theloniusfleabag

Dear KK, Campaigning can be 'fixed' too. Especially when fear is a primary motivator. Something the 'church' depends heavily on, no matter what 'religion'. If 4 out of 7 vote 'according to their conscience' and it is judged to be wrong by the 'church' then they could reasonably fear that 4 out of 7 will be 'punished' regardless of how they voted. To give a horrible yet cheeky credence to this fact, I read a t-shirt somewhere that read "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead".

Dear all, The following is a quote from a book I have read. I wonder if it applies to Mr. Bush's ([and/or] president of the USA) current and future actions, as it would certainly come from his beliefs. "In the nature of things, it would after all be logiacal that one goal should be advocated by only one association, and that, reasonably speaking, several associations should not pursue the same goal. Thus, an association or a party (or country) is founded which, according to it's program, should either bring about the elimination of existing evils or the achievement of a particular state of affairs in the future. Once such a movement has been called to life, it possesses a certain practical 'right of priority'. It should really be obvious that all men who fight for the same goal should join a movement and thereby add to it's strength, thus better to serve the common purpose". While this quote is vague on it's purpose, the question is really 'what is the 'correct' cause to serve? Also, 5 bonus points for whomever guesses the author of the quote.

Dear Mr. Read, I have seen some American news broadcasts, and some American 'Movies based on a true story' and the 'lies and have truths' are so pro- american it makes one shudder. I do not equate this to "American Media has no free speech", however. I can only agree that "That's business". It means nothing in the west, if it won't sell either. Who puts profit above integrity as their mantra more so than anyone? The USA. Anti-americanism isn't a 'rabid disease', it is common sense. Not against the individuals, of course, just their value system. Freedom, equality, justice etc have long ago taken a back seat to greed.PS. Earlier, you stated I could not find this statement anywhere in my post. Please clarify, if possible.

Dear KK, That is a loaded statement, to be sure. Some 'arms bazaars' do occur throught the world, regularly. One can buy almost anything, for arms manufacturers must display and sell their wares. This includes both M-16s and Exocet missiles. Even if the article were true, it doesn't mean that any laws were broken.

Dear Morgan, This is quite likely the most asinine things I have ever read on this forum.If you wish to debate facts, please read links if you request them I have provided proof as per your request and see that you have not even deigned to research one of them. Rather, you attack the 'left' with the childlike impotence of ignorance. It does not cement your arguments in the slightest.

Dear KK, History would show that an Islamic radical would be most likely. I wonder what would happen if an 'anti-american' wins. Hostages at the US embassy? A deal struck for the hostages to include arms money for a third world dictator whose interests coincide with the US this week? Of course, this only makes the papers once in a while, so we may never know.

Dear Morgan, Nonsense. Especially if my personal moral values are above both. If you believe that there is no Palestine outside of Jordan or Y'Israel, then you should not refer to them as Palestinians. Perhaps you and Mr. read should call them 'the tresspassers'. Perhaps we should reset the clock, and go with what the 'pre-WWII British' designated as borders. 1/4 of the globe belonged to them. go back a hundred years from that, or even 2, and divide up the US between Spain, Britain, Mexico, and Britain and see what was left. A few state built on slavery, and oppression of those that were here first. People were smelting copper in the ME a thousand years before Abraham. History has it's limits. Biblical history is a farce.

Dear Morgan, Go to www.israelnationalnews.com, and click on 'caricatures' by Jacky. Image 12 and 15 are what I refer to. there are also references to Mein Kampf and other things you mention.Please read a few of the op-ed articles before you state It is both who refuse to come to terms.I have never 'supported' Arafat, the PLO, Hamas, etc, I have merely pointed out the fact that Israel is not blameless. I dislike it when people assume that one must 'choose sides' as Bush and Israel use as is their wont. Being anti-zionist does not assume one is pro-Palestine. I would rather see these biblical lands become 'the Holy Land' and have neither side assume complete control. Both seem to think that G-d or Allah called the shots centuries ago, and are fighting to this day under those auspices. I find it utterly ridiculous.

Dear Mr. Read, This is not entirely accurate. While you may have Canadian Jewish friends that would accept this notion, most in Israel do not. The majority in Israel feel that 'Yesha' is promised them by G-d himself. Even the editorial cartoons in Arutz Sheva show contept for the US and it's 'roadmap'. There was even a cartoon showing Condoleeza Rice nailing a 'roadmap' over a red-faced Ariel Sharon's mouth. Hardly a 'willing' agreement. Most of the op-eds are dead set against ANY palestinian state. It is the 'promised land', not Palestine.

