Rue

If people became enlightened one would think they would be more likely to be; 1-vegetarian 2-get this falun gong hare krishna ron paul evangelical born again baby with gas sort of grin 3-say and do positive things 4-share 5-wait for their turn and line up a lot 6-share cookies 7-try hug people 8-forgive everyone 9-give everything away 10- give away their guns and porno dvds 11-be synpathetic to Paula Abdul. On a more serious note-since your question is rhetorical the simple answer is anything is possible when it comes to the results of human behaviour whether it be positive or negative. If one engages in positive actions one would suppose logic dictates the results would then be positive and so those engaging in positive acts have in theory the unlimited ability to trigger positive results. My problem is I am a tad cynical and I find people who tell me the above about positive actions usually want to sell me something I do not need which they claim will help me be positive. Someone trying to tell me I need to by their product to be able to be positive is someone I am inclined to want to urinate on. Now I know that is not positive but at my age its very easy to aggravate my prostate.

I appreciate you are crazy too. Bush is a dupe. Your problem is Dick Chaney-Donald Rumsfeld and Haliburton who were able to control US foreign policy to suit their financial interests. Are they fascists? Well technically Bush, Chaney and the retired Donald Duck are/were because they were on the government payroll. Blackwater and Haliburton are businesses with businessmen. We call them businessmen pr as Tony would say, " I am a business man ..". That said yes I suppose the conflict could be restated as who owns the Georgia pipeline. Obviously Russia thinks it does I believe under international law Russia would have zero basis for arguing ownership of any pipeline that runs through Georgia. The sovereign state laws of Georgia would be recognized under international law as the prevailing laws to refer to, to determine any ownership of property within its borders. But hey we know how the law works. Only poor people can not afford to break it. Now as for your theory Georgia was going to invade Abkhazia, the last time I looked that was within Georgia's legally constituted borders and so it is no business of Russia's under international law. If Russia feels human rights autrocities are about to be committed it should ask the United Nations to intervene. It has no legal authority to intervene unless it can show the legaly constituted government of Georgia asked it to intervene. So let's do stop diddling with this daddle. We all know its an invasion and the pipelines do not belong to Russia precisely because they are in a sovereign nation and that is precisely why Russia invaded - it gives sweet f..ck all about international law. Now you want to argue the Americans did the same thing in Iraq you can of course and I probably agree with you, but a wrong doesn't make another wrong right. Or more simply stated, they both have syphilis for the same reason, they stick themselves in places without taking the time to engage in foreplay and sniff out the terrain and make sure it has nothing contagious. I also think unlike Georgia, Iraq had a real mad-man in charge and you can tell he had a mustache and a bad hair-cut, its a dead give away. The first thing a genocidal maniac does is grow a mustache, get a bad haircut, engage in genocide and make sure he cozy's up to China or Russia or the West to be able to survive. Now mind you Moe Kaddafi did try grow one but he looked ridiculous and cut it off but he did perfect that bulgy eyed maniac look and you have to admire the fact that all his close bodyguards are Libyan babes. Sure Hussein could have gone on killing millions until he turned on the U.S. and became rogue but your point? How is that any different then all the other countries that also benefit from the propping the same maniacs? Why is it the US gets singled out but no one else? Since when is the US the only whore on this planet? So me I can do with out all this sanctimonious yakka blab as to who is more righteous, the US or Russia. Its about oil pipelines and everyone in this conflict is looking out for their best interests and if Russia or China or the US or anyone else has to support some sociopathic meglomaniac they will. In regards to Iraq, yes I believe the US should have waited and let the UN lead any military action for it to have been legal. No I do not think the UN ever would and yes I believe the US went in to protect its oil and rid themselves of a rogue agent and didn't do it because they felt Hussein was a mad man or because of that pathetic cover story of terrorism, etc. But how is that any different then what Russia or China does? If the US doesn't make clear it will deal swiftly with rogue agents it will have more and more of their puppets turn on them thinking they can get away with it. Likewise with the Chinese and Russians. Remember that sucker who got radiated in London? You think Vlad Putin was sending a message or what. Its business. You f..ck with your patron as they say in the neighbourhood, and its a quick way to find yourself swimming in cement shoes. The difference between the US and Russia is the Americans pay their whores and give chewing gum, the Russians just rape them. The Chinese take their clothes off, recycle the clothes, then sell them back to the whore at twice the price after using slave labour of course to make them. Bah.

Lol. Bobby Sherman. That is just wrong man. I mean you want to seriously put someone in the hospital have them find music by Bobby Sherman and make them listen to it after smoking one of those modern marijihuana joints with all that concentrated toxic stuff the kids smoke these days. What these youngsters need are some Yardbirds and Janis to set them straight.

Here is where I disagree. I believe history probably could be used to show you might make a strong argument for the above but only with conventional wars. What history has also shown is that if the fighting is not carried out according to convential rules of war, but instead becomes prolonged terrorist attacks and guerilla war, the above comment is dead wrong. In fact the tactics of Mandela, Ghandi and Martin Luther King appear to be the more tactical way to go if you can't engage in a conventional war-that or the MacDonald's Coca Cola formula. In the former you appeal to people's idealism and there is no short term dramatic change but in the long term the society collapses from within forcing the change as more and more people passively take on the behaviour of resistance. In the latter formula, you take over countries appealing to their vices. Either way appears far more effective then terrorism or guerilla war where no conventional war can be carried out. So let us get down to the pith and substance of this current conflict. We have on the one hand a Western economic alliance and that is all NATO symbolizes, between the US and the European Union who are reluctant allies with Japan because of their shared dependency on oil and inter-connected corporate economic activities. On the other hand you have Russia, essentially the remainder of a collapsed failed government monopoly economic system whose former enforcers the KGB still run the country only now they have formed an alliance with the only organized economic entity in Russia, the MOB. Russia is nothing but the MOB using its alliance with the KGB's ability to control the state, to have a complete stranglehold on all economic activity and prevent any competition within Russia. In that respect Russia is no different then China, a state monopoly. In Russia's case the MOB is just not as subtle as the Chinese government in its brutality and predatory pricing and economic control. Unlike China it sees no need to pretend. Russia wants to sell its oil to the West and regain its superstar power status. To regain its status it needs to be able to sell that oil. As long as the West can get it from somewhere else, it stalls Russia's quest to become a superstar. So its obvious and blatant what is happening. The economic constellation of Japan, the US and the European Union and those former Eastern block countries wishing to get out from Russian control which to find an alternative way not to have to deal with Russia. So we have a war in Afghanistan which is all about trying to secure oil pipelines. We have a war in Iraq which we all know is over securing pipelines. The conflict in Georgia its over pipelines. Doesn't take a genius to see these conflicts arise around pipelines. Georgia is a threat to Russia for one real reason, it provides pipelines that would by-pass Russia. In theory if Afghanistan on the ground and Iraq on the ground were secured, those pipelines would make there way to Europe without the need to get oil from Russia. Russia is not stupid. So they do what they do. They incite Iran to trade in the Euro dollar not the American dollar and create havoic in the would oil market which directly causes the West to need Russian oil. Russia encourages Iran to send all their oil to China. Why not. By fueling China's economy it fuels the largest predatory pricing monster on world markets which again destabilize the Western economy. The World has divided into 3 economic constellations. The West which technically for now is the European Union, NATO members, Israel, Japan and North America. Then there is China and then there is India. Russia doesn't no where to place itself. It wants to be an economic power on its own and feels with its strategic oil and other natural resource reserves it could easily be. The problem is it has no infrastructure. The MOB does not invest in Russia. They do not invest in roads, buildings, education so unlike China and India which do exactly that its not going to be able to compete with their state run/dominated economies or the free enterprise economy of the West. It is an economic outlaw and as the Mafia can tell you, if the Russian MOB is to survive it has to legitimize itself. It can't hook up with the Vatican to launder its money, that is already been done by the Mafia. It can't hook up with the Columbian and Latin American drug cartels because in Latin America, you only deal with your own kind certainly not the Russian mob. As much as Hugo Chavez spews off at the mouth, he certainly isn't re-routing his oil to China or North Korea to assist his socialist bretheren nor is he telling the drug cartels who have made his country their Switzerland banking centre, to spend the money on the masses. Its all about strategic positioning to protect economic interests. Everyone is a whore. The only difference is some people think the Americans are the only ones to engage in prostitution. When anyone else does it, we get this sanctimonious talk about who started it and how Russia feels alienated. Right. Russia is not some pathetic victim lashing out in frustration. It is a country run by cold, calculated, professional killers that would snap your head off in seconds and not shed a tear. As far as I am concerned if Russia's MOB had any intelligence, instead of acting like the typical head strung potatoe vodka drunken brutes they love to embrace culturally they should learn to stop drinking and t raping and learn to engage in foreplay. Russia just does not understand you need to have foreplay before you have economic intercourse. Foreplay in this case means inviting Western captialists into your country and not being afraid of them and letting them operate and instead of trying to control everything they do with a sledgehammer, simply take a heft percentage of it and get them dependent on your market, then slowly yank up your taxes on them once they get hooked. They are the classic thug who thinks they can rule by brute force. Chicago style went out years ago and was replaced by the more subtle Myer Lansky Tony Soprano approach. Today's criminals set up elaborate trade networks and do not resort to the blowing off of heads as much. Its far easier to pay someone off and give them a direct vested financial interest in cooperating. The need for brute force has given way to elaborate webs of international corporate networks. Now in Western material society when the masses put on their chains of slavery, they welcome them. Each chain or debt rung up from the addiction to material gratification is welcomed as evidence of their freedom. You want me to pontificate and say all we Westerners are slaves controlled by the illusion of freedom by corupting our souls with material addiction? Don't imagine that will be a best seller. Me I see different systems of criminals controlling the masses. One uses Big Macs, Cokes, and vices to do it, the other brutal physical violence. Excuse me if I prefer the American vice approach. I have found in the American system I can spit out the pill when no one is looking. In the other systems they shove it down your throat and up your butt at the same time. Now if you will excuse me I have to go ring up another debt then go to psychoanalysis to discuss why these debts chase me in the form of Angelina Jolie with fangs in my dreams and then morphs into Madonna laughing at me hysterically as I try hold in my stomach. Its a cruel world.

