicals on one side of the conflict or the other provoke an explosion to derail it. Sometimes this involves overt conflict between moderates and radicals within one side, such as when an Israeli religious zealot assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when peace negotiations were making progress. Sometimes this involves a terrorist attack by radical Palestinians against Israeli civilians, in the hope of provoking an exaggerated violent response from Israel that breaks the process of trust building among moderates on both sides.

Both sides should agree to the pre-1967 boundaries in principle, and then swap small land parcels and definitions of control (especially regarding Jerusalem) in slight and mutually convenient deviations from the 1967 boundaries.

In other words, quibbling over details should come after both sides agree on the principle of respect for the pre-1967 borders, which are recognized by key countries throughout the region and around the world, and are enshrined in numerous UN resolutions.

N-Ireland somehow found a way out of the quigmire. Not by bombing Ireland or the UK, but by negotiation, even if that means that one need to talk to (former) terrorists..

A vast majority of Israelis are in favor of the current action, which has little to do with Palestinians except when Hez missiles land in the West Bank. I've read that the Israeli peace movement that favors that approach to the Pals, is in favor of the current approach to Hezbollah.

Yes, in the current fog of war, all reason is lost. Hezbollah is getting more and more support for being the icon in the war against Israel just by not losing and Nasrallah being the new created Muslim hero.

There had been a chance of peace in the 90's but unfortunately got blown away by religious fanatics.

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” (Hermann Goering)

Depends on which action. Also the vast majority of Israelis don't want another invasion of Lebanon. Viewing from an informed Israeli perspective, that war without invasion is stupid. Either invade with troops on the ground OR do the only thing that was ever going to create peace. Hippikos has repeatedly made the important points. For example, too many in The Cellar want to view everything in terms of them and us. But as Hippikos demonstrates, it is mostly the fringe groups - the minority - that destroy peace often due to total ignorance and 'big dic' mentalities. So many of 'they' have different perspectives.

Currently we have Israel with a right to defend itself. Having a right means it should be exercised? Exercising that right means it is a solution. Yes according to extremists who always want war (despite what they claim). Extremist 'need for revenge' is accurate as long as the viewpoint is 'them and us' / 'black and white'. Today Israeli warplanes attacked the city of Tripoli. Do you know where Tripoli is? It is in the most northern part of Lebanon. Like Tyre in the south, these cities have nothing to do with Hezbollah. Attacking innocents makes no sense if peace is the objective. Why are innocents (not Hezbollah) being attacked? Just another example of 'Them verses us' / 'good verses evil' / 'black and white' thinking that only pushes everyone into the ranks of extremists. The 'big dic' mentality is alive and well.

Attack on Tripoli only makes more people want war. Attack on Tripoli only justifies more attacks on Israel. Israel attacked Tripoli. That alone justified 1000 more missiles against Israel. And yet Israelis are not so deceived by the 'fog of war' as to not even understand that they are only making more future wars necessary. The 'fog of war' or people too caught up in their rights to seek intelligent thought means more war and peace never possible. This is the situation that extremists love because it empowers extremists and recruits for extremists.

The problem: Israel responded to a kidnapping by attacking innocent Lebanese. Hezbollah, whose mission was defined by the defense of Lebanon, then did what they must do - as defined by their reason to exist. Hezbollah fired unguided missiles into Israel doing almost no damage. This leads to more innocent Lebanese murdered by the hundreds and a few Israelis killed by unguided missiles. Nothing useful accomplished if peace is the objective. More hate created - more extremists recruited - and all is fully justified in rights and the 'big dic' mentality of revenge. Israeli attacks on the innocent are exactly what extremists want.

Who are these extremists? Anti-humanity Israelis and Christian Zionists (also called American evangelicals) are some of those who want to destroy the world, if for no other reason, because they are dumbed down by a 'big dic' mentality - the fog of war. Yes, what Israel is doing is even what Osama bin Laden wants.

How does the informed Israeli instead react? First, the problem is not the 90% of Lebanon who are being attacked, made homeless, and are attacked only because they are all dirty Arabs. The tactical objective is only those Hezbollah missile. Therefore the Israeli army should move in up to the Letani River and expect Israeli casualties in the thousands. IOW either you confront the problem now - or live with it. Second, number of dead Israeli army troops becomes irrelevant once that tactical objective is necessary. An informed Israeli that wants to end this missile problem orders cannon fodder forward to take out those missiles with the only weapon that can do it - ground troops. Massive Israeli deaths in are totally acceptable because the objective is that important.

