The Draft

Since the war in Iraq began I have mentioned that I told my 18-year-old son that I believed that there was a %20 chance that there would be a draft in the next six years, the time during which I think he would be eligible.

Considering recent developments, and comments from both Democrats and Republicans, I am now bumping that up to %25. The only unknown is the war in Iraq and the time and manpower required.

Of course the White House is trying to dodge the issue. I do not think that they authorized Sen. Hagel to float a trial balloon. The White House does not want to even have the discussion until Bush is reelected.

"We have a relatively small military. We have been very successful in recruiting and retaining the people we need," he said. Although the military is strained by its commitments in Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere, it is working on ways to get more combat power out of the existing force, he said.

This of course assumes a consistent enlistment/reenlistment rate. With tours in Iraq being extended beyond the promised 12 months, and the understanding that signing up for military service probably means signing up for a year in Iraq, this might become an issue.

I was not happy the day my son got his selective service postcard.

If the draft is re-installed, the american public will wake up. They will realize that loved ones will start to die. Support for the war will evaporate overnight. The war will end in a matter of weeks.

The politicians currently running the country rely on polls more than any in recent memory. (Just look at the whole Rice 9/11 testimony issue. They stuck to their guns on that until they realized how unpopular their position was. Then they flip flopped and let her testify.) Bush will have nothing to lose, since he will be in his second and final term. But his handlers will have a lot to lose.

The draft is very unpopular. It is political suicide for the party that passes it.

(edited for clarity.)

Originally posted by glatt
If the draft is re-installed, the american public will wake up.

Throughout this whole business since 9/11, Americans have not been asked to make any kind of sacrifice. (Unless you count going out and shopping as a sacrifice.)

The only pols really talking about the draft are people like Charlie Rangel who really only hopes to score points in his home district. The problem is that he's a moron.

The other day he complained that 25% of casualties in Iraq are black or hispanic, which shows how black and hispanics are overrepresented in the military. Unfortunately for Mr. Rangel blacks and hispanics represent 24% of the country's population so all he proved was what a moron he is.

The draft is not coming back.

It's been mentioned here before, but if there was a draft or some sort of mandatory service, the american public would have more of a stake in international politics. I think there would be less apathy. People would tend to participate in the democracy. Maybe they would even seek out news so they could make informed decisions.

A draft isn't all bad. There is a silver lining.

The war will not end in a matter of weeks. Like it or not we’re stuck there unless you want to create the very terrorist breeding ground that Bush claimed it was when this whole thing started. I would be interested to know how many people at the Clear Channel Hate Sessions smashing Dixie Chicks cd’s and pouring out French wine would feel if they knew then that little Chip may be sent off to war.

Remember a good Patriot is a Republican who blindly follows the will of the President no matter how stupid and inane he is.

Originally posted by TheLorax
The war will not end in a matter of weeks.

If you are replying to my thread where I said exactly that, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I shouldn't have started a new paragraph with that sentence. The sentence should have said; "If the draft is re-installed, the war will end in a matter of weeks."

I agree with you that the way things are now, the war will not end in a matter of weeks.

(Edit: There. I went back and changed it. Hope it's clearer now.)

Originally posted by Undertoad
The draft is [b]not coming back. [/B]

So where are they going to get all the soldiers they need? I admit I haven't been keeping score in detail, but it seems that they're already extending tours of duty for guard units and cutting back on rotation for the regular units already there. Assuming we're still there this time next year, isn't there going to be a real personnel shortage? (And I'm assuming that new enlistees in both the regular and reserves are down. But maybe I'm wrong about that.)

Then they flip flopped and let her testify

No, they didn't flip-flop. They "evolved in their position."

:)

They could extend out their age and other limits, increase the pay a bit, and probably get enough people in one day. The military is no longer interested in unwilling soldiers that require in-depth training, and so you will see nobody in the military advocating a draft.

Originally posted by Undertoad
They could ... increase the pay a bit...

Well, that's one idea. One other idea might be to allow them to tap their retirement savings early - TAX FREE! That oughtta pump up the morale and the enlistments!

Originally posted by Undertoad

The draft is [b]not coming back. [/B]

Well, not before November anyway. I could see slavery er the draft coming back with some bull crap alternative service option so the lefty legislators can get their piece of the pie.

[COLOR=indigo]My nephew's marine unit was "embedded" with Col. North in Iraq. I remember when Oliver North was doing an interview for the folks back home when the hype came out about how the advance marines, like my nephew's unit, were running low on food and water.

Ollie commentary was with the supply officer for the unit, and it was all about,

"So are there enough rations for these marines, Captain?"
"Yes, Colnel. We have enough provisons and supplies for every marine."
"And is there enough water?"
"Yes, Sir."
"Well, there you have it, folks, don't listen to those folk who say there isn't enough food and water for us, we're covered."


I showed my nephew those clips when he got home and he got really pissed. There were days there were no rations, and the guys had to survive on half gallon of water a day, humping all that equipment. My nephew said, "Well, the OFFICERS were well supplied."

His 4 years was up last month. Every single man and woman in his unit has left the marine corps, or plans to when their enlistment is up.

He just got a job in the civilian sector as an Air Traffic Controller in Central California for $17/hour to start, and will be making $30/hour in 9 years. He's 22 years old.

All that being said, I dont know if his unit is indicative of the trend as a whole, but if it is, the rats are fleeing the ship.[/COLOR]

o/~ You can get anything you want, at <a href="http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/alices.shtml">Alice's Restaurant</a> o/~

It seems like a rather perverse take on the political system to consciously delay a draft until after being reelected. If people are as opposed to a draft as you lot suggest they will be, wouldn't there be enough of an outcry in opposition that, post-election or not, it wouldn't get very far?

This is, after all, a democracy; the government isn't generally supposed to force people to go die in some foreign country against their will and against the majority of the country's desires.

Originally posted by Griff
Well, not before November anyway. I could see slavery er the draft coming back with some bull crap alternative service option so the lefty legislators can get their piece of the pie.

Eh...don't forget that our fine president also did alternative service.

Rangel's original rationale for bringing up the draft (which was a year ago) was to get people to think about it and how it could affect the nation. He's not a complete moron.

Hagel is being a "patriotic American." Not a complete moron either.

Of course, neither of them would have to go...

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
All that being said, I dont know if his unit is indicative of the trend as a whole, but if it is, the rats are fleeing the ship

I shared coffee with a man whose son was then a Captain in the 10th Mountain. His son was pissed, in part, because 10th Mountain did not after bin Laden, et al. He said that most every Captain would be joining him; leave at the end of their tour.

Just under one year later, we know he was correct. This government did not go after a 'smoking gun' enemy - bin Laden. Now that we did not deal with a real and justified war, about one-half of Afghanistan is no longer in friendly control. The Taliban is slowly gaining more assistance from the people who never got the major rebuilding promised by America.

Instead of first winnnig the real war, we abandoned victory to attack a mythical enemy. Eventually even the troops begin to see through the lie. Same as in Vietnam. It took almost a decade of lies before even US troops realized we were the enemy in Vietnam. "We have met the enemy and he is us".

Originally posted by Undertoad
The draft is not coming back.

Which is eactly what richlevy said:

Considering recent developments, and comments from both Democrats and Republicans, I am now bumping that up to %25. The only unknown is the war in Iraq and the time and manpower required.

US Military has already said that the world's largest military now must to increase troop strength by 20% to meet current political demands. No doubt about that. There are 130,000 troops and 20,000 hired guns in Iraq. US generals still say they need 200,000 troops - as made evident by bridges now destroyed on major and necessary highways. Compare this to the 30,000 troops that Rumsfeld said would be required at this point. Even McNamara did not lie this much - when we had to reinstate the draft.

QUOTE Originally posted by Undertoad

The draft is not coming back.

Oh no.Whats all this then.
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1710

$28 million? $28 M won't pay for the server to hold the website for the draft. :) Don't sweat the bureaucrats, they can do whatever they like but it doesn't mean there's a plot afoot until there are Senate subcommittees starting up.

Originally posted by Undertoad
They could extend out their age and other limits, increase the pay a bit, and probably get enough people in one day. The military is no longer interested in unwilling soldiers that require in-depth training, and so you will see nobody in the military advocating a draft.

But do you think the military has the decision in their hands? It appears in this administration the politicians are running the war, rather than the military.

There are more police serving the city of London ...( a peaceful city whose residents generally are too busy being ordinary to get into much trouble and where very few people own anything more lethal than a swiss army knife).... than there are soldiers serving in Iraq, a place where a significant portion of the population are unhappy with this situation and unlike the happy londoners are often armed in the region's usual fashion with ak's and rpgs.

In years to come when Hollywood are making teary eyes gritty films only just beginning to tackle the thorny problem of the viet...I do beg your pardon....the Iraqi war....(or should I say Wars) I hope we all remember what it was like at the time, right now. Bear witness to what is being done in our names. All the glorious rhetoric and the shining patriotism of the Right will not save this war from history's scrutiny.

I do wonder, rather sadly, if by the time many of these lads and lasses get to come home;scarred and injured by what they have seen and done;will the people who sent them be so heartsick and embarrassed at what their soldiers have done for them that they will deny their laurels?

Best to ask them how they feel about it, rather than to decide on their behalf.

What who feel about it? The Iraqis who are being occupied? The soldiers who are doing their job? or the millions of people who opposed this war? Or maybe the international community whose laws have been flounted?

Because those soldiers have their own ( very good I am sure) reasons for doing their job is no reason for the people in whose names they fight to stop questioning the motives of those who choose which war they fight.

Incidentally I have read and watched quite a few interviews with returning soldiers in the UK and they are a damn sight more robust than you seem to credit them as being. They are quite able to hold in their heads the two ideas that they were there to do a job and do it well .....and that there may be some argument to say they should never have been there in the first place.

During wars we are all supposed to shy away from suggesting the people at the top of the command chain may be making bad decisions which their soldiers then have to live ( or die) with for fear this in someway denigrates the soldiers themselves. ....Likewise I have had various people intimate that by suggesting that the world has been lied to by the people who wanted to invade Iraq I am somehow painting soldiers as somehow less capable of making a judgement call than the rest of us...Since when did armies choose their assignments?

"Lions led by donkeys" was how the massive losses of Paschendale and the Somme were summed up.

We have been lied to by something rather more sinister than donkeys. The fact that so many soldiers have and had such noble intent in Iraq is testament to the scale and pervasiveness of that lie.

Oh and you want the clear picture of a fight dont ask the combatants they are *not* objective

Boo!

Originally posted by tw
This government did not go after a 'smoking gun' enemy - bin Laden. Now that we did not deal with a real and justified war, about one-half of Afghanistan is no longer in friendly control. The Taliban is slowly gaining more assistance from the people who never got the major rebuilding promised by America.

Instead of first winnnig the real war, we abandoned victory to attack a mythical enemy. Eventually even the troops begin to see through the lie. Same as in Vietnam. It took almost a decade of lies before even US troops realized we were the enemy in Vietnam. "We have met the enemy and he is us".

Glad to see someone recognises the truth about Iraq.

1. Is it not surprising that the rise of extreme fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. leadership, has lead to an exact equal and opposite reaction, of a rise in extreme fundamentalist Muslims in other parts of the world?
I'm not anti-Christian .. far from it .. but I detest those fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. leadership, who lead the U.S. into a ''righteous war" .. based on lies and media manipulation (where are the WMD's?).
A war started on low moral grounds, is a poor starting area, to try and impress anti-Christian forces.

The latest outcry about pictures of military coffins is a classic piece of media manipulation. The woman took pics to show relatives, the care taken with them .. the U.S. leadership doesn't want pics of coffins because it needs to manipulate public opinion. The U.S. leadership is just plain deceitful .. every day of their public lives.

2. The U.S leadership assumes that the war in Iraq is going to be a classic standard war .. but it is anything but that .. it is a classic guerrilla war .. which the U.S. is always poorly set up to fight.
The U.S. military almost always uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut .. with the resultant damage to innocent civilians and generally poor PR with the locals.
The insurgents fight dirty with the lowest tactics known .. and the military can't cope with that. They need standard war tactics to operate.

3. The U.S. leadership assumes .. wrongly .. that the Iraqi people will meekly accept a Western Democracy style of Govt as soon as their current dictator is removed.
There is a poor understanding in the U.S. leadership of how these people operate. This is a tribal religious culture with their religion paramount.
They will all stop killing members of the other sects for the few minutes it takes to say their compulsory prayers .. and then get back into the killing .. just because the other sect has a slightly different, but reputedly highly blasphemous view, that cannot be tolerated.

As soon as the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, the Iraqis will go back to bludgeoning each other until a new dictator appears to brutalise all but one sect .. his .. and then a type of stability will re-appear .. and the U.S. Govt will applaude the stability and offer financial assistance to the new dictator ..

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4016

The sad part to me, is that 600+ American soldiers have been sacrificed in a bid for personal glory .. without one iota of identifiable gain, to the U.S. or coalition countries.

As someone has said .. if it were not for American political and corporate greed, Iraq could be left to dissolve into the obscurity it deserves.