If that is your idea of what socialism is I have one word for you-oy. There is nothing socialist about China. The fact that the state has a monopoly on all its economic activities does not mean its socialist. You need to be sent to reducation camp. I am telling Hugo Chavez what you said.

Sorry just read your response. Totally concur. Whether its realistic or not we leave to destiny and history to say. Some changes are inevitable. Me personally I find the fundamentalist Muslim ( and any other society based on fundamentalist religious beliefs that can not be questioned) and the Chinese social models very scary. I am not too impressed with the new/old Russian social model either. Say now Amgal, do you want 4 husbands? Imagine such silliness. Imagine all the toilet seats left up in your house. Me I find one wife enough. I am always in trouble. I can't imagine 4 going after me at the same time. I have two daughters. When they were growing up it was 3 against 1. It explains why I twitch all the time now.

I echo W's response. Yes. All we can do is try provide people education and information to try address the myths, misconceptions and stereotyped assumptions. The same people who say autism is a fraud also say the same about many other bio-chemical imbalances and conditions. Its the kind of thinking that blames the person with the illness as having a weakness they choose to have and then deliberately use to manipulate others. What can I say. The first thing an ignorant person does is to profess he knows what the real story is. There was a time when people who were deaf were assumed to be mentally insane or lacking in intelligence. Peole with epilepsy were considered to be possessed by Satan. Not too long ago a person with schitzophrenia was said to be that way because their mother didn't raise them properly. Some people still refer to homosexuality as a mental illness and manic depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anorexia, obsessive compulsive disorder and depression as frauds claiming such people deliberately engage in this behaviour to manipulate others. It takes all kinds. The fact is today we still know less then 5% of the chemicals that make up the brain and still know very little about how most of it works and functions but scientists to continue to map it and try understand how it works. As neuro sciences and psychiatry continue to develop, the more we will learn and the more information we will obtain to people able to address and challenge these false stereotypes. To suggest autism is not an illness is just the modern version of calling women witches. Humans as WP said, even rational humans can't resist stereotyping that which we can't understand or do not like into demons and monsters. Regards, Frankenstein, Elephant Man, The Thing

Anyone can find both good and bad things in any religion. The point? I personally find it illogical to think one can onjetively compare religions using a rational method that could actually quantify that one is more moral or pure or valid or holy then another. I find such exercises can do but one thing-incite intolerance. I prefer my approach which is to consider all humans equally as smelly and sharing the same body odour. You see one baboon yah seen them all. The fact that our bumbs have some differentation in their structure does not mean they aren't red and inflammed and we all know baboons regardless of the individua umbl variances use their inflamed bumbs for the exact same way-to stick them out and prance about trying to show another baboon how fierce they are. Me I think all baboons should wear panties. A little modesty please. My God is better then your God? Uh yah. Right.

I am not sure what truth is in any given situation. The only thing I know that is true is that no human can say for sure with 100% certainty he or she knows what truth is, that is just not truthful. At best we come up with what we think is he "truth". In this case I 100% agree with your above and other stated positions. I am sure Myata and other Russian apologists who tend to see the world in different terms, i.e., anything Western bad, anything anti-Western good, think their version is the true one. I think myself, anyone who can not see that Russia's interest in this area is based on oil pipelines is missing the point. I also think Vladimir Putin is nothing more then a professional hitman whose KGB found themselves unemployed when the state went bankrupt and so have now gotten into bed with the Russian mob to get their paycheque. Anyone who is quick to call the US and George Bush evil need to spend 5 minutes with Vlad. He is a classic sociopath. No emotion. Cold, calculated and someone with high intelligence and great cognitive skills. He is more then a match for the emerging Asian economies, the European Union and the U.S. The fact I consider him to be a facist thug does not mean I do not appreciate his intelligence or cunning. I personally think when this is over, Russia permanently leaves a military presence in Georgia and demands a shake down for not interfering with the pipelines that by-pass them through Georgia. That is all this is, a shakedown. Or as my friend Tony would say " you wanna do bizness in dis naybuhgood, yooz gotta understand therez people yah have to showz some considurayshun too- its all about considurayshun and we wouldn't wanna have no misunderstanding about dat now would we someone'z lyabel tuh get hurt and dat would be such a shame."