Don't like the thinking? Sorry. But if the objective is important, then a few thousand Israel dead is justified. Welcome to what extremists would create. Instead attack other innocents with airplanes. It will not solve anything but recruits and empowers the extremists.

Even Likud types fear that invasion because it will then drive centrists back to centrist positions - intelligent thought. Intelligent Israelis would then wake up and appreciate why the 'big dic' mentality only means more war - will never create peace and will always keep extremists in power.

Which brings us to the other solution. Negotiation. Only way to reduce violence - to stop recruiting for the enemy - is to negotiate. Arab league has the only viable offer to settle this - Seven points. And then 20 years of Hezbollah missiles in diminished numbers eventually means peace. Yes, 20 years of extremists trying to create more war - and war not created because no smoking gun exists. Notice that is completely contrary to the 'big dic' mentality. They are only trivial unguided missiles. Ignore them. Only then can peace be at hand. 20 years of minor violence necessary to undo what the 'big dic' mentality - attacking innocent Lebanese - has created.

But again, the 'big dic' mentality of "they killed one of us" will not let this happen. You want to live in Northern Israel? Fine. Expect some to be killed by trivial Hezbollah missiles and eventually Hezbollah has no more purpose because Israel still does not invade. Those unguided missiles are a threat like traffic accidents. Don't respond with a 'big dic' and the problem goes away. Negotiate and eventually the region becomes safe even for an international peace force and for people who would then remove Hezbollah.

That is the informed Israeli position. It will not happen. Too many just don't understand that a few dead neighbors is 'life normal' and is not a 'smoking gun' to justify war. Eventually, peace can happen as the ranks of centrists grow and the ranks of extremists diminish. This begins the only way to create peace. Negotiation complete with periodic and acceptable extremist violence is the only way peace is going to happen. Too many - and that especially includes American Christian Zionists - instead are enthralled by a 'big dic' mentality. To them, the right of revenge means revenge must alway be taken. That extremist 'big dic' agenda means more extremistis in power and more recruits to extremist ranks - and constant war.

Why was Tipoli attacked? Clearly not to stop Hezbollah. And if you don't know where Tripoli is, then that attack was acceptable. Extremism is alive and well - and murdering the other 90% of innocent Lebanese.

Well they're ready to go, so start counting.

Yeah, that's what they've been doing and that's why over 90% of Israel is fed up and in favor of the current operation and the next one too.

Hizbollah attacks along Israel's northern border May 2000 - June 2006

You keep not mentioning these attacks. It's like you don't know about them, or they don't count, or something. Maybe it's a filtering problem on your part, or maybe it's your lousy biased sources.

Other words not appearing in any tw posts: 1559, Syria, assassination, Lebanese Christians.

Ah, take back the ready to go... they just turned around and the cease-fire is on.

Those missile attacks are a threat like aggressive drivers on a highway. Unguided missiles are not a 'smoking gun'. Apparently some confuse trivial threats as if these were massive 155 mm artillery attacks. Need I again cite hundreds of ships sunk off the US East Coast - and that still was not sufficient to justify war? Grasping this concept - the 'smoking gun' -remains elusive to UT.

Meanwhile, basis of a negotiated settlement is currently found in the Arab League's seven points that even include Sheeba Farms.

Peripherals such as Syria are relevant to those so biased as to see evil even in Syria. Syria has no camel in this conflict. If Syria was so evil, then so was the US for arming and financing the IRA in Britain? As soon as one says Iran and Syria are involved, then I know George Jr brainwashing has taken hold again.

Neither Hezbollah nor Israel are victims here. Both are the only two combatants; both acting with 'big dic' mentalities. Victims are an innocent 90% of Lebanon who were outrightly attacked only because some Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. That was the action that turned daily 'face slapping' into a dangerous and undeclared war on innocent Lebanon civilians.

So why is Israel attacking Tripoli? Why has Israel attacked Tyre, Beirut, and Sidon - cities devoid of Hezbollah? My bias is against anyone driven blindly by their 'big dic' mentality. Only the morally bankrupt could justify attacks on innocent civilians in Beirut and Tripoli.