And if you don't think I know what I'm talking about .. I can assure you, as a Aussie front line participant in a previously badly instigated, badly run, and unnecessary war .. by poor quality U.S. leaders .. I do. I still wear the scars.

It's way too early to figure out the level of gain or loss.

Let stuff play itself out.

Originally posted by Undertoad
It's way too early to figure out the level of gain or loss.

Let stuff play itself out.

Well at 1/4 trillion dollars and 700 lives, I'd say we're certainly adding to the 'loss' column. Even if the violence subsides, the US has no credibility with Iraqis, most of the Middle East, most of Europe, and about half of it's own citizens when it comes to the Iraq war and reconstruction.

Phrases like 'crusade' and 'bring it on' from our commander-in-chief didn't go a long way towards convincing anyone of our dispassionate deliberations in deciding to invade Iraq.

Originally posted by Undertoad
It's way too early to figure out the level of gain or loss.

Let stuff play itself out.

You continued with same claim when even American advanced physics labs were said the aluminum tubes were not appropriate for centrifuges - for making WMD. Despite fact after fact that suggested this administration was lying, you continued to say facts would eventally prove you right - even citing a standard finish on those tubes as proof those advanced physics labs were wrong. At what point do we destroy America before you say, "Maybe it was a mistake"?

They asked George Jr the same type of question in his news conference. Could he cite one point where he made a mistake? After a long and painful minute, he decided he could not even cite one. After how many lies; undermining American science; the outting of a CIA agent; the lies about missing W on keyboards; the destruction of the Oslo Accords (as a Norwegian foreign minister even predicted); the destruction of good relations with virtually every nation in the world; a stagnant econony only aggrevated by mythical tax cuts, more complicated tax laws, and excessive and still not reported spending (you have not even seen how big the Iraq bill is going to be); ignoring outright warning of an attack (at least three separate warnings with no presidential response) that became 11 September; and even letting bin Laden run free: George Jr cannot think of one mistake!!!!

I can understand George Jr not being able to admit he was wrong. George Jr is driven by politically inspired rhetoric and dogma - an agenda attributed to the vulcans. "Screw the facts. We already have an agenda."

Last time I looked, UT was not a vulcan. IOW UT, at some point you are going to have to admit the war was wrong from the very beginning. It was even created on lies. And then the most glaring missing part - no smoking gun. So where are the mythical WMD, the rape rooms, threats to our regional friends, and mythical alunimun tubes for nuclear weapons. Where pray tell are reasons to justify a Pearl Harbor type attack on another sovereign nation?

After one year of leaving the people who know how to make Iraq work completely unemployeed and recruited by insurgents - because doctors, engineers, bureaucrats, soldiers, and police had to be member of the Baath party - suddenly even Paul Bremmer today is willing to admit he has made a major mistake (the resulting mess obvious). And still UT, you say, "Don't worry. Be happy. It will all work out"? Did the aluminum tubes, mythical uranium from Niger, and the missing Ws on White House keyboards not yet teach you something about this administration? How bad does something have to get before you say, "maybe we have a problem"?

a Pearl Harbor type attack

Say what? They didn't know we were coming? When you get rolling with a good logical argument, then throw in something like that, it undermines your credibility.;)

IOW UT, at some point you are going to have to admit the war was wrong from the very beginning. It was even created on lies. And then the most glaring missing part - no smoking gun. So where are the mythical WMD, the rape rooms, threats to our regional friends, and mythical alunimun tubes for nuclear weapons.

Bringing up the rape rooms is a tactical mistake by you, tw, because in your scenario the rape rooms are necessary to control and subjugate the population.

And didn't you see the rape rooms? I did. Did you see the other torture videos? Did you see the guy getting his tongue cut out with pliers and diagonal cutters? Maybe your sources aren't really paying attention.

As for the tubes, I recall an exchange where you angrily claimed that other purchased tubes wouldn't be used to create longer missiles... longer missiles which were found, tipped with chemical warheads. And not found by the UN inspectors. And which constitute a threat to our regional friends.

The war will be the wrong decision if the country does not become a successful and (fairly) Democratic nation. That is my main criterion. Although I'm not a Vulcan, I can easily see the benefit of resetting the middle east and why, if it works, it is the solution that spills the least blood. That's why we have to wait to see how it all plays out.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The war will be the wrong decision if the country does not become a successful and (fairly) Democratic nation.

At any cost to us, right?

It's a good point, but what's the cost of cleaning up a major city after a suitcase nuke detonation?

What's the cost of what the public will be willing to do after the next terrorist act? How threatened will they feel, and what sort of reaction will they demand?

For all the WMDs not found in Iraq, there's Libya. Libya was on the Pakistani nukes client list and DID have those aluminum tubes, so you have to consider this a 2-for-1 deal in any case.

(Please, the notion that Libya would have gone this direction anyway is silly. Khadafi SAID it was due to the US approach to Iraq, and any salesman understands that you need a closer to finish off any deal.)

For all the WMDs not found in Iraq, there's Libya. Libya was on the Pakistani nukes client list and DID have those aluminum tubes, so you have to consider this a 2-for-1 deal in any case.

Now truly we have abandoned all semblance of international law.

And didn't you see the rape rooms? I did. Did you see the other torture videos? Did you see the guy getting his tongue cut out with pliers and diagonal cutters? Maybe your sources aren't really paying attention.

By that logic there are many countries we should be marching into. The Sudan? Zimabwe? .......Nobody seemed to have this much of a problem when the Hutus were slaughtering a million Tutsis...Not mention Israel's legally sanctioned and openly spoken of policy of systematic torture of suspects in custody.

Would you be kurdish(sp) in Turkey? How bout poor or female in Saudi Arabia? Have you even noticed what is being done to ordinary people in Kashmir? Even in Britain we hold people in a very dubious prison, indefinately and without charge. Everybody here knows the police conduct fishing expeditions amongst moslem population.....arresting and detaining hundreds of men in a storm of media interest , most of whom are then released quietly to go about their ordinary busniess. They had no leads to those men. Only a wide lead to that mosque, or that town. If I were a moslem man in Britain today I would feel the glare of the authorities regardless of my innocence or lack of invovement in anything other than ordinariness.

Oh....and pictures can be misleading as can testimony. Like the young lady who testified to the world of Saddam's soldiers tossing babies out of incubators with glee....An ordinary nurse she purported to be, but the world then learned she was the daughter of a prominent member of the Kuwaiti royal family. In the middle ages people told stories of Jewish kabbalas crucifying a little Christian boy. Later in the first world war we get stories ranging from bayonetting babies to the crucifiction of a wounded soldier. Most of these stories turn out to be a lot less factual than one might expect.

Nonetheless I do believe much of what has been reported regarding the excesses of Saddam and his sons against a proportion of the Iraqi population. Their's was a particularly distasteful brand of power and cruelty. But the majority of the people in Iraq did not want us to rescue them. Really they just wanted us to stop starving them out of any ability to oppose and maybe who knows, not sell him weapons when our politcal landscape swung back around that way.

We talk so much in the west about how awful it must be for women in some Islamic countries where they are in wesern eyes degraded and humiliated by enforced domesticity and the covering of themselves in public....Iraq was a secular moslem state. For the much of the population, life in Iraq was stable, predictable and secular. Lets remind ourselves that the Baath (sp) party were a communist , socialist organisation. They werent always saddam's plaything. Saddam himself was a secularist. Under Saddam Hussein women worked and engaged fully in the economy. ....Now they are taking up the veil in droves. For many its an expression of their disdain for the invasion which has so offended their sense of nationhood....for others its a form of security.

So.....we have had a dictator in Iraq who made life impossibly miserable for some but made a liberated life possible for others....and now we have an occupation force who make life impossibly miserable for many and send the liberated women scattering for cover.

Originally posted by tw
They asked George Jr the same type of question in his news conference. Could he cite one point where he made a mistake? After a long and painful minute, he decided he could not even cite one. [snip] George Jr cannot think of one mistake!!!!

I can understand George Jr not being able to admit he was wrong.

From the USA Today transcript of the 4/23 Press Conference (emphasis mine)

I hope — I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

[COLOR=indigo]
Where in that does he not admit to making mistakes?

He may not be able to say "this is where I messed up" but he DOES admit to it. At least be fair in your rants.[/COLOR]

maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

The leader of the most powerful nation that has ever existed and he cant think on his feet?

I must admit I am bemused. In Europe we anticpate our politicians will be the best and most able of our people not the ones we'd feel most comfortable drinking with in a bar......Of course we're often disappointed in this.....But really any politician that claimed he wasnt a fast enough thinker to answer a question off the cuff would not be considered valid material for high office in most European countries.

Originally posted by DanaC

Oh....and pictures can be misleading as can testimony.

[COLOR=purple](Unaltered) Pictures themselves do not lie. Only interpretations of the picture can differ.

When we see pictures of rape rooms and people getting their tongues cut out, those pictures don't lie. We see video of a man being beheaded. It doesn't lie. The whys and the wherefores may differ from one interpretation to the next, but the fact that it happen has not changed. Your opinion might change, but the picture remains the same.
[/COLOR]

As I said, pictures can be misleading as in they can be used to mislead. I didnt say they lied.

Yeeeeahhh... I guess in my world, what a dictator actually does is part of the equation, and how deeply you respect his sovereignty as a result is part of the equation, and the nature of the people and their desires, all part of the equation. To throw all those considerations out seems inhuman.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


[COLOR=indigo]
Where in that does he not admit to making mistakes?

He may not be able to say "this is where I messed up" but he DOES admit to it. At least be fair in your rants.[/COLOR]

Actually, it's an almost useless statement. The implication is that there were no mistakes serious enough to be remarkable. It's like a car salesman saying "I'm sure theres some tiny flaw in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find one."

He is either the stupidest man in office, or a much better politician and liar than I have given him credit for.

I understand that point of view Undertoad. To a degree I agree with you. But.....The world is and always has been full of dictators of various levels of brutality. If we went marching into every country whose people were being brutalised by oppressive regimes we would never have had time to even look at Iraq because there are soo many more deserving candidates for regime change.

Our natural outrage at the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein's regime has been used to manipulate us into approving action which breaks out of the bonds of international law and leaves those bonds frayed.

Instead of making the world a safer place for the loss of one of its great dictators, we have made the world infinately more dangerous in the precedent we have set .....So you may trust your government's motives in this....can you be sure of the motives of tomorrow's government? When the invasion of a soveriegn nation requires no first strike or percievable danger to the agressor we have strayed into very very dangerous waters.

But really any politician that claimed he wasnt a fast enough thinker to answer a question off the cuff would not be considered valid material for high office in most European countries

If he had made that statement before taking office. What would "most European countries" do if he had?

Precedent: well it's certainly the first time a UN resolution was actually enforced.

*chuckles* forgive my innapropriate generalisation. I am just so constantly amazed at the apparent stupidity and lack of any mental alacrity displayed by the man who sits at the head of the most powerful nation on earth.

I have seen politicians say stupid things in the UK. Stupidity is no guarantee of failure in our political system either....But I really do believe an admission of slowness of thinking would be the end of any British politician's career.

Precedent: well it's certainly the first time a UN resolution was actually enforced.

Tell that to your president who just helped Israel flip the bird at all the UN resolutions regarding their illegal occupation and brutalisation of the Palestinian people

Besides, the UN resolution didnt allow for an invasion without further recourse to the UN.....we just marched in regardless.

By that logic there are many countries we should be marching into. The Sudan? Zimabwe? .......Nobody seemed to have this much of a problem when the Hutus were slaughtering a million Tutsis.

No, unless this was the reason for the invasion. It was not, just an additional benefit.

Originally posted by DanaC


Tell that to your president who just helped Israel flip the bird at all the UN resolutions regarding their illegal occupation and brutalisation of the Palestinian people

Besides, the UN resolution didnt allow for an invasion without further recourse to the UN.....we just marched in regardless.

Bush has just got to hope that Sharon doesn't stretch his leash even further and decide to kill Arafat. I cannot think of any case in which the current adminsitration has publicly severely rebuked Israel for any action. Sharon might be willing to gamble that by killing Arafat, Bush would be enough in campaign mode not to sever ties, thus drawing him firmly in Israel's camp.

Very short term, this would be good for Israel. Long term, it would mean the loss of the most powerful broker for Mideast peace.

Of course, if hostilities do break out, maybe the US can spare another 50K troops to support the Israelis. If nothing else, direct involvement of the US in defending the JLZ (Jesus Landing Zone) in Jerusalem will get Bush points with God.

Those alumilium tubes had little or nothing to do with manufacture of a nuclear weapon. I don't remember the finding of armed missiles either, only ancient decaying artillery shell.

What's the cost of what the public will be willing to do after the next terrorist act? How threatened will they feel, and what sort of reaction will they demand?

After further manipulation by your media and (god forbid if bush is still in office) bullied into the whims of the administration of the day, probably even more stupid than after the first. It's going from badly planned to boneheaded to plain old stupid. I'm hoping falluja is the turning point, if they'd gone into falluja even the British most likely would have pulled out of Iraq.

