anti-american sentimen, and whats wrong with our country Options

[ComradeRed]

[quote]i meant intercontinental ballistic missile technology[/quote]

The Soviets invented ICBMs first. During the Cold War, we used bombers that circled around the Artic Circle ready to attack Russia. The Russians didn't have as many bombers in their air force, so they decided to build ICBMs instead. The Chinese have had them since the 60s when the Soviets made them.

[quote]what was wrong with the spanish-american war?[/quote]

The War itself wasn't bad, but the "peace" following the war was -- A very bloody uprising in the Philippines lasting several years and leading to almost a million deaths, including thousands of American soldiers.

[quote]Israel is a country comprised of the single most persecuted group in history[/quote]

Most Israelis were never actually persecuted. If African-Americans in the US started killing white people, we wouldn't excsue it because they were persecuted.

[quote]Israel is a jewish country.
Jews are God's chosen people..[/quote]

How racist. Can you PROVE that. The arabs say they are God's chosen people to.

[quote]It is our fight, because when we no longer support Israel it will mark a new day when the world as whole is fully against israel. There will be an attack from every country in great proportions at israel, Israel will win.
Israel is the strongest country in the world.[/quote]

Lol... No. Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt during the Six Days War. They pushed Egypt across the Siani (after crippling an AMERICAN cruiser). But then the Egyptians were turning the tide and seemed to be winning ... the only thing that saved Israel from utter destruction then was British and French armed reinforcements. Besides, if Israel can win against any attack, why do WE have to support them? If they are the strongest country in the world, then obviously they don't need our help. It's not our fight.

[quote]It would be wise to be on their side.[/quote]

What has Israel done for us??

"They say Israel is our only friend in the Mid East. But whenever they say that, I can't help but think before Israel we didn't have any enemies."
--Source Unknown

Israel has been a liability not an asset. The Arabs hate us because we support Israel ... our support of Israel costs us tens of billions of dollars a year in direct costs, plus tens of billions more in higher oil prices, plus the lives of thousands of American soldiers and citizens sent to occupy the Mid East and die in terrorism.

[quote]yeah and we used aerial attacks slaughtering their leader and his sons. America doesnt have a pussy in office like we did during vietnam so that saying doesnt apply to him. not to mention in vietnam we were in know real immediate threat. in Iraq there was a threat.[/quote]

What threat? There is no proof that Saddam posed a threat to us. Remember that during the Vietnam War, we thought that there was an imminent threat as well -- the one that communism would spread to SE Asia and Australia.

[quote]no they dont they learn distrust rebellion and hatred. in the fifties there were almost no teen suicides or teen violence like there is now. Not to mention there are other more effective ways to teach responsibility.[/quote]

What is there to rebel against if your parents aren't there?

[quote]yes we do. and yes drugs should be legal, but im saying that street gangs are what the kids join to prove their man hood. they get jumped in and now they get picked on by some guy and ends up having his friends beat the hell outta him, whatever happened to a fair fight?[/quote]

Like in Iraq, where we won't come within a mile of enemy troops?

[quote]that has nothing to do with the quote.


buddy that isnt a website. and the media is no where near bush friendly. there are so many celebrities right now getting the spotlight to share their negative opinions of bush. u never hear oh bush did a great job. there are cd's coming out called rock against bush, the funny thing is they arent rock bands.[/quote]

Celebrities aren't, but ever since 9-11 the mainstream media has been overwhelmingly in favor of Bush. Even liberal outlets like CNN issued more articles in support of the war than against.

[quote]the majority of black people are poor, they support liberalism because they dont know any better, and when one of them gets famous by rapping or whatever then they speak about how they hate bush. major newspapers like the newyork times rarely ever show good things that bush has done. on tv you hear about how badly bush has done with the economy. [/quote]

No, the majority of black people support liberalism because of things like affirmative action and civil rights. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two of the most liberal blacks, and they are both filthy rich.

[quote]the most liberal is the riches 5 %, what about the richest 5%'supporters who dont believe that is what will happen? why do u think communism is so marketable to poor people? and it is very marketable to poor people.[/quote]

Not communism, socialism ... There's a significant difference.