Which bring us to predictable bias. UT, when did you even cite Israel for doing wrong; being the aggressor; even arranging a massacre? Never. Your pro-Israeli bias has been excessively obvious and consistent. When Israel foolishly tries to solve problems with war, you encourage it. I am often appalled at your approval of violence as a solution for everything.

This Lebanon situation is a classic case. You even approve of intentionally aggressive and unjustified attacks on Lebanese - as if they are all evil. When did you criticize Israel for intentionally killing innocent Lebanese? I am so often appalled at your blind approval of anything Israel does when 50% of the time Israel is the reason for destruction of peace. In this case, Israel is so much the aggressor at to routinely kill innocent Lebanese - and declare that an attack on Hezbollah. To agree with them, in this case, is blatant bias; implies moral bankruptcy.

Even more embarrassing is that Israel's own government is so confused as to not even invade with ground troops. Instead Israel declared anyone in Lebanon as Hezbollah and attack everyone in Lebanon - including intentional attacks on well marked Red Cross ambulances. Not just Red Crescent. Israel also routinely attacks well marked Red Crosses. This because Israel does not have the balls to invade the border with ground troops - lose a few thousand soldiers attacking their only enemy.

That's the TW world - there are dead and wounded bodies, but no smoking gun.

See according to you, Israel has performed some sort of "original sin" which makes it Perfectly OK for Israel to be attacked for years and years. A few dead soldiers, a few missiles here and there - oh, THAT is not some sort of "big dic" situation. The other side can do whatever they like and it is never a "big dic" situation. They can openly declare their intent to wipe it off the map and it is just normal diplomacy to tw. No big dic here.

Bias? Only in the other fellow.

Bias in favor of modernity, the free world, or truth? Not permitted.

Bias against Islamic Fascism? I'm not going to finish this thought.

Other cities devoid of Hizbollah? REALLY? Is that what you believe? No Hizbollah in Beruit? Uh, are you sure about that? Iran and Syria not involved? The other day they CAPTURED IRANIAN SOLDIERS, did you miss it?

My friend you have failed to read up on this situation, and are just going on instinct.

You are UNINFORMED and SPEAKING FROM IGNORANCE. And THAT is the WORST form of bias.

You think this whole situation is analgous to the Palestinian situation. You apply the same thinking to Israel on this stuation as you do to the Pal situation. That is wrong.

If you can answer this without bringing up Al*m*n*m t*b*s, I'll respond by not asking for your definition of "massacre" which we can then apply to all future discussion and beat you over the head with it like a stick.

UT, for someone so bound and determined to show 'hurt Arab pictures' as a fraud, why do you have anything but bias.

When the number of dead Israelis approaches anywhere near to number of dead and totally innocent Lebanese, then we have a number greater than zero. One dead Israeli body - because of numbers of dead Lebanese - is zero. That is how reality without emotion views life in a war. The minute you worry about the so few harmed Israelis, then I know your bias is reason for your post.

Basically I am looking forward to a thousand dead Israelis and a thousand dead Hezbollah. Only then will anyone start talking peace. You are not. Your view is every dead Israeli justified something like ten dead Arabs.

A man pulls a knife to rob another. The second calls for three batteries of heavy artillery and levels the entire neighborhood. Those neighbors were guilty because they protected the robber? That is a justified response? No it is how one encourages Armageddon. UT. Others accused you of complaining about pictures only because they made Israel look bad. You never note the same counterfeit pictures that promote an Israeli position. You are that biased. You don't act honestly. You don't treat all parties with equal praise or equal contempt.

Final point. Israel started this when they attacked Beirut airport. Your response is to decline to comment because you cannot dispute it. Sometimes an Arab group starts the conflict. This time, Israel did. Israel is historically responsible for about 50% of the unjustified aggression. You can't deal with that reality due blind bias - suggesting a racist mindset.

At least in TW’s world, we have equal contempt for all aggressors – including the mental midget George Jr. UT worries about a few dead Israelis – and conveniently forgets about hundreds of dead American sailors off the US East Coast back in 1940. Yes I don’t give a damn about a few dead people. I instead care about the millions of living – which again is why I care about the smoking gun.