Year after year we've seen the hamfisted stomping around of a wounded elephant trying to stamp on bees, the net result so far is to only give it's enemies yet more ammunition and help recruit a new generation and a new country of angered fellows into the fold. I hate to think what the US would do after another attack, but however stupid it may be you can bet it won't solve the problem.

Lets face it, this isn't about Al-Queda anymore, all you hear about now are 10,000 little groups of angry people purported 'linked to Al-Queda', it's a meme and thanks to the US, it's growing fast.

.

No, unless this was the reason for the invasion. It was not, just an additional benefit.

umm.....remind me again what the actual reasons were? Weapons of Mass destruction which could conceivably fall into the hands of Terrorist organisations such as Al Quaeda?

Given that that reason has now been discredited at an international level I notice people falling back on the rationale that at least we rid the world of Saddam's dictatorship....as if that justifies attacking another soveriegn nation

The only thing I feel fairly certain of now is that we had no business being in Iraq at all

Lets face it, this isn't about Al-Queda anymore, all you hear about now are 10,000 little groups of angry people purported 'linked to Al-Queda', it's a meme and thanks to the US, it's growing fast.

Well put.

umm.....remind me again what the actual reasons were? Weapons of Mass destruction which could conceivably fall into the hands of Terrorist organisations such as Al Quaeda?

1- Saddam embarrassed Bush Sr.
2- Iraq was a threat to Israel.
3- Iraq was a threat to our God given right to oil.

Given that that reason has now been discredited at an international level I notice people falling back on the rationale that at least we rid the world of Saddam's dictatorship....as if that justifies attacking another soveriegn nation

"That reason" was only one of the reasons, but as I said a year ago, Saddam knew he could not beat us. His only chance was pressure by other countries to convince Bush to back off. If he used WMD's against us, that chance would vaporize. So he had no choice but hide/destroy/export them, before the shit hit the fan. He certainly had plenty of time to do that. I'm not sure they existed in the first place, but I'm not surprised they haven't been found.

The only thing I feel fairly certain of now is that we had no business being in Iraq at all

But we do. Lots of "business". Big "business".
;)

......Cant fault ya.

My person feeling on the WMD thing is that Saddam was tricked by his own advisers, so caught up in his own power structure and surrounded by people who always said yes to save their own heads that there probably wasn't any WMDs after the first war.

Well......what a distasteful little site that is. Just anti moslem sentiment .....Across the centuries we've had pogroms in the west against the Jews....Now we seem to be replacing them with Moslems as the face of our disdain.

This one particularly irks me.

They make little or no cultural contribution to the world. Few seek out their poetry, their writing, their movies or music. The most famous Muslim writer of fiction in the world is under a fatwa death sentence now and lives in exile in Europe.

As far as sentences one and two--bullshit.

As far as sentence three--a fatwa cannot be repealed, but the one against Rushdie has been all but repealed. He can live in relative normalcy now.

I found the claim america is secular amusing. It demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of one of the fundamental tenants of the whole Islamic extremeist movement, crusades.

What an amazing lump of generalisations, unsubstantiated statements, misinterpretations.

Originally posted by sycamore
This one particularly irks me.

They make little or no cultural contribution to the world. Few seek out their poetry, their writing, their movies or music. The most famous Muslim writer of fiction in the world is under a fatwa death sentence now and lives in exile in Europe.

As far as sentences one and two--bullshit.

As far as sentence three--a fatwa cannot be repealed, but the one against Rushdie has been all but repealed. He can live in relative normalcy now.

Someone should ask this moron if he wants to protest and do his taxes in Roman numerals. If it weren't for 'arabic' numbers and the invention of the zero, we would still be inventing letters for every decimal place and half decimal.

MMIV

The point this out, along with a few other minor bits and pieces and miss a pile more (law for example, I find the US inviting the cradle of the rule of law both ironic and prophetic). They claim this is of course, irrelevant.

Friends, please. I'm sure that Mr. denBeste is referring to the last half-century.

He's still a racist idiot.

Originally posted by Undertoad
Friends, please. I'm sure that Mr. denBeste is referring to the last half-century.

"All of the discussion above refers to the current culture of the region, and the people living there now."

It almost doesnt matter when the writer is referring to. Its vile.

Its vile

vile
adj. vil·er, vil·est
Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather.

But is it true? Untrue? Somewhere in between?
It seems since the Moors got kicked out of Spain, the moslems/muslims have retreated into their own world. Oil gave them clout and Isreal gave them a cause. Charismatic leaders don't seem to make much of a mark unless they are despots like Saddam or terrorists like Osama and Arafat (and Sharon). Clerics seem to rule the roost(s) and they are only interested in subservience from their flocks.:confused:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It seems since the Moors got kicked out of Spain, the moslems/muslims have retreated into their own world.

Not completely.

--Ottoman Empire
--Kemal Atatürk
--Turkey joining NATO and trying to join the EU

Originally posted by richlevy


Someone should ask this moron if he wants to protest and do his taxes in Roman numerals. If it weren't for 'arabic' numbers and the invention of the zero, we would still be inventing letters for every decimal place and half decimal.

MMIV

Either that, or we could ask the Indians how to add large numbers together.

Whether it be current, the last 50 years or forever, I stand by my original statement on item I.A.3.

Originally posted by Undertoad
real reasons behind the war

Having thought about this at some length, I think UT's right. Denbeste has clearly outlined the reasons for the war. Calling him a moron or racist is shooting the messenger. Is it so hard for you to believe that the linked site, clearly outlines the thinking of the Bush administration?:)

I don't know how closely it tracks the Bush adminstration thinking, it's just one guy writing from his house in San Diego.

Really one only has to read the Project for the New American Century to get a handle on how the Bush administration thinks. Amazing how many of the people who quite happily came up with such a plan are now in positions of power from Washington to Baghdad.

Originally posted by Undertoad
I don't know how closely it tracks the Bush adminstration thinking, it's just one guy writing from his house in San Diego.

OK, but that doesn't mean he's doesn't have a handle on how the Bush brigade thinks.:)

Throughout this whole business since 9/11, Americans have not been asked to make any kind of sacrifice. (Unless you count going out and shopping as a sacrifice.)

Iraq has absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and the draft isn’t asking anyone to do anything, it’s forcibly enslaving someone and making them fight in a war they might not otherwise support and possibly even sending them to their death.

A draft isn't all bad. There is a silver lining.

No, it’s all bad. It’s slavery. You assume that those who don’t vote are apathetic which is mainly false. People see that when they vote for the major two parties they get the same thing. So why should they vote? The problem is they don’t realize that if they did vote for Libertarians, they would actually get change in the right direction.

So where are they going to get all the soldiers they need?

They already have more than they need spread out all over the world. They should close all foreign military bases move the troops home or to where they are needed. The fact that retention rates are down, desertions are up, and less people are signing up is only a sign that the government is getting into wars that they shouldn’t be getting into and those wars are not supported by the public (the boss).

If a war is worth fighting, people will sign up.

There are more police serving the city of London ...( a peaceful city whose residents generally are too busy being ordinary to get into much trouble and where very few people own anything more lethal than a swiss army knife).... than there are soldiers serving in Iraq, a place where a significant portion of the population are unhappy with this situation and unlike the happy londoners are often armed in the region's usual fashion with ak's and rpgs.

That’s a good thing considering we have no business in Iraq in the first place. And for the record, London is ANYTHING BUT a peaceful city where few people own anything more lethal than a swiss army knife. London and England in general have a higher rate of violent crime than America. Why? Because good people are prevented from owning guns to defend themselves against thugs and because thugs (who still have guns) know they can easily victimize those who aren’t armed.

And didn't you see the rape rooms? I did. Did you see the other torture videos? Did you see the guy getting his tongue cut out with pliers and diagonal cutters? Maybe your sources aren't really paying attention

Whether or not they had “rape rooms” or tortured people is completely irrelevant and does not justify violating the U.S. Constitution to send soldiers into Iraq. Nor would it be justification if Iraq had 10,000 nukes being built with rockets that could deliver them right into our backyards. Simply having weapons does not make them an eminent threat. Iraq should have had nukes because if they did, America wouldn’t have invaded them without provocation.

Yeeeeahhh... I guess in my world, what a dictator actually does is part of the equation, and how deeply you respect his sovereignty as a result is part of the equation, and the nature of the people and their desires, all part of the equation. To throw all those considerations out seems inhuman.

To use those “considerations” as an excuse to invade another country is insane. America is not here to force other countries to be democracies, or to treat their people the way the president thinks they should be treated. America has NO AUTHORITY beyond our own borders.
The war had NOTHING to do with “enforcing UN resolutions” and those who claim it does know less than nothing. The U.S. Government is limited to doing ONLY those things that are specifically listed in the Constitution and nothing else!!! That means “enforcing UN resolutions” is NOT allowed by the US Government. The U.S. government gets authority from the Constitution and not from the UN.

Tell that to your president who just helped Israel flip the bird at all the UN resolutions regarding their illegal occupation and brutalisation of the Palestinian people

Don’t even try that lame shit here. The Palestinians would have new U.N. resolutions against them every single day if they were a country. Every single thing that Israel has done was in their own defense. And every single square centimeter of land occupied by the Israeli government belongs to them legitimately. In fact Israel would be justified in taking ALL of the land from all of the people who attacked them in 1967. Israel has been far to gentle, kind, and accommodating to their scumbag terrorist neighbors. I’m very happy to see Israel doing the right thing lately by taking care of business. If they kill Arafat, they’d really be doing the right thing.

Israel needs to let the Palestinians and every single one of their neighbors know that if you screw with Israel, you will be destroyed. If you leave Israel alone, you will live in peace. Live in Peace or Rest in Peace are the only choices Israel should give to their neighbors.

The simple truth is there was absolutely no legitimate reason what-so-ever for America to invade Iraq…NONE!!!

wwoooa......I just entered bizarro world, I agree with Radar on something:

To use those “considerations” as an excuse to invade another country is insane. America is not here to force other countries to be democracies, or to treat their people the way the president thinks they should be treated. America has NO AUTHORITY beyond our own borders.

Oh yeah?

au·thor·i·ty
(click to hear the word) (-thôr-t, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties

The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials

None of those apply to the U.S. Government when it comes to sovereign foreign nations. Sovereign nations have not invested governing power to the United States. And the United States was created to escape from imperialistic tyrrany, not to practice it like George W. Bush and his ilk would like. Iraq is a sovereign state.

Sovereign State: a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power.

And every single square centimeter of land occupied by the Israeli government belongs to them legitimately.

Not in the eyes of much of the world. Not in the eyes of most Europeans. Not in the eyes of the United Nations. Not in the eyes of international law.

Whilst we're at it then. Why is it that the death of Israeli citizens at the hands of people who are so outgunned and hemmed in they have to resort to their own bodies as delivery systems, considered a crime of staggering proportion, yet the Palestinian civilians are simply collateral damage or an unfortunate incident.?

Does nobody find it worrying that the state of Israel is given tacit ( and in the case of America overt) permission to engage in political murder within the borders of a country it is occupying ? I use occupying because that is what it is. Thats what it has been termed by the international community. That is it's legal status.

The current Interfada(?) started in direct response to the shooting of a Palestinian child who died in the arms of his Father. That was a crime. The deaths of Israeli toddlers in settlements is also a crime. The difference is that one is politically motivated murder and the other is state sponsored murder. You only have to take a look at the death toll on either side to see which one is truly terrifying.

And.....I do not understand, why the very fact that these people have to resort to such.....personally costly methods to drive home their point, leads to them being seen as somehow less credible, almost inhuman....Less credible? They have nothing left to throw at their enemy but their own bones strapped with explosives. If the French resistance had engaged in suicide bombing against their occupiers I wonder how we would write that tale now?

Whilst we're at it then. Why is it that the death of Israeli citizens at the hands of people who are so outgunned and hemmed in they have to resort to their own bodies as delivery systems, considered a crime of staggering proportion, yet the Palestinian civilians are simply collateral damage or an unfortunate incident.?

Because the Palestinians are targeting women and children specifically and it was they who INITIATED the violence in the first place. Israel does everything they can to avoid harming innocent women and children but it's tough when the terrorist surround themselves with women and children and thus are responsible for any harm that comes to them.

The Palestinian people never owned that land in the history of the planet earth. They were squatters. And whatever European nations think is irrelevant. If you try to steal from someone, and you get robbed by them, you have no right to complain. If you try to kill someone and they kill you instead, you also have no right (or ability) to complain.

In 1967 the nations around Israel attacked them without provocation and Israel would have been entirely within their rights to take all of the land from all of the countries who attacked. But Israel was far too kind and only took small pieces of land as a buffer from the scumbag cowardly terrorist who target and murder women and children.

It's disgusting how the terrorists who blow up women and children, or who send them surround themselves with Palestinian women and children so when retribution comes they can point to those who they put in danger and say, "Look at what monsters Israelis are!!". What a crock of shit.