Dear KK, You are right, logical heads should prevail, but unfortunately don't. Not on the Palestinians' side, nor the Israeli's. It has been said that Israel wants the Golan not only as a buffer, but because 1/3 of their water supply comes from there. Dear Morgan, I do try to refer to a lot of Mr. Hanson's points of the perfidy of China, and others, and do not think that these are valid excuses for others. Saudia Arabia was a factor in the Israeli equation, but they were very close to the US, and suffered no condemnation for their actions. It is interesting that the House of (Ibn) Saud is a tremendous friend and ally of the US, and the 'Arch-enemy' of Osama Bin Laden. I also 'trust' Israel having nukes, it just rankles me that they will defy and deny yet still expect that trust. I do not think they would ever use it for expansionist themes, but they do not seem to rule it out, either.

Dear rightturnonred, It depends on how 'pre' you mean. Obviously Iraq had WMDs because they used them. It was, however, a long time in the past. They claimed to have had none in recent years and history seems to be showing that (except for 1 vial of botulin found in a scientist's fridge) Saddam had told the truth.With regards to 1441 being 'concensus-proving', that resolution was written by the US/UK only, with coersion and cajoling garnering the rest of the 'coalition of the coerced'. Most of 1441 refers to the old UN mandates and resolutions that the US/UK used to justify a new one. Let's see them try that one on Israel, or the US themselves.

Dear Morgan, I shall only reply to the first two, as they are closely related. Lots of times, aid monies do not make it to the 'poor' of a country, the funds get 'skimmed' heavily, usually going to the military, and exacerbating problems. It would be expected, and looks to be true, that Palestine would be doing the same thing. Arafat should be removed for many reasons, skimming monies from charities for terrorism would only be one of them. My brother worked in Africa for 4 years, and he told me to NEVER send money for famine relief, etc. 50% comes off the top for the dictatorial regime and they are usually the ones causing the problems in the first place. At the time my brother was there, it was the Ethiopian famine in the early 80's. As cold-hearted as it seemed, he said, there was no doubt that western aid contributed to making things worse.

Dear KK, Not sure what has to do with the present thread? I merely was responding to Morgans statement that Israel was 'the little guy' in those wars. They were badly losing the Yom Kippur war and only timely, massive intervention by the US saved them. But not realy, the threat of 'going nuke' mobilized US intervention, so Israel really won the war by their own actions.

Dear Morgan, At what?

Dear KK, Until Islam is gone from the ME, there will be no 'thriving democracy'. It is anathema to Islam. On various scales, of course. Not all will turn to terrorism or even violence. However, the battle cannot be won conventionally. (by that I mean conventional weapons, or even any weapons). It is, for now, far beyond the 'retarded pygmies' of the US' abilities to 'reason'. Perhaps we should declare war on Jehovah's Witnesses as they are one of the true 'devout' who actively proselytize.

Dear Morgan, Are you suggesting that land taken in conquest becomes legitimate property? A dangerous precedent, yet a timeless one. Did the coalition forces in Gulf I take away Iraq's 'legitimate' annexation of Kuwait? Does the US/UK now own Iraq? Even they are not so foolish. I'm sure Syria has been on the US' wanted list since the time they killed a CIA station chief and left his body by the 'road to Damascus'. Still, they must serve the US in some capacity. PS. Read 'The Samson Option' by Seymour M. Hersch. It tells why the US had to provide instant military support to Israel to avoid nuclear war.

Dear rightturnonred, It is a reference to the 'homeland security' considering those carrying almanacs in the US as possible terrorist suspects, as they could garner 'intel' on possible 'vital targets' from such material.A few spelling corrections, if I may You could have dropped the 'r' and used 'pogroms', which is more correct, and 'bait' is more correct than 'bate'. I shall not wait with 'bated breath' for your reply.

Dear Morgan, Now you are getting it. I grow weary of large-browed superstitious neanderthals dictating world policy. Getting closer! We stand upright now, and can formulate ideals never thought of before. Some still prefer the value of the biggest club, however. Pro-Arafat? Don't think so. Not sure where you made that tremendous leap. Could it be that those who oppose one philosophy do not automatically support the opposite? Could it be that there is more than two ways of looking at things? Perhaps I subscribe to neither the west' nor the east's view, but the correct view?

Dear Johm M, Not the same at all, actually. Snipers in the trunks of cars are homegrown US loonies. Doesn't happen much in the rest of the world. Explosives around the chest? Very few outside Islam resort to this. Buddhists have been known to self-immolate with a jerry-can, but none purposely kill an innocent. The Apache? They would kill civvies without a second thought, not because of cruelty, though. They would call them 'collateral damage' and insist that they were aiming at a legitimate target. Even if it was their allies.