I also hate when people misuse the term Liberalism. Liberalism is actually an 18th century philosophy that is closest to Libertarianism today. Modern liberalism is actually socialism.

[sikdragon]

What is there to rebel against if your parents aren't there?

babysitters, bus drivers,teachers, cops, wardens, gaurds. take your pick.
when parents get back home after working all day and expect their kids to just do their chores and they arent done. I mean if there wasnt anything to rebel against where do we get teenage angst lyrics in today's songs? mostly from a kid who's father wasnt there for him growing up and when he finally is, the man is overbearing and condescending.<-- there is where the rebellion comes in, there is where the teenage runaway stats come from.

The Soviets invented ICBMs first. During the Cold War, we used bombers that circled around the Artic Circle ready to attack Russia. The Russians didn't have as many bombers in their air force, so they decided to build ICBMs instead. The Chinese have had them since the 60s when the Soviets made them.

ok so that isnt what he sold this was what happened.

"In 1994 President Clinton began personally authorizing the export of advanced, nuclear hardened, encryption technology directly to communist China. The exports took place with presidential waivers that included the signature of Bill Clinton. They also took place using loopholes and bureaucratic gray areas of U.S. export law.

The Clinton exports included such military items as advanced fiber optic communications; radiation hardened encrypted satellite control systems, encrypted radios and cellular phones, and encrypted navigation systems. According to the GAO, President Clinton even approved the sale of a fully operational, secure air traffic control system for the Chinese Air Force. "

-the little book 3 by Harold Thomas

Most Israelis were never actually persecuted. If African-Americans in the US started killing white people, we wouldn't excsue it because they were persecuted.

nearly daily terrorist attacks isnt persecution?

How racist. Can you PROVE that. The arabs say they are God's chosen people to.

well if you wanna get philisophical, can you PROVE anything? no you cant, proof comes as a bi-product of perception.
The koran the bible of the muslims(the mainstream religion of all of the middle east and the fastest growing religion.) contradicts itself several times when refering to the jews. In the beginning Mohammed wrote of the jews as a good people while the muslim nation was in talks of buying land, but when they refused, the jews are called a dispicable people.

The Torah which does not contradict itself in any way refers to the Jews as God's chosen people.

These documents are the only way to know who God has chosen until his son's second return. so u can ask him when he gets here.

Lol... No. Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt during the Six Days War. They pushed Egypt across the Siani (after crippling an AMERICAN cruiser). But then the Egyptians were turning the tide and seemed to be winning ... the only thing that saved Israel from utter destruction then was British and French armed reinforcements. Besides, if Israel can win against any attack, why do WE have to support them? If they are the strongest country in the world, then obviously they don't need our help. It's not our fight.

lol preemptive strike?? While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. Israel is constantly under attack so how could anything be a preemptive strike?
"The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."
-Nasser

British and French armed reinforcements? Israeli troops were 100 km from cairo. Really sounds like they were going to be utterly destroyed. They gained more land from the six day war than any other war in the nation's history. The war on two of the three fronts didnt even last the whole six says. Friendly fire comes in every war.

The U.S. suppports Israel's dominance so it can serve as a surrogate for American interests in that vital strategic region. Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. could not send arms directly...like south africa, the contras, Guatemala under the military Junta , and Iran. Israel is like a government agency when it's conveient to use and you want something done quietly. According to Mattie Peled formor major general The majority of military aid is used to buy weapons to the U.S.

What threat? There is no proof that Saddam posed a threat to us. Remember that during the Vietnam War, we thought that there was an imminent threat as well -- the one that communism would spread to SE Asia and Australia.

Eisenhower's domino effect theory wasn't a threat directly of american soil.

Saddam not being a threat, how could he not be? he hates the US, had WMD's was trying to purchase missiles to launch said weapons. he also had ties to al qaeda training grounds for anti-american troops.

Like in Iraq, where we won't come within a mile of enemy troops?

in a fair fight like im talking about you're not in danger of dying, there is a difference. In a fair fight you get hurt, one on one its not to kill ur opponet it is to beat them.