If I were in charge of Israel, there would be no more Arafat, and no more fighting within less than a year. I'd let the Palestinian people know if they made even one more attack (whether it is a rock thrown thrown at a soldier or a suicide bomb in a shopping center), I'd give them 1 week to evacuate the entire area into surrounding nations before I rolled in with tanks, jets, rockets, helicoptors, and soldiers and killed every single living thing remaining. And I'd let every single surrounding Arab nation know if they got involved, they would also be destroyed and thier land taken. No more fighting.

The Palestinians don't want peace. They just want dead Jews. And that would end now. I'd give them the choice to live in peace (stop all attacks now and forever) or rest in peace (when they are destroyed)

Anyone who supports the Palestinians is a Jew hating supporter of terrorism.

Every single thing Israel has ever done was justified, reasonable, and warranted retaliation for the attacks of their cowardly terrorist neighbors other than trying to bargain with scumbags like Arafat.

You mean Mohammed al-Dura?

Anyone who supports the Palestinians is a Jew hating supporter of terrorism

Then there are a hell of a lot of Jew hating supporters of terrorism amongst the British and European Jewish communities

Originally posted by Radar
The Palestinian people never owned that land in the history of the planet earth. They were squatters.

What's the difference? In this context - don't point me to a dictionary.

Originally posted by Radar
None of those apply to the U.S. Government when it comes to sovereign foreign nations. Sovereign nations have not invested governing power to the United States. And the United States was created to escape from imperialistic tyrrany, not to practice it like George W. Bush and his ilk would like. Iraq is a sovereign state.

[b]Sovereign State: a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power. [/B]

You may believe that but in fact, at the monent, Iraq is Bush's bitch.

Originally posted by Radar
The Palestinian people never owned that land in the history of the planet earth. They were squatters.

Not that I support the Palestinians (nor the Israelis), but your comment begs the question... how is it that you classify the Palestinians as squatters; but somehow a bunch of English dudes floating across the ocean in the late 1400s, planting some flags on North America and said "this is ours now" are NOT just squatters? Would you argue that we don't own this land, that the native americans have legal claim to it? If not, then why?

You mean Mohammed al-Dura?

I do indeed. That page is interesting. I have read other stuff that I found more convincing though.

Radar needs a refresher course on property rights. He believes that because the Palestinians had no State they had no rights. That is crap. Individual rights exist outside the state. This is where his atheism gets in the way of his libertarianism. Radar is a Statist.

You mean sadist?

It stings more when you call a libbytarian a statist.

This is where his atheism gets in the way of his libertarianism

I dont understand what atheism has to do with it....I am an atheist. I find it helps me see the world more clearly not less....

Originally posted by DanaC


I dont understand what atheism has to do with it....I am an atheist. I find it helps me see the world more clearly not less....

How does an absolute belief in an unprovable concept make you see things more clearly?

Would you argue that we don't own this land, that the native americans have legal claim to it? If not, then why

The American Indians had no claim at all to the land because even in their own culture they didn't recognize land ownership, but supposing they did, they lost a war. To the victor goes the spoils. In my opinion, they shouldn't have even gotten reservations. They should live, work, and be subject to the same laws as everyone else without being handed a check when they turn 18.

Radar needs a refresher course on property rights. He believes that because the Palestinians had no State they had no rights.

Nobody said they had no rights, but they had no ownership at all of the property. The property has been in the hands of several empires (British, Ottoman, Roman, Egyptian, etc.) but was never owned by the people who were staying on it. And until Israel started building there weren't even many squatters.

This is where his atheism gets in the way of his libertarianism. Radar is a Statist.

I'm not a statist in your wettest or my driest dreams. I'm not a statist by any stretch of the rational mind. And my atheism doesn't get in the way of anything or have anything to do with the subject of property rights.

I dont understand what atheism has to do with it....I am an atheist. I find it helps me see the world more clearly not less....

Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with it. That's just griff's poor attempt to try to insult me. And apparantly atheism doesn't make you see more clearly because you are trying to justify terrorism and calling those who defend themselves and their property the monsters.

It's not your lack of religion that's the problem, it's your warped value system.

Originally posted by DanaC


I dont understand what atheism has to do with it....I am an atheist. I find it helps me see the world more clearly not less....

Everyones belief system impacts the way they look at the world. I don't mean to insult your world view in any way. Radar on the other hand is violating a key part of the belief system he claims to adhere to. He is always an over the top, in your face, libertarian but suddenly he has revealed that he believes property rights are a gift from the state. The reason I twisted his tail on atheism is because as an acedemic question, I asked him point blank in an earlier thread where natural rights come from in a Godless universe. There is probably an answer but he didn't have it. Natural rights are a basic foundation of libertarianism. It now appears to me that he doesn't believe that man has any rights not granted by the state. That makes him a Statist not a libertarian.

How does an absolute belief in an unprovable concept make you see things more clearly?

In much the same way as knowing that pixies, santa , his elves and the toothfairy dont exist helps keep my mind clear to concentrate on stuff that does.

I have looked at the evidence as best I can given my lack of education in the fields of physics and theology and I have read books writtenby scholars on both sides of that divide and frankly I am more convinced by the evidence put forward by the physicists than those put forward by the theologians. Can it be proven without a shadow of a doubt? Well if you ask Professor Dawkins he would probably say no. If you ask the Archbishop of Canterbury he would probably say no. But thats because its not provable. Neither is the existence of Pots of gold at the end of rainbows. Just because nobody ever found one doesnt mean theyarent there right?

It strikes me that at some point you have to accept a default position. If something is unprovable then you look to the next level and ask yourself is it really likely? I think God is as likely as the devil and both are as likely as self propelled flying pigs. I have yet to hear a single theological academic or theological physicist (I was surprised to find they existed...) put forward a theory that didnt run up against my "thats bullshit" filter.

Throughout history scientists have searched for answers and the church has warned them back saying "Nay nay this far and no further.....From this point on you have strayed into heaven" yet the scientists pushed forwards and forwards, and the sun ceased to revolve around the earth and the earth ceased to be flat and again the men of God said "nay. Nay ths far and no further. We said God existed at the edge of our sight and you have pushed forwards into heaven and found only sky. This far and no further. For after this point we trespass on Gods' house" but further we went.....at each major push the men of God have bid us cease our pushing. They have insisted that God exists at the edge of our knowledge. Each time we push forward and find no evidence of God. Next we are told he exists beyong the big bang....But then we learned to see through and beyond the big bang and saw no God. Then we decided....Maybe God is the spark that gave us sentience....the more we find out about our genetics and our physicaldevelopment the more the answer seems to come back that God had no part in our awakening.

I accept that those with religion have the right to that belief. But....I also think that religion ( of every brand) is a dangerous thing, a conservative thing and a block to human understanding and scientific progress.

Imagnine we were talking about pink elephants and the default position was that we should all respect everybody's right to believe in herds of pink elephants despite nobody in living memory ever having seen a pink elephant ....thats fair enough ...but would the marker be set for all generations of scientists to come that they must test all their evidence with the assumption that pink elephants are all around them, unseen and integral to the workings of th universe?

For any of you who do believe in a God, then just dismiss this as the ramblings of an atheist and pay me no heed :P

Originally posted by Radar
Because the Palestinians are targeting women and children specifically and it was they who INITIATED the violence in the first place.

Radar loves twisting facts. He hopes we forget late 1990 Middle East. Intafada 2 was created - and quite intentionally - by Ariel Sharon and his few hundred closest friend. Trampling upon Temple Mount was but one of thousands of desecrations to create hate, anger, and then violence. Only one group is responsible for wanting violence in the Middle East. Intafada 2 was necessary for Likud to trample on innocent people. Only Likud also openly advocated the assasination of Rabin - so that a peace process would be quashed. What is the enemy of Likud? Peace.

The Oslo Accords were Likud's greatest threat. Likud had to murder Rabin to end peace. They had to desecrate and humiliate Palestinians repeatedly to restart the violence. Only two of many early acts of violence created only by Likud. Likud made peace impossbile. Made it impossible for a vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians to promote what honest, moderate people of all nations want - peace.

Radar advocates what all dichead supporters - better know as Lukid - want. He rabidly advocates more violence that I sometimes think he has sex when promoting violence and Likud. Likud wants only violence. Violence is necessary for Zionism. More violence means Israel steals the West Bank. More violence means a wall can be built to steal the remaining good West Bank land. They got George Jr to even let them use American weapons on Palestinians - and a long list of other concessions. No previous American president was so dumb as to let Israelis attack defenseless Palestinians with American weapons. All this violence and mental midget president concessions are necessary for Zionism.

Radar lies to promote their agenda. Violence was clearly started by Sharon and his Likud party - starting with the murder of Rabin. Radar hopes we forget what was happening before Likud had Rabin assassinated.

Did the Palestinians kill Rabin? Of course not. They wanted peace. Only Likud needs violence to promote their Zionism. The dichead and mass murder Sharon did just that. He even has Radar promoting the genocide that Likud needs. Those Israeli victims? Necessary for the greater glory and objectives of Likud. Cannon fodder for a militant Zionist state.

Ask yourself how Ghandi would respond to so many accusations. Do you attack like the dichead - or promote peace? Your choice.

Well, we already know that he's a dickhead...

*shrugs* We all know radar is a nutjob, particularly when it comes to the Isreali/Palatsinian conflict, don't waste your time DanaC, it's like debating with a brick wall.

tw, I couldnt agree more.
Jaguar....thanks....I really ought to remind myself of that every now and again *smiles* for sanity's sake hehe

He is always an over the top, in your face, libertarian but suddenly he has revealed that he believes property rights are a gift from the state.

I have said no such thing.

The reason I twisted his tail on atheism is because as an acedemic question, I asked him point blank in an earlier thread where natural rights come from in a Godless universe. There is probably an answer but he didn't have it.

Yes, I had it then and I still have it. Natural rights come from nature. We're born with them and the fictional character of "god" doesn't even enter into the picture.

Natural rights are a basic foundation of libertarianism.

True. What's your point?

It now appears to me that he doesn't believe that man has any rights not granted by the state.

That's an absolute and utter lie and I've never even said anything even remotely suggesting something so absurd. What the fuck are you smoking?

I've said that the Palestinian people didn't own the land and they didn't. Merely staying on a piece of land doesn't make it yours. If I buy some land in a state where I don't live, and you camp out on it for years, and then I choose to live on that land, IT'S NOT YOUR LAND!!! You never owned it and have no property rights to it what-so-ever. You're a liar if you claim otherwise.

How does an absolute belief in an unprovable concept make you see things more clearly?

The burden of proof rests squarely on those who claim god does exist; real proof of the existence of the being of god, not things people attribute to god like those idiots who point at a tree and are stupid enough to suggest that its proof god created it. If I said I saw a purple and orange polka-dot gorilla in the wild that could read minds, speak every language, and levitate nobody would believe me and if I pressed the issue they would demand to see it. The story of god is no more believable than the purple gorilla without measurable tangible proof of the being of god.

Radar loves twisting facts.

I have never "twisted" the facts even once. Everything I've said is straightforward, truthful, and based in historical fact.

TW just tells lie after lie. It's so predictable and boring.

Violence is necessary for Zionism.

Wrong. Violence is not necessary for Zionism. Peace is necessary for it. Zionists just want to lvie peacefully on their own land (yes it's their land) without having their women and children targeted and attacked. No attacks against Israel means no violence in return. The violence started on the part of the Palestinians, and it will voluntarily on their part or it will just end the Palestinian people.

I'm not advocating the initiation of violence. I'm advocating ending violence and having Peace once and for all. If the Palestinians refuse to stop their violence against Israel, they will be destroyed and Israel will still have peace.

Israel hasn't "stolen" any land. In fact they've been far too kind. They should have taken all the land of all the nations who attacked them because they are entitled to it. To the victor goes the spoils. But because Israel isn't interested in conquest or in someone else's land, they only took a small part of what they were entitled to as a buffer zone between them and their terrorist neighbors.

TW sure likes to try to rewrite history, but forgets that others like myself know the truth and will shut him down everytime he's stupid enough to open his mouth.

Here's a little fact retard, the U.S. military has never ever fought to defend Israel; not once. But they have fought to defend several Muslim nations.

No previous American president was so dumb as to let Israelis attack defenseless Palestinians with American weapons.

It's not up to an American president to determine who or why any other nation attacks anyone. Israel owns every single square centimeter of land they occupy legitimately and is perfectly justified morallly and legally to blow the shit out of people who attack them.

Israel takes every precaution to avoid harming innocent civilians but the Palestinians terrorists surround themselves with them as a human shield so they can point to the bodies and call Israel a bunch of monsters when in fact it was the Palestinians who initiated the violence and were just getting justice. Every death of a Palestinian civilian who was placed in danger by Palestinian terrorists rests on the shoulders of the Palestinian terrorists, not in those who brought justice to them.

Radar lies to promote their agenda.

I have NEVER lied on this or any other message board, but you seem to tell many lies. Here's a perfect example of a lie...

Violence was clearly started by Sharon and his Likud party - starting with the murder of Rabin. Radar hopes we forget what was happening before Likud had Rabin assassinated.

Wrong. The violence was started 3 days after Israel was created as a nation by the Palestinians and hasn't stopped since. The Palestinians don't want peace, they want to kill Jews. In 1996, the Palestinians were offered all of the land rightfully taken by Israel in 1967, and to get help in becoming an actual country if they could go one week without attacking any Jewish people in Israel. They coudn't do it.