JB I now shall respond to your comments; "...Caught up in the national intoxication after the "miracle" victory of the '67 war, Israelis foolishly pursued a dream of reclaiming biblical Israel...." Excuse me but all the above is your subjective opinion. Its not based on fact just your personal opinion. So I won't respond to it other than to say I respectfully disagree with it as being to simple and too narrow in postulation. You stated; "The consequences were that over decades of oppression, popular opposition to the occupation has translated into violent resistance, which has made apartheid-like policies necessary in Palestinian areas." Again the above is for me too partisan. Had you simply stated Israel's policies of occupation on the West Bank and in Gaza have proven to be counter-productive or said something like by shifting the conflict from a conflct between states to a conflict between two peoples for the same land, I would have agreed. The reference to oppression I find only half accurate since you do not also refer to the role the PLO and Hamas and the terrorist groups have engaged in oppressing their own people and inciting certain adversarial Israeli responses. You know Israelis are required and subject to the same security checks and carrying the same cards as Palestinians on the West Bank and resent the IDF presence just as much as the Palestinians do and you would know that had you been there and witnessed how the IDF are spat at by both sides. You would also know had you been there that Palestinians and Israelis are equally subject to search and seizure by not just the IDF but PLO, Hamas and Jordanian, Lebanese, Egyptian or Syrian armies and Hezbollah when they are in those countries for the exact same reasons. Apartheid? Or is it what happens when terrorism forces countries to become police states and engage in abritrary search and seizure because they do not know how to tell the difference between a terrorist and innocent civilian? Until you criticize Hamas and the PLO and everyone for the exact same reasons, I challenge you as being too partisan. You stated; "Had Israel settled for a ceasefire, rather than a land-grab, it would not be in this situation right now." They did offer a cease-fire not once but many times you know that. In fact the rejection of their attempts is what led to Likhud getting elected. The rejection of Oslo and many other attempts at a two state solution are independently documented. I think you are being unfair to Israel in such comments. Do I think Likhud has beligerent policies absolutely. But I also think they came about precisely because when Labour tried to be moderate Labour was mocked and ridiculed. I also see the same phenomena on the other side. I think every time Israel answers with force it makes Palestinian moderates week and their extremists stronger. It works both ways. Extremism on either side causes the moderates on either side to lose face and credibility. When people are under attack they turn to warriors not peaceful people. You stated; "Two words - Settlement construction." Here I agree that settlement and construction on the West Bank has been very counter-productive and incited and made the problem worse. You stated; "...you didn't reference the name or comments of the official you quoted. I wasn't aware that I needed to be held to a higher standard than yourself." I did not quote any official. If I did, restate the sentence to me and I will kindly provide you a reference. I would agree with you if I have quoted someone I should be referencing it, and have to follow the same standard as you. I apologize if you think I expect a standard of you I will not follow. I agree that would be bull or maybe you are referring to someone else so if that is the case never mind the above comment. You stated; "I wasn't aware of Samir Kuntar, period." Your lack of awareness of who the above person is I find very surprising in fact shocking. I can not imagine anyone not knowing who he is and what he did in fact to the point where I ask did you even live in Israel and if you did how did you not know what he did? It is like a Jew saying they do not know who Adolph Eichman is. You stated; " So rather than take the word of a pro-Likhud hack, I wanted some independent info." I am not sure who you are referring to and how you arrived at such a conclusion but if you want to know what my particular bias is, if I was Israeli it would not be Likhud and anyone reading my comments would know its pure labour bias or old Mapai or maybe even the old Progressive Liberal party but anything bit Likhud. With due respect I think you should resist such labels. Israeli political parties actually mean very little. Where they once played a prominent role in defining ideology in the first 20 years of Israel's existence they have in the last twenty years become completely fragmented to the point where political party ideologies don't really exist any more so your attempt to stereotyep some of us trying to use such labels is probably not as helpful as you think it is. I doubt anyone you think supports Likhud actually does if they don't live in Israel and really know what their platform is. If you must know my personal bias, to be even more precise its based on the papers and views of the Centre For The Study of Public Policy at Queen's University and in particular Thomas S. Axowrthy and Mathew Johnson, as well as political analyst Gwynn Dyer and Western Political Science Professor Salim Mansur as well as most of the foreign policy approach of the current Foreign Affairs Minister. I have a distinctly Lester B. Pearson-Piere Trudeau- foreign policy bias and make no secret of it or my preference for Dwyer and Mansur. Likhud? Yegards. Bebe scares the shit out of moi. You stated; "Can we make a deal here jackass? Can you stop accusing me of using strawman arguments if you're going to do the same thing?" Well my Dad has always called me a horse's ass.Or if you would like just call mea fool like my wife does or an annoying rude ignorant Zionist like Buffy does. You would be right on all counts. You stated; "To summarize what I said much earlier - Israel got itself into the occupation mess because..." May I respectfully suggest what you refer to summarizing some of us consider partisan generalizing, or stereotyping, or oversimplifying, or misrepresenting. You stated; "..we both rely on expert analysis to form our opinions." Absolutely true. You are entitled to your opinion, and me mine and if we debate with any meaning we substantiate why we arrive at our opinions. Granted I have spent a great deal of time simply trying to suggest there is an opinion other than yours. If I have said anything that belittles your right to have a different opinion or to suggest its inferior to mine I am a horse's ass. I disagree with you but not your right to disagree with me. You stated; "There's little you could tell me about the human impact on both sides as a result of this conflict that my Zaida hasn't already taught me, thank you very much." The fact that you have a closed mind and demonstrate it with the above comment is unfortunate. I actually am not trying to tell you anything although I concede I can sound like a sanctimonious patronzing twat. I just enjoy debating. Any tone of patronization is unintended. The sarcasm though can be fun provided its mutual and no one is deliberately hurting one another. The moderators are pretty good about that. Please do not think I am in the position to patronize you. Challenge and nag you yes. Cajoll yes. Talk down to you no. I am asking you to challenge yourself as I do me because I find having rigid closed minded perspectives is usually the result of unresolved feelings. Surely we want to open our minds to see both sides of a conflict and not let our anger permit us to see it from just one side and with due respect the fact you see it from one side doesn't make it two sided simply because you are not Palestinian but Israeli. That doesn't automatically give you a pass from being bias in fact if anything it may be why you are bias. I could tell you many things my grandparents went through....so? I did not live them. What I can tell you is one thing. I learned not to use what happened to them to hate or be angry. In fact their very words taught me the exact opposite and how people survive precisely because they refuse to become hateful and angry when they just as easily could have. My family legacy is about gentiles who helped save Jews and a gentile country that has given me everything all my ancestors dreamed of. It also is about gentiles in the name of Christianity who did horrendous things to us and how people in the name of Christianity, Islam and Communism did the same thing. I have also been the target of some intense hatred by other Jews towards me. It is why I honestly say, I hate all humans and religions when I do for the exact same reasons. I am not in the position to tell you anything, just challenge you to think there may be other ways to look at the same thing and not be so angry and yah I am maybe a large horse's ass when I am angry and then trying to tell someone else not to be. How about you? do you use what you claim to have heard from your Zaida to rationalize hating and being angry at Jews or as we both know what you really mean, Israel for existing? You think you are the only Jew conflicted between his humanitarian and democratic tendencies and the ethnic exclusivity Zionism calls for? Of course it conflicts and therein lies the challenge. You may not agree but I think its possible Jews can maintainstain a state organ to protect their Jewish identity while at the same time not harming non Jews. You may not think so, I do. You see failures, and so do I but I also see the successes you do not see. I see triumphs you do not see. I see things Jews have been able to do in Israel they can be proud of not ashamed of. I do not just see failures in Israel. I see successes and hope and a model of how an opressed people despite 6 wars against it and a permanent campaign of terror to wipe it out, despite all its problems, sees non Jewish citizens given rights no Jew ever had in the Muslim world or in the Christian world. I also challenge myself when I criticize both Israelis and Palestinians, to try find something positive to counter every negative I find. I just am not interested in using the conflict to be righteous and hate Muslims or Jews and believe me there are some fundamentalist and Orthodox and sanctimonious Jews I have been in some heated arguements no different then I have sanctimonious fundamentalist Christians or Muslims or anyone else. You stated; "You're doing the same thing. Get off your high horse once in a while, it's good for your sperm count." That was a good one. First off I think at this point my sperm count is a moot point. I doubt any of them swimmers are going to win any gold medals at the olympics. Secondly actually I do not do the same thing. I do not talk about Palestinians and their cause and right to exist the way you do Israelis and the state of Israel. I criticize them both using the same standards. My pieces on this forum have been critical of people like you because I feel you have gone too far to one side. I have been equally as sanctimonious with others who I felt when too far the other way. I am consistent in being a sanctimonious blow hard against everyone. I am an equal opportunity ass annoying the right and left equally. To know me is to say shut up. Most of all I have never hesitated in suggesting I am an idiot. I am not proud of that fact but when I say it I say it in a good way. I do not assume my opinion is the only one although I am better looking then anyone else. That is a fact. In fact I find it the most enjoyable when people are not afraid of my opinions and do not take them personally. Ghost I blasted and he did not miss a beat or take it personally. Bush Chaney the American Imperialist CIA agent to or Black Dog. They give as much as they receive. Its fun. I also enjoeyd Buffy slapping me across my Zionist face. Spunk is good. You stated; "No, because a long time ago I decided to take an objective look at the conflict, and spent years learning and reevaluating my positions." With due respect you don't even believe that. Your comments above are clearly subjective not objective and I think what you are really saying to me is, you have arrived at the opinions you have because you believe you have figured it out for now. It will change just as the anger behind the words you now state will change. The difference between us is I say, I have arrived at my opinions and positions, precisely because I have not figured it out and would never suggest to anyone I have as you are now doing. As I age I realize how stupid I am not how smart I am so that is why I never would dream of thinking I could patronize you. Maybe that is one way to tell the difference between a young and an old man? Could it be our essential difference is that I have learned that things are not as absolute as you may think tbecause I have made more mistakes? Could be. I know some people say with age comes wisdom. I find that with others. I find older people wise because of their life experiences but I would never expect you to think that of me-just suspect me and challenge me. I do not expect respect from anyone. I don't look for it at least not unless they make me pay for something first. Then they at least have to hand it to me and not throw it at me unless of course its peanuts. You stated; "My main arguments are only seen as "bigoted" by pro-Israeli fanatics such as yourself, and Palestinian fanatics." First off I am anything but a fanatic. That would suggest I have a high energy level of intensity. I preferred your reference to my low sperm count better. Secondly I do see you as bias and partisan. Do I think you are a bigot, no. I am not in the position to judge anyone. More then that I would not say because I am myself conflicted and imperfect and have many biases. I am tempted to call certain people bigots but if I do it is in reaction to their words and in the heat of the moment. In retrospect I doubt very much I am in the position to judge anyone morally given my low sperm count and unrequited love for Buffy the Zionist Slayer who I have responded to in the exact same way as you-why because I think young people should be shown more time in debates becayse I hope you will not end up having to do or be like I did and am. You stated; "For those of us who don't see the world in black and whites, where good and evil isn't determined by what side of the fence you're on, this isn't a radical concept." Actually you do and the above comment unintentionally does just that. You stated; "I'm sorry you think this conflict is a battleground in some "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam, that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is your using us Jews as a proxy for your wet-dreams of killing Muslims. " I can't speak for others but I have made it clear many times in my posts that anyone who exploits the Middle East conflict to justify hating Muslims or Jews is equally as wrong. Now that I read this comment it has dawned on me you may be referring to someone else in terms of the killing of Muslims so if that is the case never mind but I absolutely would agree with that person's statement this is a cultural conflict between different civilizations. You stated; "We've been exploited and oppressed by you Gois for quite some time now, we don't need you doing it anymore - especially when you're claiming to be "our friends" but you're anything but." Again it now appears to me you are talking to someone else neause you know I think it would be totally wrong to use you as a proxy to express hatred against Muslims and I know you know that. Of course you have the right to object and call me out as wrong if you think I am asking you to kill someone. I can not ask anyone to kill anyone for any reason. You do not have any responsibility to justify not wanting to hate anyone to me. I challenge you only because of your anger not because of your opinions. I challenge you to throw away your anger towards Jewish identity and then see what happens.

Yah that's exactly what Neville Chamberlain said too. Peace in our time. You do know what de facto and de jure possession are right? What I am referring to is de facto possession. As long as Russia stays where it is, it has de facto possession. Playing this game of semantics that it hasn't defined S.O. as a soveriegn state means butkus. Butkus is a Greek word. In English we say ka ka. Russia's intentions are clear. It will stay in SO and Abkhazia and disrupt and occupy those states with a military presence for two reasons; i-to serve as a warning to the Ukraine, Poland and all the other former Soviet satellite states; ii-serve as a warning to the West they should not by-pass Russia with their oil pipelines and freeze Russia out from getting revenue for selling oil to Europe. Spare me with the official Russian poopoosturing. It is about as meaningful to me as what Neville said. Excuse me but I prefer the words of Churchill when it comes to Russia no matter how much you try spin Putin as a someone who obeys the law. He's a hit man. Pure and simple.