Celebrities aren't, but ever since 9-11 the mainstream media has been overwhelmingly in favor of Bush. Even liberal outlets like CNN issued more articles in support of the war than against.

we arent talking about support of the war we are talking about support of Bush, and no the only mainstream media that hasnt been excessively critical of Bush is Fox News which is why they are branded a conservative news station when infact they are not.

No, the majority of black people support liberalism because of things like affirmative action and civil rights. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two of the most liberal blacks, and they are both filthy rich.

How would you know, i live in amongst a community black. They are poor and believe republicans stole all their money and threw their brothers in jail. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are leaders of the black community and what they believe is considered a cultural command on other black people.

Not communism, socialism ... There's a significant difference.

I also hate when people misuse the term Liberalism. Liberalism is actually an 18th century philosophy that is closest to Libertarianism today. Modern liberalism is actually socialism.

in the context of which i used the word liberalism i meant socialism. Communism is what i meant regardless of the difference. communism the ideal of marx in which everyone is given the same pay, same housing, same power for someone who works fast food as someone who graduated from highschool and got their degree.




*bump for comradered*

[sikdragon]

the sad thing is the only one of you that at my level of debate is comradered. he may be wrong but he is good at it.

[Spirited Away]

the sad thing is the only one of you that at my level of debate is comradered. he may be wrong but he is good at it.

I thought pride is a sin? *runs away*

[ComradeRed]

[quote]babysitters, bus drivers,teachers, cops, wardens, gaurds. take your pick.[/quote]

If they "rebel" against teachers or babysitters, they are only hurting themselves. 2/3 of the people behind bars in America have never harmed another human being and shouldn't be in jail ... Rebelling against "cops, wardens, guards" may be justified in more than one situation.

[quote]when parents get back home after working all day and expect their kids to just do their chores and they arent done. I mean if there wasnt anything to rebel against where do we get teenage angst lyrics in today's songs? mostly from a kid who's father wasnt there for him growing up and when he finally is, the man is overbearing and condescending.<-- there is where the rebellion comes in, there is where the teenage runaway stats come from.[/quote]

Yes, rebelling against THE FATHER. Angst doesn't come from wanting to rebel ... angst comes from hopelessness in general. Hopeless people don't rebel.

[quote]ok so that isnt what he sold this was what happened.

"In 1994 President Clinton began personally authorizing the export of advanced, nuclear hardened, encryption technology directly to communist China. The exports took place with presidential waivers that included the signature of Bill Clinton. They also took place using loopholes and bureaucratic gray areas of U.S. export law.

The Clinton exports included such military items as advanced fiber optic communications; radiation hardened encrypted satellite control systems, encrypted radios and cellular phones, and encrypted navigation systems. According to the GAO, President Clinton even approved the sale of a fully operational, secure air traffic control system for the Chinese Air Force. "

-the little book 3 by Harold Thomas[/quote]

Yeah the government shouldn't be selling military equipment.

[quote]nearly daily terrorist attacks isnt persecution?[/quote]

If they withdrew from Palestine, the attacks would stop... By your logic, the Nazis were persecuted in France when the French underground fought back, using tactics that we would label as terrorist (assassinations, poisoning food and water, etc, robbery, extortion, coercion, etc.)

The Palestinian "terrorist" attacks, for the most part, are retaliation for the Israeli occupation (The original land given Israel did not include the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- Israel conquered these areas by launching a preemptive war in the 60s.)

[quote]well if you wanna get philisophical, can you PROVE anything? no you cant, proof comes as a bi-product of perception.[/quote]

I can prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT certain things using the Empirical Method. You can't prove something like "God said so" using said method, which is accepted by society and the human race in general.

Proof is not a byproduct of perception. Reality is separate from perception. You can not see a bullet coming, and it will still kill you.

[quote]The koran the bible of the muslims(the mainstream religion of all of the middle east and the fastest growing religion.) contradicts itself several times when refering to the jews.[/quote]

So does the Old and New Testtament. What's your point?