TW, you're stupid and dishonest beyond words. Zionism does not require violence, but terrorism against Zionists does.

Ask yourself how long America would allow Mexicans to go into American movie theaters, malls, busses, etc. blowing up people before we just blew the shit out of Mexico? You can bet your ass it wouldn't be 50 years. Israel has been far too patient, kind, gentle, and nice to their neighbors.

Israel allows Palestinians to live, work, and even vote in Israel including women. No Arab nation on earth allows Arab women to vote.

I find it hilarious that the most idiotic, insane, pathetic, moronic, losers and assholes on the board call me a dickhead like Jaguar, Griff, Sycamore, and TW. I wear your insults like a badge of honor. Not that any of you would know much about honor.

I find it hilarious that the most idiotic, insane, pathetic, moronic, losers and assholes

I rest my case.

As for honor, you'd best watch your words, the internet is a funny place and you never really know who you're talking to.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
-Isaac Asimov

Israel takes every precaution to avoid harming innocent civilians

.......Up to and including bulldozing houses with the occupants still in them......Up to and including firing rockets ( rockets mind you!) into an apartment block which contained one of their political enemies but also happened to contain a bunch of kids.

If the Palestinians choose to hide their militants in residential areas thats no reason for Israel to abandon all sense of decency and basic humanity by slaughtering innocents. ......Of course I dont see it as the palestinians militants hiding amongst civilians....after all....they live in crowded cramped towns grown up out of the squalor of refugee camps where everyone, civilian and militant alike is in constant fear of attack.

When Ancient Rome ruled the world they used to engage in a practice of punishing entire regions for the misdemeanors of a few. The British did it also in India. And the rampant army which is (laughably) referred to as the Isareli Defense Force do the same. They are not an Empire to rival Rome but they live under the Aegis of one much greater.

A crime of epic proportions is being inflicted upon the Palestinians and the world is too busy feeling guilty for the suffering we caused amongst the Jewish people in the last century to notice that the Israeli state learned the lessons of fascism all too well.

I saw a picture once which really shocked me. I wish i could find it again :( It showed a long line of Palestinian men and boys ( youngest about 12 oldest about 70) who had been dragged from their homes and were being taken off for "questioning" by the Israelis.....Every one of these men had his prison number marked on his forearm. Now theres an image to take away the breath.

Yeah, can't they see the parallel of building a big wall along the border to keep their citizens from escaping the living hell that -- uh --

It's Fascism I tell you! What do you mean 10% of the Israeli government representatives are Arabs?

What do you mean 10% of the Israeli government representatives are Arabs?

I'd like to see a source for that, I don't mean that in a cynical way, I'm genuinely curious.

To the victor goes the spoils.

SO I can come round to your house, kick your ass and steal your TV, coz hey, I'm the victor, bitch.

Unfortunately my cite is in the same place as Dana's image.

But I have Google... according to this article, currently 10 out of 120 Knesset seats are held by Arabs. Slightly less than 10%. The article is a year and a half old though.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk021115/i20.shtml

I found This

There is an arab faction, only has two members though. Not sure if the rest are spread though the groups, no breakdown on race unsurprisingly.

Of course I dont see it as the palestinians militants hiding amongst civilians....after all....they live in crowded cramped towns grown up out of the squalor of refugee camps where everyone, civilian and militant alike is in constant fear of attack.

Of course you don't see it that way. You deny the truth. Nobody is forcing Palestinians to live in refugee camps. They could live in palaces if they chose. They'd just have to develop their own land, open their own businesses, and leave their Israeli neighbors alone. Israel isn't stopping the Palestinians from living peacefully on their own land and thriving, only the Palestinians are preventing peace and choosing to live in abject poverty.

When Ancient Rome ruled the world they used to engage in a practice of punishing entire regions for the misdemeanors of a few.

We're not talking about a few. We're talking about hundreds of unprovoked attacks murdering thousands of innocent women and children. Israel does not target women and children and avoids them whenever possible.

SO I can come round to your house, kick your ass and steal your TV, coz hey, I'm the victor, bitch.

The phrase "to the victor goes the spoils pertains to war". But if your country beats my country, and takes it over, yes, you could take my stuff. But since we're both in the same country and this country recognizes and protects my rights, I don't have to worry about that. But even if we didn't live in any government and you came over to rob me, I'd kick the shit out of you, take your wallet and throw your broken body into the gutter where it belongs.

Yeah, can't they see the parallel of building a big wall along the border to keep their citizens from escaping the living hell that -- uh --

Israel is building a wall to keep bad people out, not to keep good people in. Israel will allow anyone to exit, but only good people to enter.

It's Fascism I tell you! What do you mean 10% of the Israeli government representatives are Arabs?

If Israel only had one arab member of their government, it would be more than the number of Jews in all of the Arab governments combined.

We're talking about hundreds of unprovoked attacks murdering thousands of innocent women and children

If we are talking about recent years I think we are talking about the deaths of hundreds of women and children. The deaths of palestinians however can be measured in the thousands.

The numbers simply dont add up. Its like watching a goliath batter the hell out of a cripple and then having the Goliath cry havoc because the cripple kicked him in the shin.

In all this talk we havent evenmentioned the many Arab Israelis. Those living within Israel and participating in its "democracy" ....During the war against Saddam's forces there was a huge fear in Jerusalem that Saddam launch a gas attack on Israel. The government issued gasmasks and safety equipment to all Jewish citizens but withheld them from their Arab population. Fascism in action. How did they make sure the Arabs didnt get them? Did they make them wear a Cresent on their shirts?

The numbers simply dont add up. Its like watching a goliath batter the hell out of a cripple and then having the Goliath cry havoc because the cripple kicked him in the shin.

Blowing up women and children who have been specifically targeted is hardly a kick in the shin, and and you attempt to make light of the fact that it is not Goliath who is starting the fight but rather defending himself. The strength of the person attacking him is irrelevant.

And if even if Goliath has the patience of a saint, he would not allow himself to be kicked in the shin hundreds of times without crushing the person who is doing it. Hit me and I'll hit you harder. Hit me again, and I'll hit you still harder. Hit me a hundred more times and I'll kill you and be done with the hitting.

Also the guy who kicks Goliath runs and hides behind a bunch of women and children who HE (the kicker) has put into danger. The kicker alone is responsible for any pain, death, or destruction that harms them.

The kicker has no valid room to complain if he keeps kicking. If he wants to stop getting beaten badly by Goliath, all he has to do is stop kicking.

We debunked this two years ago.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/arti...m?articleid=439

"The usual fatality count quoted in news articles presents an inaccurate and distorted picture of the al-Aqsa conflict, exaggerating Israel’s responsibility for the death of noncombatant civilians. For example, our database shows a total of 561 Israelis killed, compared to around 1499 Palestinians, up to 30 June 2002 – numbers in general agreement with media reports (see Graph 1.1).

"But such numbers distort the true picture: They lump combatants in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocent civilians, and report Palestinian “collaborators” murdered by their own compatriots as if they had been killed by Israel. Correcting for such distortions, we can arrive at a figure of 579 Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel, compared to 433 Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians."

Originally posted by Radar


Israel does not target women and children and avoids them whenever possible.

.

I don't think they try very hard though.

Don't fault Israel for having more firepower when someone starts shit with 'em. If you try to shoot me with a 9mm, you can't complain when I put a hole through you large enough to see daylight with a Desert Eagle .50 cal

I don't think they try very hard though.

They saw the tank coming and didn't move. That's not murder, it's suicide.

Whichever way you look at it the Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians than they have lost on their own side. I dont deny that every single one of those Israeli deaths is a tragic loss. Nor do I deny that the Israeli people are living day after day with an unremitting fear of suicide attacks. ....The suffering of the Palestinian people however, is so extreme as to make most of the world look on in horror at what is being done.

The media reportage in the West is routinely accused by Israel of being biased against them yet outside of America and Israel most people consider that the media is unfairly levelling the situation , suggesting it is a 50- 50 line of fault when in reality the Israeli state is conducting a campaign of terror and pacification of a conquered people.

You only have to watch a little footage of Israeli soldiers as they pace up and down exuding menace to quell the growing storm to see this is a force policing a different people to their own.

You only have to read the reports coming in from Human Rights watch, amnesty international and other NGO's to see that the Palestinians are being grievously provoked. Whatis the Palestinian child to think when they have seen their brothers dragged from their beds at night? What about the children who were present when one of their schoolmates was shot , quite coldly by an Israeli sniper? Or the Child who was targetted in his yard?
Qossay Abu 'Aisha, 12, was playing in his yard in the Askar neighbourhood of Nablus. The yard is surrounded by a two-metre high tin fence. Israeli soldiers, part of the force that has reoccupied the city, opened fire, punctured the fence and hit him with two bullets, killing him instantly

What about the Palestinians whose villages are cut off from their workplaces by road blocks? Whose wives are unable to travel in an ambulance to the hostpital during birth complications because Ambulances have been refused access to their area?

Radar screaming about Israel's right to kick the shit out of the Palestinians if they want on account of the Militants using them as shields does not in anyway lessen my view that the Palestinian people are a conquered race who are being humiliated and tormented daily by their conqueror. So..what are they to do about it? They tried to beg help of the world and we turned our backs on them. They cannot fight the army soldier for soldier because that requires an army, and an army requires resources, funding, equipment, suplies....How can a people whose lands have been so segmented from one another that they cannot travel from one part of Palestine to another without passing Israeli roadlocks possibly gather a conventional army to rival their conqueror's?

They cannot even effect basic law and order because their security forces and goverment infrastructure has been decimated

The Israelis admit they do not check houses before they bulldoze them . There are cases of houses coming down with people still in them. One woman ....a pregnant woman stood in front of the bulldozers. She thought the fact she was pregnant would afford her a measure of protection. How wrong she was. How wrong she was to think the Israeli army would even view her as as human life worth saving. Palestinian lives are worth less than Israelis. Israeli soldiers would rather kill a dozen palestinian civilians if there is even a hint that ther may be danger ahead to their troops. There is no sense whatsoever in the reports coming out of Janin and other hotspots that the Israeli army make any attempt to safeguard the lives of palestinian civilians , certainly not women and children.

Originally posted by Radar
They saw the tank coming and didn't move. That's not murder, it's suicide.

Damn suicides.

Originally posted by Radar

They saw the tank coming and didn't move. That's not murder, it's suicide.

Originally posted by Radar
and avoids them whenever possible.

suspicion is growing amongst many that Israel is killiong palestinians and then lying to say it was in response to militant fire, or that reports of miltant hamas activiy in that area provoked their attacks. There are even some human rights campaigners who believe that the Israeli government is bringing undesirable political palestinian figures to palestinian houses, executing them and then claiming a firefight to cover it up. Then they show lots of footage of the bullet ridden activists and Israel feels a little safer for an hour or so.....
Of course thats just for ya low level Hamas activists.....people who are politically active....Not necessarily the big fish..No for the big fish they whip out the rockets....Rockets against a man in a wheelchair.....or the devastation of a block of flats because it houses a militant leader.....Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. What a disgraceful lack of regard for human life. And if Radar comes back with the lack of regard that the militants showed, the difference is one is a group of militant extremists at the margins of the fight for freedom and national identity andthe other is a STATE army. The State of Israel is engaged in the slaughter of civilians in what it considers to be its own lands. .....The State of Israel conducts reprisals against the general population of teeming refugee camps/towns.

Whichever way you look at it the Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians than they have lost on their own side.

It doesn't matter because it's not a simple numbers game. It's also an ethics game. You keep leaving out that the houses they thoughtlessly demolish are those of the families of the suicide bombers, which they do because there is no other deterrence known. Rachel Corrie was defending against Israel closing off tunnels into Gaza through which arms were transferred. You leave this shit out why? Details not important?

You leave this shit out why? Details not important?

Yah, my bad. I tend to go for broad strokes andthen go find the details later ;P

As to the families of the suicide bombers....given that this hasnt actually acted as a deterrent ( unless I am very much mistaken) why make them suffer more than they already have? They just lost a family member to the war. For those families their loved one died for their country just as any soldier in a recognised state.

I dont see that the Palestinians have much else to throw at their oppressor except themselves. That they target soft targets may be due to the fact that they can make no mark against such a strong and well equipped army. If it is legitimate for Israel to disregard Palestinian lives if it serves their purpose ( Israeli Security) why do Palestinians not have the same right to diregard Israeli civilians lives? Why is it alright that the Israeli army put the safety of their soldiers before Palestinian lives, but Palestinian militants are supposed to avoid killing the only targets they have the capability to reach and refrain from conducting the only kind of attack that hurts Israel. Since there is clearly a war going on why do we consider one side criminal and the other not?

Its a messy situation. I dont know what I migt think if I was living in the region. Fortunately i am not and am therefore able to take a step back and see that there are two "nations" fightng a war of survival against each other. If thats the case. Then I genuinely see the Palestinian militants as soldiers defending their homeland. They say all is fair in love and war . If Israel wants the suicide bombings to stop, perhaps it should cease launching offensives at the other side's "army".