It was no accident that the people UT favors also called for and got the murder of Rabin - because they so hate peace.

Happy to.

Please direct me to one.

Perhaps here? This supposed comedy website featuring the freedom-hating Bob and David of Mr. Show fame (if you could call it that) lets slip a nasty secret... Scroll to the bottom of the page for this damning evidence: Copyright ©2006 Liberal Jew-Run Media . . .

Hebrew Box Office - indeed! I believe that answers your question.

So you are saying Isrealis are always honest and Arabs are always liars? You make my point.

Until you regard both sides as both good or both evil, well, then you remain biased. This is a conflict where every side has justification for their actions. Israelis under Likud remain as bad or worse than those other sides. Those who recognized this and were in position to do something could then create the Oslo Accords. When the claims of all sides were found justified, then peace almost happened.

Why did the Oslo Accords breakdown? Extremist even had to call for and create the murder of Rabin just so that logical thought - the ability to see all perspectives - was undermined. Peace was at hand only because there was no good and evil. There were only many conflicting perspective - and all were correct and justified. Your one-side bias in favor of Israel is is necessary to guarantee more war. It is the same attitude that Christian Zionists want to create Armageddon.

"good" and "evil" are terms I don't recognize, tw.

Israelis, including Israeli arabs, are more likely to be honest than most people living in Arabic cultures, because they live in a modern culture where truth is considered more important than honor.

Here is the awesome backgrounder on shame-culture versus guilt-culture. Required reading to understand the whole thing. If you're lazy like me and don't want to read the whole thing, at least scroll down to the colored tables that summarize the differences.

I first pointed to it in this thread.

But don't ask me, just ask this guy.

http://cellar.org/2006/iraqiinfominister.jpg

Of course, if I'm wrong, you can surely point me to one single example of a doctored photo supporting the Israeli side.

By tw:
Is this starting to weird out anyone else here?:crazy:


Also,
when did tw move to Israel?:cool:

Hey maybe you could check on Flickr for faked photos, there are a lot of photos on there.

In a culture where crimes can cost a hand - Arabs are more dishonest? Bull. Dishonesty and lying is exists and equal on both sides. Both sides are equally human. Both sides now have equal disrespect for human life. That disrespect is fundamental to why conflict exists.

One need only watch how Israelis confiscate Palestinian land illegally and in outright violation of laws to appreicate how lying, criminal deceit, and other crimes against humanity are acceptable in Israel. After all, which nation arranged for and achieve the massacre of 5000 Palestinian women and children? And yet even in the Cellar, so many posters don't remember how corrupt Israel also is. Israelis are no different from their Arab peers which is why even the Oslo Accords were destroyed.

Remember why I could doubt those accusations of aluminum tubes and other claims of WMDs. Why I saw early on the lies of Iraq, outright and obvious violations of Military Science 101 by the George Jr administration, and the potential for civil war directly traceable to American ignorance. I grew up watching propaganda created. I demand the irrefutible fact. Facts remain that Israel is no more moral than so many of their Arab adversaries. They even routinely attack Red Cross and Red Cresent ambulances. This is the same Israel that murdered their own prime minister because he was actually negotiating peace. This is a moral Israel? Facts say otherwise. But as Rabin demonstrated, Israel can also be honest - if ....

Extremist Israelis will routinely lie - are the most immoral. Remember why the US and USSR came closest to nuclear war - because Israelis lied. But again, this is the same honest Israel that 'accidently' attacked USS Liberty. Eliminate the obvious biases, then Israelis as a nation are no more honest or moral than their Arab peers.

They even murdered their own prime minister only because he was working for peace - the Oslo Accords. What Arab nation did that? Many Israelis are so dishonest as to even deny that fact.

Israelis are about as dishonest and immoral as their Arab neighbors. History demonstrates that fact. Only personal biases would deny it.

All I ask is for one doctored or stage-directed photo.

It would be spectacular proof of your point, and a remarkable disproving of mine.

Just one.

Truth is the first victim in war, on all sides.

Iraq war was directly caused by the Jewish cabal in the neocons (Feith, Abrams, Ledeen). AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is the biggest example of that.