[quote]In the beginning Mohammed wrote of the jews as a good people while the muslim nation was in talks of buying land, but when they refused, the jews are called a dispicable people.[/quote]

Land? When the Koran was written, the Jews didn't OWN any land ... Jewish economic power came from their control OF GOLD ... if anything, Jewish bankers would be negotiating with Muslims to buy THEIR LAND.

During the time, Jews WERE regarded as despicable, because in the Middle Ages, they owned all the banks and the gold and would charge you 20% interest for a loan. For this reason, maby people think credit card companies are despicable.

[quote]The Torah which does not contradict itself in any way refers to the Jews as God's chosen people.

These documents are the only way to know who God has chosen until his son's second return. so u can ask him when he gets here.[/quote]

What proves the Torah? What if I wrote a book about how the Jews are not God's chosen people? The Bible does contradict itself several times.

In Samuel, it tells you NOT to pay your taxes. But in Luke, it tells you to.
In Genesis 1, it says that Adam and Eve were created at the same time. But in Genesis 2, it says that Adam was created before Eve.
Gensis 6 clearly states that Noah took 2 of every animal on the ark. But in Gensis 7, the Lord ordered Noah take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens and the unclean beasts by twos.
In Exodus, God commands the Israelites to sacrifice animals, but in Jeremiah, he specifically says not to.

[quote]lol preemptive strike?? While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. Israel is constantly under attack so how could anything be a preemptive strike?
"The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."
-Nasser[/quote]

Only problem: Israel launched its first war in 1956, long before serious Arab hostilities. They had a secret treaty with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal. The raids launched in the 60s against Israel were mainly from Syria and Lebanon -- in response to the fact that Israeli troops occupied 1/3 of Syria and Mossad agents continued to perform assassinations in Lebanon and Beirut.

Nasser's quote likewise doesn't prove anything. Saying you are READY for war is different from saying you are about to start it. If Egypt really was preparing to attack Israel, why would Nasser mass his forces around the Suez Canal -- a hundred miles from the border with Israel?

[quote]British and French armed reinforcements? Israeli troops were 100 km from cairo. Really sounds like they were going to be utterly destroyed. They gained more land from the six day war than any other war in the nation's history. The war on two of the three fronts didnt even last the whole six says. Friendly fire comes in every war.[/quote]

First of all, I wasn't talking about the Six Day War. I was talking about the Suez War in 1956. Nasser's defense line around the Suez Canal was about to stop Israel. At this point, Nassar was supported by both the Soviets and the Americans. Eisenhower told the Israelis to withdraw from the Siani Peninsula, they agreed in public, but in secret British and French troops landed at Port Said and took the Suez Canal. In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel could not have the strenght to take Cairo either ... many of their armed forces were in the north fighting another war against Syria, and their air force was busy attacking American intelligence cruisers such as the USS Liberty to prevent the Americans from finding out about their plans to invade Syria.

"The Cold War inevitably invested the Arab-Israeli conflict with a proxy war element. Soviet involvement increased after the 1955 arms deal with Egypt. Israel's pro-western orientation was sealed by its promise to Britain and France to invade Egypt in the 1956 Suez Crisis. Although the Americans forced Israel to relinquish control of the Suez Canal after 1956, Israel increasingly turned to the United States for arms, economic aid, and diplomatic support by the Six Days' War in 1967."
--David Isby, Atlas of Military History

[quote]The U.S. suppports Israel's dominance so it can serve as a surrogate for American interests in that vital strategic region. Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. could not send arms directly...like south africa, the contras, Guatemala under the military Junta , and Iran[/quote]

I read that as "Israel helped us give guns to the Apartheid, Nicaraguan rebels trying to overthrow a duly elected government, a military dictatorship right in our backyard, and ... Iran."

Explain how Israel helps our vital strategic interests again? Better yet, explain how South Africa, Nicaragua, and Guatemala have anything to do with our interests?