I will add to this a little caveat. I dont see the death of an Israeli civilian as a good thing. Its another lost life in a region that has seen far too much of death and loss on all sides. I also recognise how close to the surface the fear of anti semitism must be. Indeed I think fascism in Europe is rising. There is reason to fear the rise of anti semitism in the world generally. But the Palestinians also have a right to their fear. They are suffering

Rachel Corrie was defending against Israel closing off tunnels into Gaza through which arms were transferred

......actually
She was with other activists from the International Solidarity Movement trying to stop the demolition of a Palestinian building in the Rafah refugee camp.

(taken from the BBC News website )
The Israelis say such tactics are necessary because Palestinian gunmen use the structures as cover to shoot at their troops patrolling in the area.

Ms Corrie - who was wearing an orange fluorescent jacket to alert the bulldozer drivers to her presence in pictures taken by her colleagues ..... had previously described the hazards of her work.

An email despatch details a confrontation on 14 February between another bulldozer and her own group, which she refers to as the "internationals".

"The internationals stood in the path of the bulldozer and were physically pushed with the shovel backwards, taking shelter in a house.

"The bulldozer then proceeded on its course, demolishing one side of the house with the internationals inside," she wrote in the email distributed by the International Solidarity Movement.


Ms Corrie's mother Cindy said her daughter had spent nights sleeping at wells to protect them from bulldozers.

"She lived with families whose houses were threatened with demolition and today as we understand it, she stood for three hours trying to protect a house."

You keep leaving out that the houses they thoughtlessly demolish are those of the families of the suicide bombers, which they do because there is no other deterrence known.

They do bulldoze the homes of suicide bombers' families....But they also bulldoze the houses of people who arent the families of suicide bombers ( yet)

and so far, how much of a deterrent would you say this posthumous punishment is proving to be?

Let's see if The Evasive Wifebuyer will reveal just how the land became Israel's...this should be good.

Sonofabitch its nearly 3am....How the hell did that happen....again? ...I have spent far too much time this week discussing Middle East politics and not nearly enough studying/sleeping/working/playing with my dog.... :typing: I mean it. He's gone glassy eyed.

Originally posted by sycamore
Let's see if The Evasive Wifebuyer will reveal just how the land became Israel's...this should be good.

[radar]You don't get it do you! The Palestinians didn't have a government, therefor they had no rights! What are you dense? They were just squatting there. They weren't actually using or improving the land. They were just squatting, they were too lazy to go down to the courthouse and file a claim. They should be happy they were evicted by a productive people. I don't even know why I try to reason with you Native American types, what would you know about this sort of thing?[/radar]

Just in case he doesn't get back to you on this. :)

I suspect it will be 100% bovine fecal matter, but I need some entertainment.

But since we're both in the same country

There is an ocean between us, in more ways than one. On that point though, the international community is not acceptiong of the concept of invading other nations and claiming spoils, in fact, it's a little bit frowned on these days. Pity you're a tad out of touch with the modern international arena.

They'd just have to develop their own land, open their own businesses, and leave their Israeli neighbors alone. Israel isn't stopping the Palestinians from living peacefully on their own land and thriving, only the Palestinians are preventing peace and choosing to live in abject poverty.

Well, one thing is true, many are trying to. One the other hand continual road closures and blocked routes have caused many to loose jobs, particularly those that held jobs in Israel, Israel also has a long hisstory of bulldozing olive groves, and more recently, seperating them from the farmers with their shiny new wall. Their own land is split into thousands of tiny slivers of land, controlled by Israeli checkpoints, making it close to impossible for them to move around, makes a functioning economy a tad tough.

throw your broken body into the gutter where it belongs.

Notice how some people just do the hard work for you. Coz hey, all those people with different political views should DIE.

Originally posted by sycamore
Let's see if The Evasive Wifebuyer will reveal just how the land became Israel's...this should be good.

hmmmm....

God gave it to them.

Oh wait, EW doesn't accept the existence of any gods so ...

They had a natural right to the land.

Israel also has a long hisstory of bulldozing olive groves,

Indeed. They also bulldozed Orange groves in Jaffa which were over a thousand years old. The genetics are lost to the world forever. Why? Ummm because militants might be hiding there.....Well thats alright then.....Israel doesnt feel any imperative to find any other way of bringing to "justice" those they consider beyond the pale....In most civilised countries some attempt is made to effect an arrest.

If that arrest is not possible without causing loss of life to the surrounding populace...well hell the arrest *isnt* made and another solution is found which doesnt put civilians at risk and which doesnt destroy ancient landmarks.

I am reminded of the Taliban and their destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. The rationale behind the destruction is different but the scant regard for anything other than their own ideology and the destruction that causes is very similar.

Originally posted by wolf


hmmmm....

God gave it to them.

Oh wait, EW doesn't accept the existence of any gods so ...

They had a natural right to the land.

The Israelis not only have a declared God-given natural right to the Land of Palestine .. they ... uh-h-h .... used the same tactics on the British, as the Palestinians use on the Israelis, to acquire ownership .. :rolleyes:

Hmmm .. the oft-repeated quote .. ''Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it" .. could also be modified to ..
''Those who found their country on terrorism are doomed to live with terrorism .. ''

Of course, they DID phone through a warning before the bomb went off .. where have I seen that before? .. oh! ..... of course ... the IRA ... :rolleyes:

Ooops .. sorry .. I forgot to add the King David Hotel bombing, link, to the above post ..

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm

Whichever way you look at it the Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians than they have lost on their own side.

Don't fault the Israelis for having more firepower and DO fault the Palestinian terrorists who put those people into danger in the first place by hiding among them.

The suffering of the Palestinian people however, is so extreme as to make most of the world look on in horror at what is being done.

Any suffering experienced by the Palestinians was due to their own actions.

You only have to watch a little footage of Israeli soldiers as they pace up and down exuding menace to quell the growing storm to see this is a force policing a different people to their own.

Oh, you mean the soldiers who are DEFENDING their country against terrorists? Those soldiers?

You only have to read the reports coming in from Human Rights watch, amnesty international and other NGO's to see that the Palestinians are being grievously provoked.

Utter bullshit. There is no justification or provocation for strapping a bomb to yourself like a coward and blowing up women and children.

Whatis the Palestinian child to think when they have seen their brothers dragged from their beds at night?

They're to think "Hey I guess I better not fuck with the Israelis or I'll get dragged from my bed at night."

What about the children who were present when one of their schoolmates was shot , quite coldly by an Israeli sniper? Or the Child who was targetted in his yard?

That's utter bullshit. The child was not "targeted" and you know it. Unlike the Palestinians, Israel doesn't "target" children. A child may have been it, but wasn't "targeted".

Radar screaming about Israel's right to kick the shit out of the Palestinians if they want on account of the Militants using them as shields does not in anyway lessen my view that the Palestinian people are a conquered race who are being humiliated and tormented daily by their conqueror. So..what are they to do about it?

The answer is simple. STOP KILLING JEWS!!!! If they did that, hey would live in peace. You say they're "conquered" but leave out the fact that it is they who initiate the violence, it is they who started this whole thing, and it is they who cry when justice is dished out.

Damn suicides.

Yes Monkey, that was a suicide too. A suicide in protest is every bit as much a suicide by blowing yourself up.

As to the families of the suicide bombers....given that this hasnt actually acted as a deterrent ( unless I am very much mistaken) why make them suffer more than they already have?

You are very mistaken on many issues, and if used often enough it IS a deterrent. And they should suffer more and more until they realize that their suffering won't stop until they stop attacking Jews.

And if Radar comes back with the lack of regard that the militants showed, the difference is one is a group of militant extremists at the margins of the fight for freedom and national identity andthe other is a STATE army.

Don't even try to pass that crock of shit off. The Palestinians aren't "fighting for freedom", they're murdering Jews without cause. They are no different than a gang who want to kill people in a neighborhood for protection money. Israel on the other hand is fighting for freedom from being attacked by their terrorist neighbors.

Let's see if The Evasive Wifebuyer will reveal just how the land became Israel's...this should be good.

Yes, whichever one of you is evasive and a wife buyer should answer that asinine question. I might answer it if it were directed at me, but apparently the asshole who wrote it was directing it toward someone who is evasive, and buys a wife unlike me who is consistently straightforward, honest, direct, reasonable, and logical.

They weren't actually using or improving the land. They were just squatting, they were too lazy to go down to the courthouse and file a claim.

Don't put words on my mouth shit head. Back to the example of owning land that I don't happen to live on right now. If I have land in Montana that I never visit, but I currently live in California and you decide squat on my land and build a home on it. And you're there for 10 years before I finally decide to build on my land and I find you there, you hold no ownership in the land. You are guilty of trespass and I'd be perfect justified in kicking your scrawny ass off my land and bulldozing the house even with your belongings still inside. And if the Palestinian people wanted to have actual ownership of the land they could have purchased it and filed for deeds from the actual owners (Great Britain or before that Turkey, or before that Caesar in Rome, or before that the Pharaoh of Egypt) but they didn't.

You keep mentioning how Israel closes roads or bulldozes orchards or olive groves but conveniently leave out the fact that they were driven to do this through the terrorist acts of the Palestinians. If the Palestinians are upset at their treatment they shouldn't get angry at Israel, they should get angry at their fellow Palestinians who are carrying out these unprovoked terrorist attacks. Hopefully the Palestinians will get it through their thick skulls that fucking with Israel means you are dragged from your bed in the middle of the night, or killed, or lose your home, or lose your business, etc. Maybe when they hear about or see a Palestinian who is going to carry out an attack against Israel, they'll tell report them to avoid going through such pain and trouble.

Let's see we've got armed terrorists hiding among old trees. Do we go in and lose human life (more valuable than any tree on earth) or bulldoze the trees? Hmmmm I'm going for saving human life instead of trees.

All suffering on the part of the Palestinians is a direct result of their own actions. Until they stop attacking Israel entirely, things can and should get worse. If there were only one Palestinian left alive because all the others attacked Israel and that last one attacked Israel, he too should be eliminated.

You keep mentioning how Israel closes roads or bulldozes orchards or olive groves but conveniently leave out the fact that they were driven to do this through the terrorist acts of the Palestinians. If the Palestinians are upset at their treatment they shouldn't get angry at Israel, they should get angry at their fellow Palestinians who are carrying out these unprovoked terrorist attacks.

Hey! I think we've found the guy that runs SPEWS!!!!
(any sysadmins will know what I'm talking about).

Bah, I can't be bothered. If you think punishing populations (which you've stated, quite clearly is the correct answer in your funny little world) I think I'll let my sig say it all.

Fight fire with fire and the world will burn

Eh, the UK had only a mandate to administer Palestine...they did not own it. And the State of Israel makes it pretty clear: The British Mandate authorities granted the Jewish and Arab communities the right to run their own internal affairs.

Originally posted by Radar
Yes, whichever one of you is evasive and a wife buyer should answer that asinine question. I might answer it if it were directed at me, but apparently the asshole who wrote it was directing it toward someone who is evasive, and buys a wife unlike me who is consistently straightforward, honest, direct, reasonable, and logical.

Actually, Radar, it was directed at you...though I can't prove you bought your wife, I can easily prove your evasiveness...care to play the game?

I knew who you were directing it at asshole. It was a racist remark (suggesting any woman from Vietnam who marries an American man is "purchased" woman is very racist) by an ignorant and poorly educated shithead trying to cast aspersions and make baseless and false claims about my wife and I.

And I'm anything but evasive. I've answered all direct questions asked of me with direct and straightforward answers when those who ask them are willing to offer the same courtesy.

Originally posted by Radar
I knew who you were directing it at asshole.

I love it when you call me dirty names...it gets me sooooo hot and bothered!

It was a racist remark (suggesting any woman from Vietnam who marries an American man is "purchased" woman is very racist)

Of course, this is only your opinion, much like most of your rantings...but why do you think my remark was racist?

And I'm anything [b]but evasive. I've answered all direct questions asked of me with direct and straightforward answers when those who ask them are willing to offer the same courtesy. [/B]

Bullshit.

You're a liar.

Well. It strikes me that what we have here is an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. There is clearly no argument any of us can make which would change the opinions of the Cellar's pro Israel lobby ....and I think it equally unlikely that those of us who hold a different position will find ourselves swayed by the arguments heard here.

We have whiled away a pleasant week apportioning blame...But the lines are still drawn much as they were at the start. Of all the subjects that float across the boards this one in particular seems to spark a fairly heated response.

So. I propose we step away from the blame game for a moment. I will never see the Palestinians as the agressor and Radar ( for instance) will never see Israel as the agressor. Forget for a moment then, who started the fight;We will never reach parity on that issue....Instead, what do we see as the way forward? If neither side can risk letting down their guard how do they come to terms?

Without a solution another generation of young Israelis will grow up with violence exploding around them and another generation of young Palestinians will grow up with dreams of martyrdom. This surely cannot be tolerable for either side for much longer...Without a solution the situation could conceivably get even worse.

There are simply too many people dying in the Middle East, Israeli and Palestinian alike.