Response to GostH's comments; "Rue, I can see someone hit a nerve here." No I am just constipated. Seriously I sound more angry then I am. Its just how I write. I You stated; "When the former state of Palestine was broken up to create Israel..." Gost there was no former state of Palestine. That is the point. There was no soverign state. That is something crucial you must try understand. International law defines rights based on whether a territory is in fact a soverign state or territory not part of any sovereign state. You stated; "This now becomes an international dispute, because it involves two or more countries." The fact that it is an international dispute does not change international law or the actual international laws being violated. There is again a crucial difference between international relations and international law, they are not the same and should not be assumed to be one and the same. You stated; "We all have heard of the illegal settlements Israel is building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." The fact that people widely believe something to be true does not make it true. Read what I wrote. The settlements themselves by law are not illegal, it is the method of government being used on the West Bank that violates international law. The fact that most people will not take the time to try understand the difference is unfortunate but that is the case about most things in life. You can go on the interenet and find many lists of things people assume are true but aren't and such things have become the pith and substance of our cultural assumptions. Its why some people assume for example stories of someone being the son of God and sent by God to save the world originated with Christianity or that Jews consider themselves superior to others and that is why they use the word "chosen" or that Mulsims are one monolithic belief system. You state; " So in order to get around the international dispute, they are categorized as non-nations." No not at all. In fact if you misunderstand how international law works, and restate it incorrectly for political purposes to try blur the actual issues, that is what fuels even more conflict. The idea of creating refugees was a deliberate exercise by the Arab League of Nations to do precisely what it has achieved, keep people like you from paying attention to the actual legal issues whether they are international or domestic and go off on tangents based on emotional anger and assumptions of moral bad behaviour and victims and oppressors. You stated; " Which strikes me as odd since Gaza and West Bank have their own government and military." The governments of Gaza and the West Bank are not sovereign state governments. In fact they exist because Israel tried through the Oslo Accord to try assist in the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state with Jordan, by setting up PLO autonomy to rule the West Bank and Gaza. That was an interim initial process to creating a framework that then would have been used to create a soverign state. That never happened. Yasir Arafat deliberately violated the Oslo Accord and told Jordan and Israel h e had bargained in bad faith and they should have realized this all along. Those were his words. He stated that. He stated tp both they should have known he was only shitting them along. That is why Oslo blew apart. It left Jordan and Israel and Bill Clinton looking like Jackasses. The PLO then blew up internally after Arafat died. The PLO has always been simply a loose umbrella coalition of hundreds of political terrorist cells, each with their own leader, none elected. Arafat was simply a figure head. The vast majority of these cells had no intention of every recognizing Jordan or Israel as soverign states and still believe all of Jordan, Israel and the West Bank belong to them. The government you refer to in the Gaza and the one on the West Bank are the remains of the PLO splitting in two. However both within Hamas in the Gaza and within the Abbas PLO of the West Bank remain hundreds of internal political cells each with their own leader and ideas. This idea that there are two neat governments in place is bull. Hamas is a series of cells of leaders and on any given day those cells form internal coalitions then break up and form new ones. Likewise on the West Bank. You state; "But not a recognized one by international standards because they are consideres non nations." International law has certain criteria it uses to define what a soverign state is. It has nothing to do with international standards or morality or what is considered morally good or bad and everything to do with having an administration that is accountable and can provide basic services such as collecting taxes and enunciating policies that can be depended upon. You stated; "But the UN mandate was to break up the Caliphate to create Israel after WWII." Absolute and utter nonsense. Would you please make an effort to try expand your horizons and find out what actually happened. There was no UN mandate ever to do such a thing. In fact the UN inherited a mandate from the League of Nations that referred to creating a Jewish state in Palestine. It was the British who deliberately violated that mandate and unilaterally seized 85% of Palestine and created TransJordan, then flooded both Transjordan and the remainder of Palestine with Arabs from outside Palestine to prevent a Jewish homeland from being created. The UN in fact abandon its mandate inherited from the League of Nations and it was the arab League of Nations that upon the expiration of this mandate that unilaterally declared a war to rid Palestine of all Jews. The UN in fact did nothing when Jewish refugees found themselves without a home after World War Two or when 900,000 of them were expelled from the Arab world of the Middle East in the early 1950's. The UN did nothing when the Arab nations invaded and were trying to kill out the Jews of Palestine. To suggest the UN had a mandate to break up Palestine is absolute bull. Britain already did that by unilaterally creating Jordan. More to the point this thing you refer to as a Caliphate as if it was a state is absolute nonsense. The remainder of Palestine that the British did not illegally annex and create a puppet monarchy with to pay back Faisal by appointing one of his son's the King of Jordan and the other the King of Iraq another puppet state they created was not a nation. In fact the French took parts of it to create its colonies Syria and Lebanon again to illegally created puppet states for the French. Jordan and Iraq and Saudia Arabia were all created as British puppet monarchies to protect their power in the area. The Faisal family that was the source of all of its monarchies was the family Britain paid back for assisting it defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War Two. In fact Faisal had originally agreed with the Jews to two kingdoms one Jewish, one Muslim in the Middle East and it was the French and British who then interceded to prevent that from happening by lying to Faisal and playing divide and conquer telling Faisal the Jews would betray him. Had Faisal not listened to the French, he would not have been expelled from Syria and sent to Saudi Arabia. Had Faisal trusted his vision there would simply be one Middle East state in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the West Bank with a small Jewish state no different then Switzerland or Monaco in its midst and we would have had a far different outcome then we have today. Today's conflict comes about because of Nazi Germany, Britain and France flooding the Middle East Arab world with anti-semitism to promote their own strategic divide and conquer interests. To this day the West and the Russians and Chinese play the Muslims and Jews against each other in the Middle East to maintain their influence and control over oil. Nothing is easier to manipulate then a fundamentalist Muslim cleric blinded by his faith. You stated' " Glad the Caliphate had a say in it." The Caliphate had no government. Stop trying to pretend it was a government with elected people who could say anything. Read what actually happened. It was the Arab League of Nations that did all the talking for Palestinians. It was the Arab League of nations that created Palestinian refugees and forced them into camps and told them they would never be allowed in other Arab countries as citizens because they would be left in camps to rot as a reminder to the world they must give all of Israel back and until they do Palestinians will sit their as a monument to this outrage. It was the Arab League whot old Palestinians they would rid Palestine of Jews in a few weeks and they could return to a Jew free Palestine. Caliphate? There was no government. The closest thing to a leader was the Mufti of Jerusalem the puppet of Hitler. Now let's get real. Find out who went in and ran the Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi military and domestic police forces and ran their governments. It was former Nazis and in particular SS and Gestapo officers who fled Germany. The uniforms and goosestepping of these armies and helmets and salutes come straight from the Nazis. The muhkbarat political secret police in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and so many Arab nations is based on the Gestapo. May I suggest you take a look at how many German SS and Gestapo went to the Middle East and what their role was after World War Two in Syria and in Egypt with Nasser before you lecture on the Middle East. It was bad enough half of Israel came because they had no choice because of the holocaust but then to add insult to injury, the Nazis then came to live openly in Damascus and flout their continued attempts to manipulate Arabs into continuing their war against Jews. There is a lot you seem to be unaware of.

Your title refers to the word "Jews". Your last comment mocks the holocaust. You are yet again an example of someone who comes on this board, claiming to criticize Israeli foreign policy, but making references to Jews and the holocaust. This is why people like me single people out like you. You want to criticize Israeli foreign policies, do so. You want to make references to Jews and the holocaust to show you won't differentiate and are interested in inciting hatred against Jews, then I say you are a bigot. You are for me another classic example of someone who uses his alleged criticism of Israel to get negative shots in at Jews. The reference to the holocaust only serves to make that crystal clear.

Nonsense. What about the following statements from Dmitry Medvedev do you not understand? "Russia does not reject the principle of territorial integrity but its foreign policy will take into account the will of the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who are unlikely to want to remain in the same state with Georgia. If someone continues to attack our citizens, our peacekeepers, then of course we will answer just as we did." "We support any decision taken by the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, the 1966 international convention and the Helsinki Act on security in Europe. We don't just support this, but will guarantee them, both in the Caucasus and the world as a whole." "The armed forces of the Russian Federation which were sent to South Ossetia to reinforce our peacekeeping forces, they will be withdrawn to Russian territory depending on the extent to which the Georgian troops go back to their barracks. Our peacekeepers will remain in South Ossetia. " "The only change relates to the fact that Georgian peacekeepers, who were part of the peacekeeping contingent, but turned out to be simply traitors and cowards and started shooting at their colleagues - of course, they are never again going to appear as part of a peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia." Let's stop beating around the Bush pretending either the West or Russia are innocents in this. The bottom line is as simple as can be. Georgia enabled the West to by-pass Russia in shipping oil through pipe-lines to the West. That is not in Russia's financial interest. It is that simple. Russia wants a piece of the action and doesn't appreciate being by-passed. Its about the West adn Russia posturing over natural resources strategic positioning. Neither side gives a flying f..ck about Georgia and its people whether they are Russian ethnics or Georgian ethnics. Russia is a bloody hippocrate. It screams bloody murder over Chechnya trying to seperate but then this. The U.S. is also crippled by its foreign policy. It didn't exactly get the world's approval before it invaded Iraq. Both the West and Russia violate international law every day. To suggest Russia will obey and does obey international law is a f..cking joke. They and the West will do what evry country in the world does, and that is do whatever they think is in their strategic interest, then rationalize their actions after the fact. As for this continued use of the word ethnic cleansing although I appreciate it is popular with people born in the 1970's its been going on since humans were on the planet. Some of us call it tribal warfare. The new term is used as if some how its different. As for the protestations that this should not be compared to Hitler's invasion of Poland of course it can. It is the exact same party line Hitler used to justify taking back the Sudetenland. No one is saying the Russians have set up extermination camps. When Hitler invaded, the Nazi empire didn't suddenly appear. It took time to develop. Whether Russia rebuilds a totalitarian regime to expand remains to be seen but what is clear is it wants a piece of the world action in the natural resources and energy sector and American foreign policy which has been ridiculously ignorant of Russia's abilities has created this incident. The time to have negotiated with Putin was 8 years ago not now. The best the West can do now is learn from its mistakes and not isolate Russia put give it a direct financial interest in being part of the Western economy by presenting China as the mutual economic enemy. Right now Putin is playing the Middle East card to put Russia in the position of being the only place the West can turn to for oil. He's been playing that card 8 years and to do that he will do what it takes to assist Iran humiliate the West and assure China sucks Iran dry and controls strategic oil supplies in Angola and Sudan. Right now the West is completely dependent on Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for its oil and Putin is sitting their laughing realizing its only a matter of time until the West comes begging to him. The West's attempt to control Afghanistan to assure a pipeline can travel through it to feed the West has proven to be the same disaster as when Russia tried to do the same for its pipelines. Iraq did not become the oil colony the US thought it would become. They over-played their hand there and crippled the oil exports and now Iraq is sitting there accumulating monumental profit on oil it puts in the bank while US taxpayers bay trillions to prop the Iraq government and war. The only people benefitting from this bull are the oil companies not you, not me, not the average person on the street. Once again Georgians suffer. The name of the innocent civilians change but its always average every day shmucks that take the hit for this shit. I call it like it is. Russia is a facist regime which consists of an alliance between organized crime and the former KGB who would be unemployed if they did not work as the professional international enforces for the Russian mob. Its all it is, a large, organized criminal syndicate using an otherwise unemployed professional hitman called Putin. The West will sell their mother out for oil. China is one massive predatory whore. That said, since I consider everyone a bloody whore in this matter, I will not single out the US as evil. It is simply doing what all the other whores do, protect its vital interests. This double standard that America is evil in this matter is bull. The last time I looked there were a lot of people in the brothel wallowing around.