[quote]. Israel is like a government agency when it's conveient to use and you want something done quietly. According to Mattie Peled formor major general The majority of military aid is used to buy weapons to the U.S.[/quote]

I read that as "We're giving people money to buy weapons for us." The United STates doesn't buy foreign weapons very much: we build all our own. Moreover, we have the CIA for covert operations ...

[quote]Eisenhower's domino effect theory wasn't a threat directly of american soil.

Saddam not being a threat, how could he not be? he hates the US, had WMD's was trying to purchase missiles to launch said weapons.[/quote]

Congratulations, you also described Britain, France, China, and Russia.

[quote]he also had ties to al qaeda training grounds for anti-american troops.[/quote]

No he didn't. There were al-qaeda training grounds in Northern Iraq -- being used to support rebellions against Saddam Hussein.

Bin Laden and Hussein were ideologically opposed. The only thing they had in common was that they both don't like America. But Bin Laden was happy at America's toppling of Saddam -- not only has he achieved two of his three goals that he stated in the 1990s (get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, overthrow Hussein), he now can potentially put a Jihadist government in Iraq.

[quote]we arent talking about support of the war we are talking about support of Bush, and no the only mainstream media that hasnt been excessively critical of Bush is Fox News which is why they are branded a conservative news station when infact they are not.[/quote]

Fox News is to the right of most Americans. It's not conservative per se (a conservative organization would be, say American Conservative Magazine), but it's slightly to the right of center. Moreover, what has Bush done besides the war that's recieved a lot of media attention? Nothing.

[quote]How would you know, i live in amongst a community black. They are poor and believe republicans stole all their money and threw their brothers in jail. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are leaders of the black community and what they believe is considered a cultural command on other black people.[/quote]

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are precisely the kind of people who are holding other black people down...

[quote]in the context of which i used the word liberalism i meant socialism. Communism is what i meant regardless of the difference. communism the ideal of marx in which everyone is given the same pay, same housing, same power for someone who works fast food as someone who graduated from highschool and got their degree.[/quote]

Liberalism is not the same as socialism at all...

A liberal is someone like Howard Dean. A socialist would be someone like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Liberals appeal mainly to the upper and progressive middle class (The top 5% of American taxpayers voted 2 to 1 for Gore), while socialists mainly appeal to the poor (a liberal would do very well in an election in Massachusetts or Connecticut, while a socialist would do much better in West Virginia). A liberal would support environmentalism, a socialist would not. A liberal would support world peace and oppose the draft, while a socialist would support a draft and support ideological warfare (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, and doink Gephardt all voted FOR the Iraq War. Liberalism comes from the term liberal, which means seeking to increase personal freedom. Socialism comes from a term which means seeking to improve the social good. Saying liberalism is the same as socialism is like saying conservatism is the same as libertarianism -- they've evolved to be similar, but not nearly the same.

You also misunderstand Marx -- it's from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Which is, in many ways, even worse than absolute equality -- since the person with the degree would have to work harder for the same thing.

[sikdragon]

[quote]If they "rebel" against teachers or babysitters, they are only hurting themselves. 2/3 of the people behind bars in America have never harmed another human being and shouldn't be in jail ... Rebelling against "cops, wardens, guards" may be justified in more than one situation.[/quote]

in most cases they wouldnt run into those kind of people if they were raised properly. If the cops are harassing people without cause, like we know they are, then they should've been raised right.

[quote]Yes, rebelling against THE FATHER. Angst doesn't come from wanting to rebel ... angst comes from hopelessness in general. Hopeless people don't rebel.[/quote]
w/e if they had both parents one nurturing, one overbearing, and one controlling the world they wouldn't be so hopeless. if the father was overbearing and condescending since the child was born the shock factor wouldnt be so big as to cause rebellion.

[quote]Yeah the government shouldn't be selling military equipment.
[/quote]
clinton

[quote]If they withdrew from Palestine, the attacks would stop... By your logic, the Nazis were persecuted in France when the French underground fought back, using tactics that we would label as terrorist (assassinations, poisoning food and water, etc, robbery, extortion, coercion, etc.)