Dear KK, I never said anything of the sort you imply. Try to get it straight.The US believes in military might to acheive its objectives, as did Hitler. They both believed that the world should be subjugated into service to the their ideals. No methods are taboo. They both believed that they were the 'culture-founders'. (Read Mein Kampf for clarification) They both believed in the use of slave-labour to build their empires (a factory manager was sentenced to ten years for using SLAVERY in his factory in the south pacific last year, and his bosses included JC Penny, amongst other current examples). They both also believed that propaganda was a tremendously valuable tool. Most of all, they both believed that the rest of the world was in the wrong, and that military might will prove who is right. The 'victor'.

Dear JohnM, not excessive, actually, for it is America and it's culture that is under attack. (Not Democracy, Freedom, etc themselves that the right-wingers would have you believe) The raping of the Mother Earth for US interests is under attack. The US cannot rape without first conquering. Though, how they try. 'Final Solutions' are never the best policy. Not sure where you came up with this one. I guess it depends on how you define 'victory'. Gandhi tried it, but he still didn't end up with billions in oil profits and a guest spot on Oprah. Victory must relate to one's values, somehow.

Dear Mr. Read, I am afraid the US has taken over the role of 'International two-faced liar'. They didn't take the pole position away from Canada, either.If it were as easy as eradicating we should only wait, as they are bound to kill themselves at a greater rate than those that surround them. (unless, of course, they were trained by the US military, for friendly-fire casualties would skyrocket). I guess you don't read the Israeli news. The Israeli's don't want a Palestinian Homeland. they want it all, as promised to them by G-d himself. The majority opinion is if Yesha isn't providental, they shoudn't be in Tel Aviv either.

Dear Elder, I concur that porn is inherently evil, as it goes far beyond art. Artistic expression is the most common defence for pornographers, pedophiles, etc. (Not defending anyone nor making comparisons) The issue of freedom of speech (in a relatively new 'church and state separate' nation) such as the US, is touchy because 50% will condemn you for attacking freedom for banning it, and the other 50% will attack you (for doing nothing) for promoting porn. Lots of other nations have views of sexuality that are much more liberal than the US. (added this just for perspective) The bottom line is that porn was the first business to become and remain profitable on the internet. It is hugely popular (even amongst those unwilling to publicly admit it) and produces huge profits. All good by the standards the US has morally set. Banning porn would be un-american. It might be the right thing to do, however. A question, though. Would those that use porn 'as fantasy fulfillment substitute' become a greater danger to the rest of us?

Dear rightturnonred, No matter how many times I said it, it would never be true. No unfair, just truthful. Profit is the #1 driving force in America. Not that profit is a bad thing, it just shouldn't usurp family, justice and freedom. Which it undoubtedly has.You are right that S.A. has not turned to terrorism as a result of being victimized. They fought back, and lost, fair and square. It was the US that employed 'dirty' tactics in S and Central America. Nicaraguans wanted to profit from their own bananas, yet the US wanted the profits. This made them 'commies' and ergo torture and murder was acceptable against the 'red menace'. Mind you, not a lot from S.A have been promised 70 virgins each upon martyrdom, either. As a side note, to the gist of the thread, I just read that the US is now concerned with 'almanac bearers'. Good lord, perhaps we should start burning books and just listen to only George Bush Jr. & Sr Inc. Repeat this to yourself 100 times... America is a force for America... Far more true but they prefer to pretend they represent equality, etc. Hogwash. They used to, once upon a time...

Dear Mr. Read, Canada's list of supported dictators cannot hold a candle to the US'. The US funded only the most brutal dictators, the hardest iron fists. We should hang our heads in shame.To refer to the nature of this thread, (which thus far I have been loathe to do) Anti-Semetism. Or anti Jew ("Semite" refers to both Arabs and Jews). The UN is not anti-jewish, nor anti-semite, merely anti-zionist. As am I. I do not believe in the bible as a legal land-title, law making device, nor anything else beyond pseudo-history. Israel claims Judea, Samaria and Gaza as "Yesha", promised to them by G-d himself. I do not wish to see borders in this world decided in such a way. No more than borders and laws created by the Koran. I believe this is also (to a certain degree) the tack of the UNO. I cannot blame them for opposing religious doctrine that subjugates a people or their land based on archaic and dubious 'laws' such as the bible, the torah or talmud, the koran, or the teachings of Brigham Young.