"I think the administration has had a rather militant and absolutist notion of how to achieve peace in the Middle East, laced with overtones of black-and-white morality," said former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Few countries have become so anti-Arab as the United States. From the Economist of 5 Aug 2006: These numbers are what the administration mouthpieces have been telling Americans how to think - and are opposite of reality. Meanwhile, The Economist defined reasons for America's emotionally based response: Why are Americans so 'out of touch' with what the rest of the world knows? Propaganda is alive and well in America. I am amazed how many Americans somehow know what must be done and yet - this question again - don't even know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas.

You really show your true colors when you say being pro-Israel is being anti-Arab.

I'm pro-Israel, pro-Lebanon, very anti-Hezbollah. A year ago I started the thread I love the Lebanese. A month later I wrote Free Lebanon.

Then why were you so quite when Israel was murdering Maronites and Druze by the hundreds? Why were you so quite when Israel was routinely attacking other Lebanese (rather than Hezbollah) in Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, and Tripoli. You are not pro-Lebanese - except when it is consistent with a pro-Israeli attitude. I posted repeatedly about Israel attacks on Tripoli. UT remained silent because UT approves of anything that Israel does. An honest pro-Lebanese person would be screaming from the rafters about the murder of Lebanese in Tripoli - the most northern port in Lebanon. UT remained silent.

You believe Hezbollah is not in Beirut?

I asked that yesterday. Got no answer. TW remained silent. There are only two possibilities. One possibility: TW does not know Hezbollah controls large areas of Beirut. Which would be unthinkable to someone who claims to know so much about the region.

No, TW remained silent because he knows damn well there are Hezbollah in Beirut, and in Tripoli and Tyre and Sidon as well. TW wanted those attacks to be attacks on innocent Lebanese, and so he made them such. Because he disapproves of anything that Israel does and wants to paint the worst possible picture.

I answered your question long ago, UT. There were no Hezbollah terrorist operations in Beirut's airport. So why was that one of the first targets of Israel? Where are all this Hezbollah in Tyre or Sidon? Does not exist. Where is all this Hezbollah in Tripoli, Hermet, Galieh, Baalbek, or Halba? None. These are also northern cities attacked by Israel only because Hezbollah was in the south.

Why do you ignore these murders of Lebanese by israel when you claim to be pro-Lebanon?

No, the Hezbollah militia is in the south. Since Israel could not get them, then Israel instead murdered innocent Lebanese - and UT (Brianna and MaggieL) says this is good.

Of course there were Hezbollah in Beirut. The question is whether leveling the city to get to them is reasonable. It's not like the Lebanese can turn them in to the police. If someone carpet bombed my neighborhood to flush out the Republicans, I'd be pretty pissed.

Bush has already stated that Israel defeated Hezbollah. This of course is wonderful news to anyone who doesn't know any better. I'm really hoping he will declare a coalition victory in Iraq tomorrow so we can bring everyone home.

I'm so very glad he's back from vacation. Maybe Condi left a few 'while you were out' post-its on his desk.

BTW, Israel does have a right to exist and does have the right to defend itself. But instead of trying to hit the rocket sites they started an invasion which ended in a cease fire. A cease fire with an opposition force that they would have not had to acknowledge if they had simply reacted to the immediate threat.

The first thing one does in war, especially a war with Arabs, is to cut the command and control lines, so that the people in the field can't get good orders from their leaders. Thus, the airports and communications facilities.

The second thing one does is to cut supply lines so that the people in the field can't be resupplied. Thus, the bridges and roads to Syria.

http://cellar.org/2006/Lebanon_Jul06.png

From Wikipedia. Areas you have specified as not containing Hezbollah are actually pwned and operated by them.

And then we look at UT's map. The attacked targets are not even Hezbollah command and control areas. Again, he completely ignored Tripoli that is about as far from Hezbollah as one can get in Lebanon. The Economist lists Tripoli as attacked somewhere between 16 and 30 times.

Again, and that was so obvious. The Beirut airport had nothing to do with Hezbollah. But it was the crown jewel of the Lebanese people - having been built as a trophy to the end of their civil war.

Why would Israel attack Beirut Airport? Apparently Olmert's government actually thought if they attacked Beirut, then the Lebanon army would somehow disarm the only miltia with a history of expelling Israel from Lebanon.

Don't forget why Israel left Lebanon: Hezbollah. Israel is the reason Hezbollah was created. Hezbollah is in south Lebanon because that is where Lebanon's enemy is.