The Palestinian "terrorist" attacks, for the most part, are retaliation for the Israeli occupation (The original land given Israel did not include the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- Israel conquered these areas by launching a preemptive war in the 60s.)[/quote]

key word 'conquered' the land is their's now. If you went to the store and bought a candy bar and when you were about to leave the cashier saw your candy bar had the golden ticket in it and started yelling at you saying you stole it, would you give it up?

[quote]
I can prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT certain things using the Empirical Method. You can't prove something like "God said so" using said method, which is accepted by society and the human race in general.

Proof is not a byproduct of perception. Reality is separate from perception. You can not see a bullet coming, and it will still kill you.[/quote]

God said so and the earth and it's in habitants were formed. you can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, and feel it.

you can hear the explosion of gun powder. and when you die do you know you are dead? do you know the bullet killed you? someone else does, thus, third party PERCEPTION.

[quote]So does the Old and New Testtament. What's your point?[/quote]

It does not. and my point is the koran is flawed.

[quote]
Land? When the Koran was written, the Jews didn't OWN any land ... Jewish economic power came from their control OF GOLD ... if anything, Jewish bankers would be negotiating with Muslims to buy THEIR LAND.

During the time, Jews WERE regarded as despicable, because in the Middle Ages, they owned all the banks and the gold and would charge you 20% interest for a loan. For this reason, maby people think credit card companies are despicable.[/quote]

the jews occupied land.

Are you saying that Jews ran England? Last i remember the English had their own gold.

[quote]What proves the Torah? What if I wrote a book about how the Jews are not God's chosen people? The Bible does contradict itself several times.

In Samuel, it tells you -NOT to pay your taxes. But in Luke, it tells you to.
In Genesis 1, it says that Adam and Eve were created at the same time. But in Genesis 2, it says that Adam was created before Eve.
Gensis 6 clearly states that Noah took 2 of every animal on the ark. But in Gensis 7, the Lord ordered Noah take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens and the unclean beasts by twos.
In Exodus, God commands the Israelites to sacrifice animals, but in Jeremiah, he specifically says not to.
[/quote]


Taxes weren't introduced until 1 kings. Samuel was about samuel and his life and the war between the hebrews and the philistines.

Genesis 1 says adam and eve were created on the same day, not at the same time.

Genesis 6 God was speaking of wild animals that would come to him on their own. In Genesis 7 God told Noah to take 7 types of domesticated clean animals, two types of domesticated unclean animals, and 7 types of domesticated fowl.

If you are referring to jeremiah 6:20 God was saying their frankincense was not the kind of sacrifice he wanted.

[quote]Only problem: Israel launched its first war in 1956, long before serious Arab hostilities. They had a secret treaty with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal. The raids launched in the 60s against Israel were mainly from Syria and Lebanon -- in response to the fact that Israeli troops occupied 1/3 of Syria and Mossad agents continued to perform assassinations in Lebanon and Beirut.

Nasser's quote likewise doesn't prove anything. Saying you are READY for war is different from saying you are about to start it. If Egypt really was preparing to attack Israel, why would Nasser mass his forces around the Suez Canal -- a hundred miles from the border with Israel?[/quote]

[quote]First of all, I wasn't talking about the Six Day War. I was talking about the Suez War in 1956. Nasser's defense line around the Suez Canal was about to stop Israel. At this point, Nassar was supported by both the Soviets and the Americans. Eisenhower told the Israelis to withdraw from the Siani Peninsula, they agreed in public, but in secret British and French troops landed at Port Said and took the Suez Canal. In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel could not have the strenght to take Cairo either ... many of their armed forces were in the north fighting another war against Syria, and their air force was busy attacking American intelligence cruisers such as the USS Liberty to prevent the Americans from finding out about their plans to invade Syria.