As an aside I think this issue is distorted a bit because of our psychological reaction to the nuclear bomb. Here is what I mean. What is worse-dropping one atom bomb, or doing the exact same damage but over a longer period of time and with more bombs say like what the fire bombings of Dresden did or the bombing of London. These bombardments seem to be classified in our minds as being different but are they? Whether we kill the same amount of people in one day or 6 months, is the final result not the same? Isn't the intent of these bombings a psychological one, i.e., to terrorize the civilians to cause their governments to capitulate? Psychological terror can be the primary purpose of bombings as it was in Afghanistan or it can be done for very specific strategic reasons (taking out a nuclear plant in Syria, Iraq or a bridge or a supply depot) and sometimes both. I think where we get a bit hung up is not with the bombings themselves but with our psychological reaction to them. I think most people if they think bombings are precise and pin point and kill as few people as possible, find them more psychologically acceptable then if they cause wide spread indiscriminate killing of civilians. So for example, when the US first tried to bomb Vietnam into submission, because Americans did not see any civilians dying in the news it didn't illicit a negative reaction. If you remember the negative reaction only started in response to napalm being dropped on civilians and people watching on t.v. a naked little girl running and her skin falling off. People found what Israel did in Lebanon outragerous precisely because they saw pictures of apartments (civilian not military) installations taken down suggesting civilians were unecessarily killed. The reality is had Israel chosen instead to keep its bombing more discriminate, i.e., limit it to missiles from heliocopters to specific targets, they would not have lost the media war. Hezbollah knew this and this is why precisely why it and every terrorist willl shoot its missles from a civilian's home. They want the response to kill civilians and create psychological outrage at the person trying to defend themselves against the missile. Its a classic case of manipulating the media and message and turning the attacker into the victim by manipulating the consequences of bombings. Terrorists do not engage in conventional warfare so they are not visible and isolated from civilians making taking them out impossible without killing innocent civilians which is precisely the point of their tactics. If the PLO or Hezbollah or Hamas engaged in a conventional war, they would be quickly subdued and blown away and no one would fret. Its only because civilians die suddenly there are oturaged moralists decrying the consequence of war. We seem to accept the fact that soldiers can die but civilians should not. Interestingly when Israel tries to show films and videos of missiles coming into Israel the response is its not relevant unless we can see a dead civilian, even then people then turn it into a pissing match and say the side with the most dead civilians is more righteous. The psychological conflicts and contradictions we have when we define and try understand bombings all flows from our primal reaction to mutilated bodies. If we see mutilated bodies, we become upset. If we don't see mutilated bodies because no one is around, they are simply ash it also is easier to assimilate. I think on a subconscious level the a-bomb was designed as a way to speeden up bombings and get to the final consequence faster and in a manner designed to overwhelmingly obliterate physically so as to fend off retaliation. I do think the US military did not properly anticipate the reaction of its own people. I think it had a myopic focus on how it would be perceieved by Tojo and the Japanese government and whether it would and could intimidate them. I do not think they gave too much thought to the reaction ti might cause in Americans or other world citizens or for that matter Japanese civilians. I think what we saw was a strategy focused on psychological coercion of the Japanese government. I don't think anyone was prepared for the actual visions that then transpired. There is a tendency when planning mass death to be removed from its actual consequences and see it in antiseptic terms., i.e., it would simply obliterate in one clean sudden bang and the suddeness of it would force the Japanese decision maker's hand. I really do not think the US was focused on what the vision of those who survived years later, or days later, or months later, would be just as I do not think they dwelled on such visions when Iraq's entire infrastructure was erased or it engaged in the huge blasts it did in Afghanistan which were far more powerful then the a bombs but no one frets over because there was no nuclear fall out or thousands or millions killed in one explosion to be beemed back on the news. It was simply terrorists (non humans anyways) being sent to hell. So in summary my answer is no I do not question what Truman did. I think the fact the bombs were a-bombs and caused such horror is irrelevant to the question-the question is this-if Truman felt that using such a device in his mind based on the best of his abilities and knowledge would result in the long term in less suffering and deaths then carrying out prolonged bombings, then for me that is his justification and I would not judge it uniquely because on one level any killing or bombing or war is morally wrong, but on another level decisions are made during war that seem immoral but are designed to prevent more deaths and if they succeed in doing that, if less people die over the longer term then there is to me cause and effect that can be rationalized since less lives die and although I am loath to define morality by how many people die, with such questions where the construct or question posed assumes war is a given, then I look at it purely from the perspective of what causes the least amount of deaths of civilians and/or soldiers. I think far more people would have died both civilian and soldier had these bombs not forced the issue.

To respond further to your comments Ghost; "You seem to be at a tipping point. To me you are very close to shrugging off the religious coil simply because you have outgrown the confines of the religion. " I shrugged of the religious coil long ago and there was no tipping point or crisis or melodrama. You stated; "But how long can you hear about the persecution of the Jews before it really really gets tiring. I mean, it happened thousands of years ago. But the Jews are STILL whining about it. Even now that they have Israel, they are STILL whining about it. " The reason you hear about it is because you not I bring it up every time you restate the Middle East conflict as simply being unfair to Palestinians and no one else. Its said in response to you. Stop questioning the right of Jews having a country and I promise you won't hear a thing from us. Keep accusing us of being unfair for wanting universal sufferage and telling us we should ignore the thousands of years of what Christians and Muslims did to us and pretend it did not happen, and you will get a mouthful. You stated; "You are uncommon as a person. You are also very passionate as a person, as you have no problems saying what you want and mean. Respect yo." Thanks a lot. I appreciate your being able not to take my intensity personally and to understand I know I am full of contradictions and weaknesses and am willing to be honest with you about it. Much of my opinions come not from idealism unfortunately but existential consequence. I am trying on one level to turn the negative to positive. I sound more cynical and negative then I am about this shit. "I am guessing you are talking about genocide. And not specifically about jews being genocided." Yes. In the case of we Jews we want the world to remember the holocaust is unique in how it was able to focus on us Jews in such a concentrated time period and kill so large a percentage of us by ordinary people being willing to collaborate in many countries. But this does not mean when we say that and want people to never forget this it is because we think other genocides are not as important. Each one is unique and should have its own name and be respected equally but what I will argue until doomsday is we can not take these genocides and lump them in one generic category because that makes them all easier to forget and repeat again. When I discuss genocides in Sudan, Cambodia, Rwanda-Burundi, I do not discuss them as moral pissing matches as to whose genocide was worse. They all stink. The Ukrainian massacre for example is often pitted against the holocaust in a pissing match. I have seen people go so far as to say Jews are responsible for it because they were in the communist party and helped Stalin. Its absurd. Ukrainians collaborated with Nazis in the holocaust. Jews denounced their Jewishness and joined the communist party of Stalin and colaborated with him. This does not mean a damn thing. It doesn't change the holocaust or what happened to Ukrainians and it does not justify putting down the holocaust as unique or saying because Ukrainians assisted the Nazis they deserved to have Stalin starve them to death, etc. Its all bull. It is also bull in the Palestinian conflict for Palestinians to portray themselves as the only victims and all their problems were caused by Zionists. That is pure b.s. The Arab League of Nations had the option of peaceful settlement and resolution and chose instead to force the issue forcing Israel to come into existence by war. It was the Arab League not Israel who deliberately created Palestinian refugees as a political tool. To revise history and ignore what the Arab League did and what the role of the Mufti of Jerusalem was is b.s. Israeli policies have exasperated the problem no doubt. But they did not create it as you suggest they did. To suggest a Jewish state made up of less then 2% of all the Middle East could not be accommodated byt e Arab world is absolute b.s. and to pretend it did not come about because of Muslim sharia law and religious beliefs that Jews have no right to land or citizenship unless they become Muslims is also b.s. I didn't create Islam or dhimmitude nor did any other Jew. Nor did we Jews define ourselves as infidel or cursed Christ killers. The so called peace loving Christians and holders of the only truth, Muslims did that and its precisely why I hate religions. For me it has given people the right to rape and kill and be savage and in particular to my people. So I despise it for that reason and I despise it when I see my people using religion to do the same thing. You stated; After my Oma's death last year, I found out she was a very religious person. I really do not know what faith she followed, however she held God close to her. She never openly discussed her faith and beleifs. One, I never asked , because I never knew. Now I have all sorts of questions that might possibly go unanswered. What I do know is that it was personal to her and no one else. She had faith and confidence in it ,so as she never had to talk about it. " People with faith as you say and I agree exactly do not need to go around talking about it. Words are bullshit. Words mean nothing. Its our actions that say everything. Its how we live, how we conduct ourselves. That is why I spit venom with my words, but in real life I am not as venemos or as angry as I sound. I know better. I don't go around talking about my religious beliefs. First off they are my private business. Secondly they are insane and I would not want to frighten people or for that matter make them laugh hysterically. Lol. The only thing I will really lecture people on seriously is that humans are conflicted and everything we do is about struggling to repress our savage behaviour and to do that we need to use logic and reason and resist our primal instinct to fling poo and bananas at one another. You state; "Alright so we have detracted from the main topic points." Actually no. The point was and remains, in the Middle East conflict, are two conflicted parties both with existential despair and both fighting to exist, neither right or wrong, both doomed if they can't find a way to use reason and logic to pull themselves out of the poo flinging and for that matter learn to ignore well meaning people like you who have no idea that you are fueling the conflict by thinking you should cheer one side on more then the other. There is nothing to cheer. Don't sit down in the spectator's arena and scream for one side is what I say. Boycott the cock fight. The best way to defuse a cock fight is to assure it has no audience that will feed its frenzy like gasoline to a fire.