So instead Israel attacks cities where Hezbollah is not: Sidon, Tyre, Beirut, Tripoli, Halba, Hermel, and so many cities far north of Beirut and without any Hezbollah. Again, UT calls this justified - and yet claims to be a friend of Lebanon?

Look at the targets they are hitting. Any large airport in Lebanon is a stratigic target, as well as seaports and industrial cities. With these targets there doesn't have to be Hezbollah in the building, if it weakens them by denying them weapons, food, or orders it's a legitimate target.
The only way I can see this ending for any length of time is the complete disarmament of Hezbolla and the reinstation of Lebanons official army.

These are strategic Lebanese targets. By attacking them, supplies to the entire population are cut off. This is known as collective punishment. We tried it in Iraq in order to get the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. It didn't work.

Now you have justified the illegal invasion of Cambodia, Laos, the Gulf of Tonkin, etc. For that matter why not attack Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia since that also are sources of Hezbollah support.

Meanwhile, TW instead wants honesty and facts. So much so that if anything posted emotionally bothers anyone (Brianna), well grow up. Since so many are openly lying - more egregiously then when hyping lies about WMDs - instead we have facts with supporting documentation:

Let's look at the map that UT posted. Listed is a province not in Hezbollah control (according to UT) and at least one city in that province attacked by Israel - as best I can tell using maps, news reports, etc. In most every case, the number of attacks are far more numerous; especially in provinces listed with two or more towns:
Akkar: El Aabboudieh, Aandaqt, Halba
Tripoli: Tripoli, El BeddaouiBartroun: Al Batrun, Selaata
Aley: Ain Zhalta, Damour
Chouf: Chehim, Jiyeh
Kaerouan: Jounieh, Aayoun elSimane
Minleh-Dinnieh: Marjahin
Koura or Bacharre : Ehden
El Metri: Sannine
Baabda: El Mdairej

According to UT logic (that has no Israeli bias?), these are Hezbollah cities only because they are Lebanese cities? They are outside of what UT says is Hezbollah areas. Therefore the poplulation must be killed by Israeli warplanes.

By my count, Akkar province alone had eight attacked cities. Who did the Akkar people elect in their 2005 elections? 3 Sunnis, 1 Alawite, 1 Maronite, and 2 Greek Orthodox. So why is Israel bombing eight Akkar cities? UT tells us this is a Hezbollah stronghold? Or maybe UT never learned how often Israel lies? Clearly fake photographs demonstrate that only Arabs lie.

One can again believe a lying American president because one feels the truth. Same president that also lied about weapons of mass destruction even after he knew those weapons did not exist. Or one can again first learn facts. There was no Hezbollah in Beirut Airport no matter what UT claims. Even UT's own maps show no Hezbollah in cities that Israeli warplanes attacked. Provided are news reports of some Israeli attacked Lebanese towns in areas even UT says are not Hezbollah strongholds. But this cannot be. Israelis don't lie - if you believe George Jr and Israeli propaganda.

If it was tactical, they cratered the runways and took out some of the infrastructure needed to get people in and out, such as roads leading to the airport.

If it was punative, they reduced the entire thing to rubble.

Ya follow?

Beirut airport can be 'reopened partly' in a week: ministers

There was no tactical value to cratering the Beirut airport. Israel expected to drive out Hezbollah in two weeks. Massive military equipment from that airport and carried south was not going to resupply Hezbollah. Airport was attacked probably for same reasons that even cities northern Lebanon were attacked. For some strange reason, Israel was bombing innocent Lebanese while publicly demanding that Lebanon's army displace Hezbollah. Somehow Israel thought this would make the Lebanon army move on Hezbollah? Yes, if Lebanon blamed Hezbollah for the war. Apparently Israel actually thought that Lebanese people would blame Hezbollah.

Sounds like a decision in Israel made by a compromising committee. Well it did get Fouad Siniora's and the world's attention in a war that otherwise might have otherwise received less attention. But attacking the airport had little if any tactical purpose other than stop all commercial flights and getting attention of all in Lebanon - the airport being a crown jewel and so critical to almost all Lebanon's economy. Israel was attacking innocent Lebanese; done for a purpose. It also caused so many centrists throughout the world to start discussing "Guns of August".