In what way can the world help end this death embrace in which Israel and Palestine are locked ?

Dana, this is probably the most volatile argument you will see on the Cellar. Gun rights are a close second.

All parties involved in the situation are a bunch of fuckups. The Palestinians will never achieve statehood through their current means. They should take a page out of MLK's or Gandhi's or even Malcolm X's book. And the Israelis are going to have to let Gaza and the West Bank go and offer some sort of restitution for the Palestians who lost their land. The other countries in the Middle East need to quit using the Palestinians as cheap pawns to further their objectives. And the Bush administration's policy shift is incredibly dangerous...quite frankly, I think it sets us up for another terrorist attack.

My $0.05...

*Nods*
I hear ya Sycamore. Its hard to see any way forward from this point. As to the possibility of another terrorist attack, I hope you are wrong, but I fear you might be right.

syc is right, this is one of a small basket of issues that never fails to start a rapidly degenerative flamewar.

It was a racist remark (suggesting any woman from Vietnam who marries an American man is "purchased" woman is very racist) by an ignorant and poorly educated shithead trying to cast aspersions and make baseless and false claims about my wife and I.

It's not fucking racist, dude, I go to Vietnam and Cambodia at least once a year and I know perfectly well it's not in the slightest bit uncommon, either that or for a green-card.

Amazing how many middle aged, white, assholes I've met who have Vietnamese or Cambodian wives.

Originally posted by jaguar
syc is right, this is one of a small basket of issues that never fails to start a rapidly degenerative flamewar.

It's not fucking racist, dude, I go to Vietnam and Cambodia at least once a year and I know perfectly well it's not in the slightest bit uncommon, either that or for a green-card.

Amazing how many middle aged, white, assholes I've met who have Vietnamese or Cambodian wives.

I remember the oddly disproportionate number of Philipino wives of american sailors as well.

Bullshit.

You're a liar.

Neither of your links shows a lie, or anything even remotely evasive.

I will never see the Palestinians as the agressor and Radar ( for instance) will never see Israel as the agressor.

Of course. Who would consider someone blowing up women and children without provocation or cause to be an act of aggression?

It's not fucking racist, dude, I go to Vietnam and Cambodia at least once a year and I know perfectly well it's not in the slightest bit uncommon, either that or for a green-card.

Yes, it is racist. Do some people sometimes get married for money or greencards? Yes, but it's rare when compared to the number of real marriages for love. False marriages are less than 1% of the marriages in Vietnam and that sort of thing happens in America too. Should I assume that any American women who marry black men from Africa are only doing it for a green card or claim that they "bought" their husbands? Of course not, that would be racist, just as your statement was.

Amazing how many middle aged, white, assholes I've met who have Vietnamese or Cambodian wives.

Wow, there's nothing racist about that remark either right?

I remember the oddly disproportionate number of Philipino wives of american sailors as well.

American white men marrying those women are trading up because those women are far better than American women when it comes to marriage. They act like real women who take care of their families. They work hard and don't act as though everything is owed to them. They appreciate what their husband does work as a partner instead of trying to get the upper hand on their husbands. They are feminine, beautiful, intelligent, worldly, classy, and cultured.

Are there beautiful women in America? Yes, from every culture. But generally speaking those raised in America are only interested in what a man can do for them. They want a slave, not a partner. They can't cook, and can hardly make reservations. Are there some American born women who want a partner, and who can cook, and manage a household with children? Yes, but they are far and few between and usually have bad attitudes.

My wife treats me like a king and I treat her like a queen. I am happy to do things for a woman who appreciates me and she feels the same way.

Your blatantly stupid remark about "many middle aged, white, assholes" is very telling and I don't believe for a second you've ever been to Cambodia or Vietnam once, let alone once a year.

Many American women are bitter about American men going elsewhere to find wives. They see the reluctance of American men to "commit" to American women and are frustrated by seeing them happily comitting to younger, prettier, kinder, women who don't ask things like "What have you done for me lately?" and who don't think they are doing their husband a favor by having sex with him. It bothers them to see these men happier than they'd ever be if they married American women.

I was getting plenty of action right here in America, but I'd never marry an American women. Well I can't say that. I suppose I could, but it would be so hard to find an American women worth marrying, it would be like finding a needle in a haystack the size of a volcano.

Well that certainly confirms all my thinking on the situation.

It's not racist, it's a startment of fact.
I know many assholes with vietnamese or cambodian wives. I didn't even propose a theory.

Who would consider someone blowing up women and children without provocation or cause to be an act of aggression?

Nailbomb strapped to some desperate soul, flachette round from a 10-ton tank parked in your street, point me out the difference.

False marriages are less than 1% of the marriages in Vietnam

Where the fuck did you pull that number from? God, considering the amount of crap you pull out of your arse you should be able to park a small car in there by now.

They act like real women who take care of their families. They work hard and don't act as though everything is owed to them. They appreciate what their husband does work as a partner instead of trying to get the upper hand on their husbands. They are feminine, beautiful, intelligent, worldly, classy, and cultured.

Let me translate this:

I am an asshole who has expectations of women that date back to the 50s, since no sane woman would subject themselves to living with me, I'll grab one from a less socially liberal country where such behaviour is more accepted.

I wish I was joking but I've seen it time and time again, god forbid relationships be demanding. There seems to me a signifigant portion of one, if not two generations of men that simply can't handle the fact women want more these days. Not all by a long shot but a fair few.

Your blatantly stupid remark about "many middle aged, white, assholes" is very telling and I don't believe for a second you've ever been to Cambodia or Vietnam once, let alone once a year.

Ask you wife to look up a business called G.A.T Securty in Ho Chi Minh, it's in Dien Bien Phu St, just over the bridge in Binh Thanh. They also have offices in Hanoi and Cambodia. Or ask when alex from aussie is coming back at the Apocalypse bar, or ask after me at the Saigon chapter of the Hash House Harriers. Idiot.

Hell if you want I'll put up a copy of a couple of my last visas.

Originally posted by Radar
American white men marrying those women are trading up because those women are far better than American women when it comes to marriage. They act like real women who take care of their families. They work hard and don't act as though everything is owed to them. They appreciate what their husband does work as a partner instead of trying to get the upper hand on their husbands. They are feminine, beautiful, intelligent, worldly, classy, and cultured.

Have you actually met any of the women I'm talking about?

Looking into some of their eyes was like staring into the eyes of a snake.

I've seen more compassion in the eyes of a Dept. of Motor Vehicles worker.

Let me translate this:

What I've said requires no translation but what women say always does. They speak in code.

There seems to me a signifigant portion of one, if not two generations of men that simply can't handle the fact women want more these days. Not all by a long shot but a fair few.

Yes, they want more...more than they're entitled to, more than half, more than they're worth. Men want more too...more love, move compassion, more traditional values and roles, etc.

The women who don't give men what they want have nobody else to blame when they end up middle-aged and alone. Perhaps this is why so many of them turn into butch buzzcut bulldyke manhaters in their late years.

Marriages among Asian and South American end in divorce far less frequently than among Americans. That's becasue these women act like women. They treat their husbands like a king and take care of their families. And in return they are treated as a queen and given comforts and love. It's a 2-way street, and American women think all roads should lead to them or that they are doing a man a favor when they sleep with him.

I've gone out with more than my fair share of American women and most want a commitment and want promises of marriage, despite the fact that they offer nothing and demand everything. Fat chance.

As far as you going to Vietnam I still don't believe it. Say something in Vietnamese. What district do you usually stay in? Where do you stay? Which bridge are you talking about? Is it the Y shaped bridge that goes over the river? My father-in-law lives right by there so I know the area. Just because your company has an office there, doesn't mean you've gone there. Although if you are an Australian, the chances are better that you've been there.

There are many Australian companies there. I was offered a job teaching computer science at the RMIT campus in Saigon (HCM City) for $2000 USD/month, but I turned it down because I couldn't bring myself to live in a communist country.

I've gone out with more than my fair share of American women and most want a commitment and want promises of marriage, despite the fact that they offer nothing and demand everything. Fat chance.

Riiight, as opposed to what you demand, which is merely the complete subjugation of their emotional and mental existence to the control of another -- I'm sure these lasses are merely making the best possible deal for themselves that doesn't involve biting their own arm off to get out of this trap of a radar-esque "queen of paradise" existence.

Hi!

As a longtime lurker and rare poster..I feel impelled to state that you guys at the cellar have one of the weirdest most entertaining human zoos going..

:D

back to lurking

see you in a year or two!

I think what happened is that radar's atheism got in his way of finding an american wife. There are plenty of women who are into the Promisekeeper thing ... submit to your husband, etc.

Originally posted by Radar

American white men marrying those women are trading up because those women are far better than American women when it comes to marriage...

You mean far better than American women at being your indentured servant.

Just wait till she's been over here a while, learns Engrish (assuming you permit her to wear shoes and further her education), learns to drive (assuming you allow her to leave the house unescorted and purchase a car for her), makes some friends, starts watching Oprah and Dr. Phil and starts figuring out what American women already know about you.

I was happy for you when you posted your wedding thread. Now it is clear that you have deluded yourself into thinking that because no one stateside would have you that your 9,000 mile journey was a journey to a land of "so-called" superior women.

Your new bride will eventually learn that there is a life outside of being your slave. I pity you when she does. As submissive as Asian women appear to the naive Westerner, they are Tigers at heart and can tear the flesh from your bones. You think you have control in this relationship but my guess is that she is smart enough to permit you to think that until she decides otherwise - which she will. Submissiveness in Asian women is not an individual trait its a cultural one. And when you take her out of the culture, she will learn that there will be nothing to stop her from self-actualizing - a destiny that you will be seen as an obstacle to. I would plan for that if I were you and step aside when it does.

Seems to me she already bitch-slapped you for not lying to the Immigration Authorities about meeting or not meeting in an Airport bar. Where do you compartmentalize anomolous behaviour such as that - behaviour that does not mesh with your stereotypical "submissive Asian woman" view?

And you call us racist.

Radar, just remember that when, excuse me, if things do not proceed quite the way you have planned with your marriage, we will be here, and we will listen to what you have to say at that time.

Originally posted by Radar
Neither of your links shows a lie, or anything even remotely evasive.

You failed to answer two questions directly asked of you. So, again, bullshit. You're a liar.

wow wolf, you really are a pro at dealing with nutters.

Now, I'm hoping for the best for Radar and his new bride. Love can teach amazing things. To survive, it usually requires you both to, at some point, become less selfish, even selfless.

But what do I know? I'm an uppity American woman.

Riiight, as opposed to what you demand, which is merely the complete subjugation of their emotional and mental existence to the control of another

Wrong. I don't demand any subjugation of any kind. I demand an equal partner, not someone who wants everything and gives nothing in return.

I think what happened is that radar's atheism got in his way of finding an american wife.

I wasn't looking for a wife, especially an American one. And my atheism doesn't get in the way of anything.

You mean far better than American women at being your indentured servant.

Ahhh, more bitter racist remarks. Who says being an equal partner who willingly and happily accepts the traditional role of a wife is a "servant"? She doesn't and I don't. Both of us are equals, but have different responsibilities.

Just wait till she's been over here a while, learns Engrish

One racist remark after another. I don't watch television or even have cable in the house, but she wouldn't change if Oprah knocked on my door and came to my house herself. And Dr. Phil is a loudmouthed idiot. I'd slap that chump around if he came to my house. Also American women don't know shit about American men, which is why they are always complaining about American men not being willing to commit. American men are willing to commit, just not to American women with bad attitudes.

Now it is clear that you have deluded yourself into thinking that because no one stateside would have you that your 9,000 mile journey was a journey to a land of "so-called" superior women.

Put down the crackpipe and step away slowly. I've had plenty of American women. So many I've had to turn down many of them. There were a few who wanted to marry me when I chose to go elsewhere. So save your lame "can't get a woman" bullshit for someone who gives a shit.

Your new bride will eventually learn that there is a life outside of being your slave.

My new wife, will never be a slave and never have be locked in. She'll learn about how American women don't take care of their men, but expect their men to take care of them. They'll learn about how a man works 70 hours a week to buy nice things for American women and how those women won't cook, keep the house clean, and sleep with someone else because thier husband is "never home" because he's busting his ass to support her. My wife will be disgusted by such women. My wife knows she's very lucky to have me for a husband and will never leave me and I know I'm lucky to have such a great wife. With all the time we've been waiting to actually be together, we'll be so happy just to see each other, we'll never leave each other.

As submissive as Asian women appear to the naive Westerner, they are Tigers at heart and can tear the flesh from your bones.

Don't presume to tell me about Asian women. I've dated so many of them and this is my second wife of the Asian persuasion. I know fully how Asian women are not submissive and this is why I get so ticked off when people make remarks suggesting that they are "slaves" or "submissive" because they are neither.

You think you have control in this relationship but my guess is that she is smart enough to permit you to think that until she decides otherwise - which she will.