Argus, The US is just as much a victim as is anyone else. All countries are being held hostage to the oil conglamorates and their stooge puppet Bush and now the Russian mob demanding a piece of their action. We know what Putin is, a facist thug and hired gun for the mob. He was otherwise unemployed. We know what Bush is, a stooge, a bafoon, a prancing idiot on a string that the oil network has used to control the US. US interests and foreign policy have been crippled and destroyed by the oil conglamorates and their Bush stooges. The US has been raped for over 8 years by the oil betwork as Bush sits their giggling like a baboon. Did anyone really expect the Russian mob to sit there and not want a piece of the action? How stupid does it get. The oil network pranced into Georgia thinking this was Nigeria. Talk about stupid. Where the f..ck did they think they were? Did they not think they needed to sit down first with the mob and pay a terrirotial fee? That is all this is about. The oil barons are being shaken down. Putin is just a gun for hire at this point. He needs the mob to survive and build his own empire. So they are in an alliance. They could turn on each other in a split second. As for the Bush legacy of selling out the US and crippling it permanently so it could engineer a series of corupt contractual alliances with Haliburton and reep record profits, its all fate accompli. The only question is, does the next US President have any chance of distancing US interests from these oil interests. The next President will if they are willing to renew a working relationship with the Pentagon and cowtow to its desire to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but be able to engage in world wide engagements against terrorists with quick moving mobile strike forces. The days of large conventional armies and expending economies on occupying countries is over. Afghanistan and Iraq once again show what took Russia down in the first place, what took the US down in Vietnam and why even the Russian thugs aren't going to leave their facist thug soldiers in Georgia for too long. They know damn well they will turn into a rogue army and turn on their masters. The Russian army is running around raping and pillaging. Does that sound like a disciplined strike force or a bunch of baboons let loose because at the moment they suit the mob's purpose? Civilians will die because of some oil executives and mobsters engaging in a pissing match that could have more easily been conducted in some f..cking casino in Monaco..

Get it right. Anti-Buish foreign policy ranting. It is precisely because I am pro US I criticize his foreign policy as being the worst possible thing for US interests overseas and what has led to this fiasco. The Bush legacy is about protecting oil corporations and Haliburton and not give one's rat ass about US interests. You want Russia out of Georgia, its simple. They are thugs. They are brutal facist thugs looking for money and leverage in future oil deals. What do you think this is about? Its a shake down. Its your stooge Bush an his oil conglamorate being shaken down and laughed at by the Russian mob demanding a piece of the action. The mob has just started. When the mob shakes you down once and gets away with it, its just the first of many and that is what is unfolding, a realignment and the Russian mob trying to get a piece of the action. Did you really think the oil cartel would march into Georgia and dictate to Russia the terms of business?

Time to address some of Bush-Chaney's hero worshipping. Oh Bushboy you stated; "Putin was boxed long before that...which way to Iraq ?! " Absolute and utter nonsense. Putin has never been boxed, limited, curtailed, threatened, disciplined, or put in his place as much as you want to pretend such a thing happened. For eight years he has been ridiculing Bush on the world stafe every chance he gets and all one has to do is follow the progression of foreign policy and economic intiiatives under his reign and note how in each and every negotiation he has had with the U.S. he got what he wanted and exposed Bush for what he was a babbling idiot with no depth or understanding of world affairs and how foreign policy of all nations has intricate strategic imperatives that can conflict and so need understandings to avoid unecessary cross conflict. Bish's foreign policy reflects his own brain damage and therefore myopic thinking and that of the pathetic Dick Chaney-it has no understanding of any other nation's needs-it sees the U.S. as the centre of the universe able to impose itself at will and that is precisely why it is cripppled and bankrupt. Bush is the idiot whose hands are stuck in tar and he can't move. You should watch that Disney cartoon with Briar Rabbit. Or may I suggest you go back in time and read Pogo comics from the 60's-they were a satire on precisely the politics of the ignorance that gave birth to Bush and your naivite as to how the world works. Putin is a highly intelligence and ruthless man someone Bush can not understand or ever be able to understand. Its like comparing a person with Down's syndrome to a gifted child. Its cruel. You stated; "That would make him a very important moron. Something wrong with this logic...... ...and where does most Iranian oil go (not west)." Two things, your response is not logical at all. You are suggesting because Bush is the US President he can not be a moron because he's important? What kind of logic is that? Do you think he is the first world leader who was an incompetent bumbling bafoon. Why don't you study your own country's history and understand why if you are going to have a moron in office like Bush or Reagan they need to be surrounded by competent people who puppet manage them. Nixon for all his problems had a mind capable of grasping foreign policy and understanding the Kissinger world of chess. Idiot boy Carter had the Polish paranoid Zbignew Bresienski or however you spell that boy's name. Bush fired his Secretary of State and chose instead to put Rice in Powell's place precisely because he ignores traditional US foreign policy and anything his military has ever told him which makes him a prize baboon. Only a baboon would rely on Haliburton whores and the oil indusrtry to dictate his foreign and economic policies as he has done. You judge a man by the company he keeps. In Bush's case his legacy is not just a permanent crippling debt that will harm every American for centuries to come and limit its strategic power in the rest of the world, but its a legacy of surrounding himself with morons. You stated; "Yep...US crosses oceans while Putin crosses the street." Again this reflects your extreme naivite as to how foreign policy works and how nations interact on world markets. Here's a hint, the fact that someone gets in a plane and travels is not indicative of the influence they have on world affairs although if you think travelling on airplanes means someone is important that would not surprise me. Lord knows what you think driving a Hummer means? Lol. Come on get real. More importantly even using your ridiculous suggestion as to measuring world influence are you even aware Bush showed the world he is a moron precisely because he never travelled and indicated any awareness of any other nation's culture or politics when on the rare occassion he did travel? Are you serious? It is the very fact Bush isolated himself from the world and refused to travel that evidenced to the world he was ignorant and a bafoon. You stated' "Well, it sure as hell won't be Canada to the rescue!" Again spoken like a true stereotype ignorant American who thinks the world is saved by the US and Bush and can ridicule countries you think are inferior because they don't have big armies. Listen up-where do you think all your energy is coming from? You know before you open your mouth and suggest the US is so big and bad and has no help from anyone, why don't you make an effort to find out where your hydro-electricity, oil, natural gas and water comes from and who is the primary supplier of it at far cheaper prices then Saudi Arabia or Venezuela and what would happen if Canada wasn't there to provide such things. Where the hell do you think your US economy would be without an energy cow colony next door to suck dry for its needs? Maybe what we need to do in Canada is elect some lunatic like Chavez-and instead of sending our energy to the U.S. send it all to China. Hey why not. They own everything else these days. Then let's see how your Bush nation fairs. That arrogance is precisely what got Bush into the mess he is in-this John Wayne go it alone arrogance. Here is my point and by the way it was echoed verbatum by the former Ambassador to Georgia last night on the Lehrer report keeping in mind the guy was a Clinton appointment so of course you would disagree-US support of Georgia was only token financially and Bush failed miserably as a world leader by time and time again ignoring conflicts between Georgia and Russia years ago when he should have sent in high level government representatives to mediate their disputes so they would not develop to the point they have. All this was preventable had the US acted like a world leader during the last 8 years instead of ignoring the Georgia Russia conflicts. Georgia has an elected leader who heroworships Bush. In return for that heroworship hasn't gotten Georgia a damn thing. That is the cold cruel reality. If Georgia has obtained anything, its because its people chose to stand up and be counted. Let's get real. The former Soviet states that have come out from under its tyranny have major economic problems. If they are lucky like Georgia they have natural resources or pipelines that make them strategically important to the West's economy. But get real. Any nation geographically close to Russia knows that Mr. Putin is ruthless and they can not rely on the West to degend them. Many will be looking at the Georgia fiasco and start toning down their previously harsh comments to Russia and that is precisely the point Putin is wanting to achieve-regaining respect through fear and intimidation-pure KGB and the Russian way. If Putin feels his power base is embarassed or threatened like the head of the Russian Mafia he is, he will do what any gangster does-take someone out and leave their blown up body on display as a message to others not to mess with him. The West is going to sit there and take it up the ass just as they have with Saudia Arabia and Venezuela, precisely because they can not do a damn thing about it militarily. The West need Russia's energy resources, pure and simple and Putin knows it. Unlike Bush, Putin will not embarass the West and try put it in its place like Bush tried to do in reverse with Russia these last 8 years thinking Russia was finished and would not fight back to encroaching Western influence. Russia knows damn well the West is its captive energy client and its not about to bite the people it will make oil addicts to its future foreign policy aspirations but it will strategically humiliate to remind the West of its place. You seriously underestimate Putin's agenda to become top dog again by controlling the West with energy. He will engage in limited cruel military exercises but no this is not some idiot who will expend and bankrupt his country on wars he can not win simply to show the world how tough he is. He doesn't need another Afghanistan which is what took Russia down and is taking the West's economy down as well and that is something, precisely something the Bush morons have never understood-that power does not come from military invasions-it comes from being able to control and be competitive in world economic markets and diversify one's economy so 90% of one's industry is not dependent on selling military technology and hardware as is the case with the U.S. and was the case with the old USSR. Now you talk of Iran selling its oil to China. Duh. Have you any idea that Iran was able to succeed in changing the world currency in which oil is traded? Have you any idea what that means and what its implication has been to the world economy and all nations heavily dependent on oil? Have you any idea that by selling all its natural has and oil to China and ridiculously cheap prices, it has enabled China to strangle the world economy and cripplethe West with predatory economic practices which like a large out of control cancerous tumour have weaken the world's trade markets (immunity system) creating huge trade deficits and debs owing to China? Did it ever dawn on you that by fueling China, Iran is taking down the US's economy and it also plays right into Russia's hands meaning the West becomes more dependent on Russian oil that now must come from the Caspian sea and therefore through Afghanistan? Cause and effect. You should try study it. Duh duh and more duh. Its called strategic positioning. You see some people unlike Bush think one step ahead and realize there is cause and effect out there and the world and power can be achieved and ocntrolled by doing something other then bashing someone and trying to forcefully take their purse. The days of invading and controlling nations to control their economy are over and yet there is the West in Afghanistan in the alleged name of democracy, propping as undemocratic a regime as there is to protect oil pipelines and pretend its protecting these oil pipelines because it wants Afghanis to be free. Give me a break. If a facist totalitarian regime is willing to protect Western economic interests you won't hear a peep from them and its precisely why so many Western nations won't dare criticize China and allow it to enable the genocide in Sudan to continue. Today's world is controlled through the inter-net and stock and commodity markets and far more subtle forms of coercion than GI Joe. The US Army was turned by Bush into nothing more then a cheap source of security guards for oil pipelines and if you think these once proud armed forces appreciate that they have been turned into cheap security guards while there are far more armed soldiers in Iraq in the private Haliburton army getting paid millions to piss people off who then take it out on the army, you are dead wrong. If it had its way it would be mobile, far smaller in operational unit structire, decentralized, fast moving, and quick hit and run in its tactics and it would go in, take out its foe and then get the f..ck out. It had no interest in being a civilian security guard force. That is Donald Runsfeld's legacy-turning the US Army into a cheap security guard force for Haliburton business interests. The US army was turned into a sitting lame duck in Iraq and a target for any moron idiot to blow up while it tries to protect Haliburton's contract and oil pipelines. Only a baboon would think you can protect an oil pipeline by a forced military occupation that alienates the masses and forces them to remain unemployed and have zero financial interest in seeing those oil pipelines be protected. Good God man have Coca Cola, MacDonald', Nestles, Bayer, Colgate-Palmolive, Bayer, Adidas, Nike, Shell Oil, not taught you a thing about how to control a country's government and people? You don't always have to use missiles and explosives and send the World Wrestling Enterntainment wrestlers to these countries to entertain the troops. There are other more subtle ways then sending John Cena and Triple H to Itaq. Do you see China using an army to invade and control? Did you see Japan use an army to invade and control to achieve what it did? Their strangle hold the world came about precisely because unlike the baboon Bush they know when to smile and bow and act all civilized when they are shoving their hand up someone's buttox.