I don't think I have control of the relationship, I know I have control for my part of it. There is always a power struggle at the beginning of a relationship and I've already set the tone for how our relationship will be. I will not tolerate any game playing or bullshit and if she can't handle it, I'll send her packing. She already tried a couple of times to emotionally blackmail me with tears or threats of going to her mothers house and I told her, "go ahead" because I knew she wanted me to beg her to stay. We have laid the foundation and know that I have the final word. I've been around the block enough times to have seen all the games and I know how to shut them down.

Submissiveness in Asian women is not an individual trait its a cultural one. And when you take her out of the culture, she will learn that there will be nothing to stop her from self-actualizing - a destiny that you will be seen as an obstacle to. I would plan for that if I were you and step aside when it does.

This is pretty irrelevant since I'm not looking for a submissive woman or a slave. I like strong and independent women, but not those who crave superiority rather than equality. I'll never be an obstacle to her "self-actualizing". She can be all that she wants to be as long as we stick to roles we've agreed to take on. I wouldn't expect her to stay with me if I didn't work and take home money to contribute and help out with the housework if she has a job. I'm talking about a partnership, not a master/servant relationship. We both have certain roles, but when one of us falls, the other is there to pick up the fallen one or to take up the slack. That's tough to find in American women.

Seems to me she already bitch-slapped you for not lying to the Immigration Authorities about meeting or not meeting in an Airport bar.

Bitchslapped me? She lied because in her country they are very scared of government people and try to say what they want to hear. She didn't hurt me as much as she hurt herself by lying. She asked me why I didn't call her to "get our stories straight" and I corrected her by saying I told the truth and our stories would automatically be straight if she'd have done the same. And we met at the airport terminal when she came to meet her aunt and uncle who I was travelling with. Not in a bar.

Where do you compartmentalize anomolous behaviour such as that - behaviour that does not mesh with your stereotypical "submissive Asian woman" view?

I'm not the one with the stereotypical submissive Asian woman view. I'm the one who already knows those views are racist and are usually mentioned by American women when they hear you're going to marry an Asian woman from another country.

The typical bitter and snotty responses from an American woman who finds out an American man is going to marry an Asian woman (particularly one from Vietnam) include:

Oh, so you want a submissive slave?

What's the matter, couldn't get an American woman?

Oh, you have a mail-order bride?

Did she promise she will "love you long time"?

etc.

Radar, just remember that when, excuse me, if things do not proceed quite the way you have planned with your marriage, we will be here, and we will listen to what you have to say at that time.

I'm just going to be so happy waking up next to her and spending time with her after 4 years apart (and so will she) that the odds are in my favor. Of the many people I know who have been married twice, all but one has stayed with their second wife forever....so far.

You failed to answer two questions directly asked of you. So, again, bullshit. You're a liar.

Which two questions? I don't see them.

wow wolf, you really are a pro at dealing with nutters.

She does pretty good with you.

But what do I know? I'm an uppity American woman.

Warch, you don't come off as "uppity" to me. You may be the exception that proves the rule. I've already said that the observations I and millions of other men have made do not apply to ALL American women. There are some very good ones out there, but they are hard to find and are the exception rather than the rule.

If you the description I've given doesn't match you, you're not one of the people I'm talking about. But some in here know my words hit too close to home and they're upset.

If I wasn't convinced before, I surely am now.

Convinced of what? Your stupidity? I'm fairly convinced myself. glanced over that thread and didn't see any unanswered questions. But if you have such a burning desire for me to answer a question, you won't mind asking it again. If it was so easy for me to miss it on review, I may have missed it going through the first time.

Mr. Ireland did indeed answer the first question I linked to...I apologize for saying otherwise.

I stand by the second one, though. Radar, if you can't figure it out, you're out of luck. I can't help you.

One racist remark after another.

Your initial stereotypical racist remark is what drew me into this thread in the first place so don't bitch when someone picks up the very club you were swinging around and swings it at you.

But, differences aside, I wish the best for you and your bride and really do hope things work out for you two especially if you decide to have children.

Originally posted by Radar
We have laid the foundation and know that I have the final word. I've been around the block enough times to have seen all the games and I know how to shut them down.

I'm waiting for you to start quoting Phyllis Schaffly next.

I embrace my tradition busting American womanhood. :) Isnt that the tradition?

Originally posted by jaguar
[quote]wwoooa......I just entered bizarro world, I agree with Radar on something:

quote:To use those “considerations” as an excuse to invade another country is insane. America is not here to force other countries to be democracies, or to treat their people the way the president thinks they should be treated. America has NO AUTHORITY beyond our own borders.

The US sure as hell doesn't act like it has no authority beyond our own borders. What is "said" and what is actually "done" are two different things.

I've gone out with more than my fair share of American women and most want a commitment and want promises of marriage, despite the fact that they offer nothing and demand everything. Fat chance.

*read: I've tried to date American woman, and goddamnit, some of them just don't bow low enough or jump high enough for my tastes!*


Originally posted by Undertoad

Riiight, as opposed to what [b]you demand, which is merely the complete subjugation of their emotional and mental existence to the control of another -- I'm sure these lasses are merely making the best possible deal for themselves that doesn't involve biting their own arm off to get out of this trap of a radar-esque "queen of paradise" existence. [/B]

Nail.Hit.Head.

:)

My new wife, will never be a slave and never have be locked in. She'll learn about how American women don't take care of their men, but expect their men to take care of them. They'll learn about how a man works 70 hours a week to buy nice things for American women and how those women won't cook, keep the house clean, and sleep with someone else because thier husband is "never home" because he's busting his ass to support her. My wife will be disgusted by such women. My wife knows she's very lucky to have me for a husband and will never leave me and I know I'm lucky to have such a great wife. With all the time we've been waiting to actually be together, we'll be so happy just to see each other, we'll never leave each other.

Amazing how he knows exaclt how she will react. Truely amazing. You know, I hear these days some women have their own jobs too and........my god.....don't need anyone to support them they can do it all by themselves and thus aren't going to be interested in workaholics who won't lift a finger around the house beacuse they work so hard and who are never there to boot.

I figure, if it works for them then it works for them. If it doesn't they'll figure that out. There are as many ways to run a marriage as there are couples.

I do think there are more reasonable American women out there than he gives us credit for, but there's nothing wrong with his ideal as long as both parties understand and agree to the way things work. As wolf said, if Radar weren't an atheist there would be a whole wide swath of American women available to him who prefer the more traditional roles in marriage.

Radar, I didn't know you were married before. You said she was Asian? Asian or Asian-American?
Anyway, good luck with your pursuit of happiness. That's guaranteed, you know.;)

My Ex-Wife is Japanese. Her and her new husband really enjoy the house I bought in Las Vegas. But that's another story. I taught her English so well everyone thought she was third generation born in America.

so what went wrong

He taught her English so well that she understood his bullshit for what it was?....:P

When I read your response RADAR I really really wanted you to dispel the myth....I always think people jump to readily into the trap of defining all Asian women as culturally submissive and Vietnamese or Philipino (sp) women in particular as mail order brides chosen by Men whose own chauvinism has reached such a level that they are out of step with modern western values like gender equality.

I have a friend who is distance dating a Philipino woman he met through his work as techsupport for Servers serving Asia. ..Now I will admit I took the right royal piss out of him when he told me he was flying out to the philipines to meet up with his new lady. ....But I really was just teasing because my friend is a lovely guy who hasnt got a chauvinist bone in his body ( well....except for one but I think thats all guys..:D ..) He's already been married once and has a delightful daughter His Phillipino girlfriend is also a divorcee with children. I have seen the photos of her and him together on holiday and they make a good couple. She doesnt look like the submissive type and knowing my friend as I do I dont think he'd have been drawn to her if she was.....

So...I was really hoping to see this stereotype debunked ....but then every damn paragraph of RADAR's post just read like my idea of the stereotypically chauvinist male drawn to Asian women because they "know how to look after their men properly".....Damn

Really Radar, I do wish you the best. However, I agree with DanaC that you shouldn't make cultural assumptions. If you do try to treat her with the submissive asian woman stereotype, well, I have three words for you. Loreena Bobbit & Ginsu.

Anyway, that being said, can someone explain how a thread I started on the draft ended up discussing Radar's nuptials?

DanaC, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but it's a distinct trend I have noticed.

Richlevy is right y'know....we really have allowed this thread to wander across the road and get run over by an oncoming truck *grins*.
So....to take it back to the draft for a moment.

In the light of recent events in Faluja and in light of the public outrage over incidents involving Iraqi prisoners ......do we think it is likely that a draft will be attempted? and How would the American public respond?

Originally posted by DanaC
Richlevy is right y'know....we really have allowed this thread to wander across the road and get run over by an oncoming truck *grins*.
So....to take it back to the draft for a moment.

In the light of recent events in Faluja and in light of the public outrage over incidents involving Iraqi prisoners ......do we think it is likely that a draft will be attempted? and How would the American public respond?

My opinion is that if we decide we cannot walk away from Iraq, which even Kerry agrees on, and the handover does not go smoothly, we may decide to commit a major force of 250K+ to quell unrest, bringing back more armor.

If that happens, and we do not get more international involvement, which will probably be withheld as long as Bush is president, then in my opinion we move up to a %50 or more chance of reinstating a draft.

The only way we could cover any large comittment in Iraq with our own troops without a general draft would be to have an 'internal draft', extending terms of service, issuing callbacks to veterans, etc.

BTW, here is an interesting New York Times article on the current makeup of the military on a politicians web site.

The Draft = Slavery. It says the government has a greater claim on our lives than we do for ourselves. It says the government OWNS us. A purely volunteer military makes sure the government doesn't go rushing into wars that aren't supported by thier bosses (The American People) and makes sure they don't START wars.

The only way a draft would come about is if:

A) there was again a unified social attitude of the American public - the type that existed in the 30s-50s and in decreasing levels from 9/12/2001 - 2/1/2004*

B) there was a national crisis (or *perceived* crisis) that encouraged this unified attitude to become some sort of national service, which would solve or appear to solve the crisis.

If, for example, a nuclear device were set off in downtown Philadelphia, the response of the public would be 9/12/2001 *magnified*. It would demand a level of seriousness that most people hadn't experienced before. And a unified response.

[SIZE=1]*In my opinion, the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" benchmarks the end of the post 9/11 spirit and the complete return to paying rabid attention to completely silly things.[/size]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The only way a draft would come about is if:


B) there was a national crisis (or *perceived* crisis) that encouraged this unified attitude to become some sort of national service, which would solve or appear to solve the crisis.

You forget that we are in a 'war on terror'. The new draft would come in under the 9/11 banner that the administration has been using as a blank check for the past 2 years.

neo-Conservatives would want it because they would see it as a tool for an even stronger American hegemony.

Liberals might want it because they would have some faint hope of an egalitarian military where rich kids would have to take the same risks as poor and middle class kids.

I would be interesting how the military would deal with gays and women since attitudes have changed since Vietnam and there are more women in uniform and on the front lines. Also, they will need to address gay military service since the idea of giving an entire group a ticket out might not sit well with gay detractors. Hence they would try for a national service model to address these groups, not to mention conscientious objecters.



Of course, if national service does come about, there would probably be some homeland civilian component, and the rich kids would end up delivering Meals on Wheels in their Porsches while the rest are pounding sand.

It doesn't matter that we are in a war on terror, because most people don't perceive it to be a war any longer, which is why more people are putting "irony quotes" around the words "war on terror".

Without that perception, the idea of a draft will be politically unacceptable and unviable, believe me.

It will if there is another major attack, and whether there will be is an interesting question. My feeling is that the capabilites Al Queda would need to pull something of S11 scale off simply don't exist anymore, the but there will be more and more small attacks, maybe in the US, maybe not.

19 guys armed with boxcutters, willing to die for their cause, and just smart enough to be students for a few months and to understand a few instructions from the boss.

I don't know, that I admit, but I bet those raw materials are available in any extremist mosque in Saudi Arabia.

Fake passports, flight training, intelligence gathering.

The biggest problem is keeping your profile low enough. When you start dealing with 5+ people keeping the chatter to nill without leaving any traces gets hard.

Originally posted by Undertoad
I don't know, that I admit, but I bet those raw materials are available in any extremist mosque in Saudi Arabia.

Or in Cleveland. And it doesn't have to be a mosque, although that is currently trendy.

There is plenty enough anger in the world. The real difficulty is to get it to FOCUS rather than lead to greater disorganization.

That's a piece of the puzzle that a lot of people don't pay enough attention to ... most extremists can't plan their way out of a wet paper bag.

Originally posted by Undertoad
It doesn't matter that we are in a war on terror, because most people don't perceive it to be a war any longer, which is why more people are putting "irony quotes" around the words "war on terror".

Without that perception, the idea of a draft will be politically unacceptable and unviable, believe me.

You forget that the irony quotes are not being used inside the White House and that except for some brave individuals, the Republican majority in Congress seems to be in lockstep with Bush who still seems to still be listening to his Vulcans.

BTW, I am assuming that the term "Vulcan" refers to the "God of the forge" in Roman mythology. If not, then the (&*%* freaks should turn in their pointy ears for a severe lack of logic.

I know that, and for that I'm thankful.

Joe Galloway: Stressed Army Desperate For Warm Bodies


Interesting article.