Absolutely.

Agree with your analysis. British Petroleum by the way is the biggest player in Georgia if anyone is interested.

I really appreciate you reading my responses and taking the time to converse with me. Thank you. You are a genuine guy making a strong effort to try understand me and I admit I am a very intense guy on this subject and appreciate your efforts. Yes what I said is confusing. I am deliberate when I say that it is intentionally confusing. Yes would argue I have a very real human struggle and internal struggle and you know exactly why. You aren't actually confused about the fact I am saying I am confused! My belief in the need for a Jewish state I am the first to admit is based on existential struggle. In an ideal world no one would need a state. I concede that. As "intellects" you and I both know at one level all states and all nationalities in one sense are just tribal names and create artificial distinctions. So you see yes for me being Jewish is of course at times a contradiction and to me me it is a responsibility I must honour not something I actively chose. I didn't convert to it. I was born into it. So yes believe it or not for many of us Jews its not religion that makes us Jewish its the common history of the past that we feel obliged to honour. Hell I hate all organzied religions for the same reasons. For me being a Jew is an existential responsibility. Because it killed so many who died so I would be free, I can't ever forget that. But it doesn't mean I want Palestinians killed or to hate Christians or Muslims or anyone else. Shit no. Part of me is very proud of my Jewish legacy but of course there are parts of Jewish history I don't like. I am not partial to slewings and tribal wars or the concept of an angry God which is much of the religions stories in the Old Testament. My vision of God is not mainstream Judaism. It is one of an abstract thing behind everything that has no personal connect to you and me because it deliberately send us from it to create our own destinies and it can't interfere. That is as religious as I get either that or telling you I believe fractal theory or the speed of light makes the most sense to me in terms of religious doctrine to prove a God exists. But that is just my personal opinions like your being an atheist. But its why I say yes it is possible for me to be a Jew as an existential consequence and honour it that way but not necessarily by confirming to its mainstream religious doctrines. I am more at home with Taoism or Buddism or Spinoza then visions of God slewing things. More to the point even if I wanted to assimilate and deny who I was and loath myself I would never do it-too many people died so I could be a free Jew and free Canadian and it is precisely why I am a Canadian first, Jew second and human third although I think its all bullshit and wish it didn't have to be that way and like I said in an ideal world, people would not have had to die for me. But since they did, I can't disrespect their dying for me. Israel to me is simply a democratic expression of survival for Jews but it was never meant to exclude Palestinians from having their own nation or telling anyone else we are superior. The people who try suggest we Zionists feel we are superior and chosen are full of shit. Its not what Israel means. Israel and Zionism recognize all religions and seperate them from the state in terms of the right to worship them. The part of Jewishness the state is designed to assure can never be wiped out again is the national expression through Israeli citizenship. I know its complicated to understand but its why many Jewish Israelis are not religious at all but are Jews and Israelis. So yah its confusing what I tell you because I am not typical of Jews who would have more mainstream thoughts about the actual religious part, but I am similiar to those Jews who believe Israel is a necessity for us. Its confusing to you of course, because Jewish is not as I said just people who follow the religion like converts, its people like me who were born into the legacy and connected to it because of the deaths of our ancestors and grandparents and great grandparents. I hope that explaisn it. By the way one of the things I do is take in summer students from Germany and Austria. I have done it for some time. I do it on purpose so the next generation sees me as a Canadian, a Jew and as a human and it breaks the cycle of fear of Austrians and Germans I would otherwise have. Its my way of talking to the next generation and trying to explain to them they should know what happened to Jews in Germany not just because it happened to us but because it is happening again in Sudan, etc. and when push comes to shove, by being Canadian and a Jew are very important, but weez all human and that is the part they can identify with. Also just for your curiousity, if I did not think in my mind beyond any doubt its Canada first, Jew second, human third, I would go to Israel. I am proud to be Canadian and everything it has allowed me to be as a human and a Jew so I will be damned if it does not always come first. But again on another level, I know we are all just humans and I do not want to use these distinctions to hate people, just to make it more easier to respect them. People like me like Israelis and pro Israeli supporters no Israel has made mistakes and has challenges. We do not paint the country as perfect. We just defend it though when we think the criticism being levelled at it is not being equally applied to the other parties. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate that.

Oh Argus; In response to your words; "But he/she's not a Canadian. That's clear." Uh not its not and even if she isn't she is most certainly entitled to her opinions. Remember its called freedom of speech. You stated; "And that's one of my problems with bringing in so many immigrants. Most of them are still fiercly attached to whatever ignorant beliefs and policies their craphole cultures and countries believed in, and I don't think we need to import those types of attitudes, especially in large numbers." That is a sweeping, subjective negative stereotype and like I said it dettracts from your otherwise excellent discourse. You know full well this country is full of people, some sob's living here out of convenience and others who are genuinely proud to be here and loyal Canadians. You or I have no way of knowing who is what unless they say or do something disloyal to Canada. Until then all you do is hate monger when you make such comments. I prefer to focus on your comments when you present your political views, not the speculated idiocies of others. You stated; "Are you suggesting that other powers put Georgia up to trying to grab back their provinces?" I think the European Union and the US led Georgia on and yes used it to probe Russia to see how Russia would react. Nothing suprising with that kind of analysis. Countries probe each other's positions using proxy third parties all the time. That is just my personal opinion. I have zero proof for such a theory and admit as much. "It might be that Georgians were encouraged by friendly overtures from the West, and supportive noises, but they were foolish to provoke the Russians with a man like Putin in power, and I think anyone in the west would have predicted a strong response and would not have suggested to the Georgians that they do this." I am not sure how much of Georgia's behaviour was deliberate and premeditated and manipulated by the Wes and how much is genuine. I suspect its a mix of both. "I'm not sure what you're suggesting here; is it that freedom only comes with wealth?" What I am suggesting is yes Georgia is certainly democratic in the sense of a free vote and certainly more freedom then it had under Russia and that is a great thing, don't get me wrong. All I am saying is Georgia however is a small and weak country who can never truly be free of the larger world market forces being played out for oil and natural resources. You stated; " Georgians are free in that they have a relatively free press, freedom of religion and association, and can elect or throw out the government of the day. Same for Ukraine." Absolutely, but what I am saying is the countries that have come out from the control of the old Soviet Union, i.e., Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Georgia, they all have fragile economies and all these countries have been assured by the West they will be part of the "democractic" European Union. The question now is how far is the European Union willing to go to stand with these nations for their independence? Its one thing to talk the talk, its another thing when Russia is invading. Just how long ago was it the West did nothingw hile the Soviets crushed Hungary, Poland, Cezchoslovakia. Do any of us believe the so called democratic European Union will do anything? No one can do a bloody thing and Putin knows it. He has been laughing at the West now for over 8 years. He has sent a clear signal he will do what the f..ck he wants in the part of the world he feels should be his to control and there is not a damn thing the West will do. Putin has given the loudest message to the West yet about how weak we are because of our dependence on oil. The US is a spent military force unable to respond and bankrupt. So who else does that leave to stand up to Putin? If Putin sets up a puppet state in Georgia it simply repeats history and if you think the invasion sounds a lot like the Hitler going into Poland just wait. These proxy wars never end with one colony taken back. It spreads. Its simply history repeating. The Bear declined and inhaled, now it it exhales and tries to expand again with an arrogance that comes from oil wealth. Anyone who did not see Putin as a ruthless facist years ago is dreaming. He is quintessential KGB. He is trained to be a lethal soldier. It was only a matter of time and quite frankly I think Putin would have sat quite content to do nothing for another time period had Bush not been such a jack-ass and caused him to lose face in the macho world of posturing by showing what Putin felt was disrespect with missile placement in Czechoslovakia. Its typical American ignorance. They have this moron for a President who is oblivious to how his comments and tactics are perceived by others. The Bush foreign policy is classic myopic John Wayne stupidity with zero subtlety. This all could have been avoided with some diplomacy 2 years ago. I see Putin as nothing more then another tyrant feeling horny in the light of Bush's pathetic lame duck idiocy for the last two years in regards to foreign policy. Putin has basically signalled the Middle East to consider the US a joke. The only question is was it intentional or is he egging Iran on into confronting the US as well. If that does happen, its Russia that stands to make money. If Iran's oil wells are blown up, suddenly its Russian oil the West needs. Putin is playing the US like the prize putz it is crippled by Bush's disasterous foreign policy. All that said this does not change the fact Russia has acted illegally and like one would expect from a facist regime. The people of Georgia are on their own and that is too bad. They should not be.

I was in heaven telling YWH how righteous you are and to save a seat next to him for you. I am back now. p.s. she says Canada should send Rita McNeil to your house to sing for you. You are worthy of such praise. p.s.s. now these super-rogues are...oh I can't wait for the universal eye of truth to tell us all who is acceptable and who is not.

Hey 'GostHacked' hi. I am responding to your comments which I place in quotes. See you are stilll alive. "Wow Rue." When I was young I could make gorgeous women say that for good reasons. Now they say that when they see me struggling to try hold in my stomach and begin choking. "I said Israel was undemocratic. I did not say the Jews were undemocratic." Yah I know what you said. I didn't respond stating you said all Jews were undemocratic either-just those who beleive it is their right to have universal sufferage in the form of a state. "Actually it is an Athiest/Agnostic tone. I am not Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim ect ect." Actually I apologize. I did not mean to suggest I know what your actual personal religious beliefs are and do not. None of my business. I do respectfully disagree in the sense that find much of what paraphrase in my opinion verbatum to ancient certain Christian ideological approaches to the notion of Judaism as a collective identity and what it perceives as this collective being evil and in need of cleansing/ You stated; "The creation of Israel was out of preserving the Jewsih traditions/faiths nothing more." There its comments like that where I could swear you sound like a classic Christian anti-semite. By the way your comment to me reflects a classic Christian bias towards what Jewish means. You may be an atheist but I must ask where do you think you got the above concept from? The creation of Israel is not simply about preserving Jewish faith or traditions. In case you have not noticed many many Israelis consider themselves Jews in a national sense expressed through the nation of Israel but do not necessarily practice classic Judaism. Being Jewish is not Fiddle on the Roof. Its not just about tradition and faith. Please. We are not all Zero Mostel dancing in Fiddler on the Roof. Your quaint image of Israel is based on a with due respect ridiculous stereotype. Israel was came about as an existential response. It is what Jews did to survive as Jews. It is not just about faith or tradition-its about staying alive in a world that does not want you. You stated; "Jews can survive without a country dedicated to their ways of life." Again it is ridiculous for you to make the above comment. Where do you get off assuming you know what is good for Jews and what they need to survive? What perspective do you think that is based on. See you say its atheist-I say its based on the fact you live in a world where you are not a minority so make such presumptions because you do not understand what it means to be a minority with a history of being constantly wiped out by everyone and anyone. Easy for you to lecture. But silly. All you do is reflect your cultural bias of being a majority and assuming everyone is loved just like you. Perhaps what you need is a little hatred at your perceived physical or cultural or religious beliefs to understand what I am saying. Tell you what, grow a beard, put on a yamacha, walk around like that for a month then get back to me with the above comment. Yous tated' " There is only one other 'country' on the planet that is based on religion. That is the Vaticant. " You are absolutely and utterly wrong. It reflects your complete lack of understanding of Islam and sharia law and how Islam and the state are not seperated. It also reflects your lack of understanding of the role of Hinduism in India, and Buddism in many nations (although technically it could be argued Buiddism is not a religion but a philosophy) or the relationship between the Catholic Church or other Christian sects and ruling governments in many counties. More to the point it again reflects your lack of understanding as to what Israel and Zionism are about. Israel is not just based on religion. That is precisely why in its constitution it allows Christians and Muslims the exact same religious rights as it does Jews. No its not Islam and Sharia law where the state imposes religious belief. No the state of Israel preserves Jews as a people. You do something again very typical of Christians and Muslims. You think being a Jew is a religious thing. No its much older then Christianity or Islam so its evolved into a different meaning-religion is only one component of its identity, just one. You stated; "Here is another thing. I am very tired of hearing how the Jews are always being vitimized." Perhaps if you stopped lecturing Jews and Israelis about their identity and things you don't understand you won't have to listen to them or me correct you. Psst. Jews don't convert people like Christians and Muslims. In fact I doubt any Jew has walked up to you and said hey you I am a victim. I think with due respect, you engage in debates about Israel and Jews and then are told by us you are making sweeping statements that are not true. You state; " I have been hearing it (Jews are victims) for years and years. Ever since I started listening to the news when I was a kid. They are always the victim. ALWAYS. " Sounds like you have very selective and bias ears. Interesting how that is all you hear. Tell me now, how long do you think I have had to hear people like you talking about my people the way you do...say now what came first your presumptious comments about Jews and Israelis or me? Tell me are you suggesting the media is dominated by Jews bombarding you with Jew messages? Excuse me if I find your last comment extremely subjective and hard to swallow. Yous tate; "The end of the war the Winners (the west and Europe) divided up the Middle East. Then the UN mandate said that the Caliphate must be trashed. With that, it was decided that Israel was to be created in the middle of the former Caliphate. " Again all the above comment does is reflect your complete and absolute misunderstading of the origins of Israel, Transjordan, and the current conflict. Your simplistic attempt at taking a complex series of political developments that evolved over thousands of years and reduce it to the above is as absurd as you suggesting you are being bombarded by the media and its pro Jew bias. You stated; "We could have created Israel anywhere." Who is we? Where did you learn this patronizing tone of voice from? Excuse me if I believe it is the society you were born into based on an ideology of people who have no clue or make any attempt to understand what Israel is, what Jews are and why you and your ancestors who most certainly were Christian, have no say nor right nor moral basis to assume you will tell Jews what place they must hold. Read back your words. So "we" i.e., presumably the Western Christian world, could do what you say? Put the Jews in their place anywhere you want right? How dare we not know our place and presume to be the masters of our own destiny. Damn uppity Jews. Can they not know their place? You stated; "I am sure we could have set up something in Europe, or even maybe Asia." Oh how Christian of you. Who the f..ck asked you? Tell me now are you that ignorant of history? For someone so sick and tired of hearing how Jews are victims how the hell did you even hear that message if you have no clue that no one in Europe or Asia wanted or wants a Jewish nation in their midst/ Are you being wilfully ignorant? Say now, I know, lets create a Jewish state in oh the middle of Europe. We can build it on Aushwitz. You stated; " But that spot where Israel is has signifigance for the Jews. Ancient times .... So, if they just wanted some land to be who they are, they could have done that anywhere on the planet." You really do have to make the effort to understand why Jews would choose where they did to create a nation. It was not just based on ancient religious beliefs (although its true that has a lot to do with it) it is also about going back to where Jews first came from. As for your continued reference to the world being a welcoming place willing to create a nation anywhere from them it agains imply reflects your ignorance of Jewish history and how the world treated Jews and that fits in with your comment that you are sick and tired of hearing about Jews being victims-what you really mean is you shut your mind down and close your mind to the concept of the world not wanting the Jews anywhere and the fact that the Jews were not interested in going anywhere but where they came from. You asked me; "So you are a self hating Jew?" No not at all. I do not hate myself or anyone else for being a Jew. I can't stand everyone equally. Read what I write. I make no apologies for being Jewish or pro Israeli or pro Zionist. I make an apology for being a human though. I loath my human traits. The Jewish part of me I see no point in loathing. It would make as much sense as me loathing your beliefs and hating you for being an atheist. I have you precisely because you are a human doing what humans do, claiming to think but using your brain to avoid having to think. Hate myself for the same reasons. That is why I said I prefer dogs, horses, cats, birds, etc., although I do like the women's beach volley ball players at the olympics and certain women athletes at the olympics, such as those Jamaican runners, some of the divers, that Russian pole vaulter and some of the swimmers. I am willing to tolerate women. They can be awesome and smell real nice and inspire me to do something other then throw feces at another ape. I believe any hope for humanity will come from kissing the hand of a woman and holding the door for her. Other then that I hate humans they bite and pollute.