"The Cold War inevitably invested the Arab-Israeli conflict with a proxy war element. Soviet involvement increased after the 1955 arms deal with Egypt. Israel's pro-western orientation was sealed by its promise to Britain and France to invade Egypt in the 1956 Suez Crisis. Although the Americans forced Israel to relinquish control of the Suez Canal after 1956, Israel increasingly turned to the United States for arms, economic aid, and diplomatic support by the Six Days' War in 1967."
--David Isby, Atlas of Military History[/quote]

"As part of Egyptian President Nasser's nationalist agenda, he took control of the Suez Canal zone away from the British and French companies which owned it. At the same time, as part of his ongoing struggle with Israel, Egyptian forces blocked the Straits of Tiran, the narrow waterway that is Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea. Israel and Egypt had clashed repeatedly since their 1948 war as Egypt allowed and encouraged groups of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel from Egyptian territory. In response, Israeli forces constantly made cross-border raids in retaliation. Britain and France, both of whom were in the process of losing their centuries-old empires, decided on a strategy straight our of their 19th Century Imperial histories. This plan led to a joint invasion and occupation of the Suez Canal zone by Britain and France. This was meant to reassert control of this vital waterway to the British and French companies stung by Nasser's bold nationalization. At France's suggestion, planning was coordinated with Israel, a fact which all three nations denied for years afterwards.

On October 29, 1956, Israeli troops invaded Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and quickly overcame opposition as they raced for Suez. The next day, Britain and France, following their part of the script, offered to temporarily occupy the Canal Zone and suggested a 10 mile buffer on either side which would separate the Egyptian forces from the Israelis. Nasser of course refused, and on October 31, Egypt was attacked and invaded by the military forces of Britain and France. In response to these developments, the Soviet Union, which at the time was ruthlessly suppressing an anti-Communist uprising in Hungary, threatened to intervene on Egypt's behalf. President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt. The United States, caught by surprise by the dual invasions, was more concerned with the Soviet war in Hungary and the Cold War than with Britain and France's dealings involving Suez. The last thing President Eisenhower wanted was a wider war over Suez. The war itself lasted for only a week, and invading forces were withdrawn within the month. As a result, Egypt now firmly aligned herself with the Soviet Union, which armed Egypt and other Arab nations for the continuing struggle against Israel."

Lee, R. "The History Guy: Arab-Israeli Wars: Suez/Sinai War (1956) "

http://www.historyguy.com/suez_war_1956.html (1999).


Nasser's quote proves that any attack after that could not be considered preemptive.


and as for this[quote]In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel could not have the strenght to take Cairo either ... many of their armed forces were in the north fighting another war against Syria, and their air force was busy attacking American intelligence cruisers such as the USS Liberty to prevent the Americans from finding out about their plans to invade Syria.[/quote]

Many armed forces not all. Israel could have taken Cairo with the soldiers they had there and you are making assumptions about attacking intelligence cruisers. Our guy shouldn't have been there. The USS Liberty was mistaken for an enemy ship.



[quote]I read that as "Israel helped us give guns to the Apartheid, Nicaraguan rebels trying to overthrow a duly elected government, a military dictatorship right in our backyard, and ... Iran."

Explain how Israel helps our vital strategic interests again? Better yet, explain how South Africa, Nicaragua, and Guatemala have anything to do with our interests?
[/quote]

first i must ask what you know about american interests.

[quote]I read that as "We're giving people money to buy weapons for us." The United STates doesn't buy foreign weapons very much: we build all our own. Moreover, we have the CIA for covert operations ...[/quote]

no we give them money to buy our weapons.

We have the CIA and Israelis running covert operations.

[quote]Congratulations, you also described Britain, France, China, and Russia.[/quote]
All of those countries are politically stable.

[quote]No he didn't. There were al-qaeda training grounds in Northern Iraq -- being used to support rebellions against Saddam Hussein.

Bin Laden and Hussein were ideologically opposed. The only thing they had in common was that they both don't like America. But Bin Laden was happy at America's toppling of Saddam -- not only has he achieved two of his three goals that he stated in the 1990s (get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, overthrow Hussein), he now can potentially put a Jihadist government in Iraq.[/quote]

They may have been ideologically opposed but joining together to defeat a common enemy would be the best way to go. If that wasn't the plan i seriously believe they need new strategists for the interests of al-qaeda.

[quote]Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are precisely the kind of people who are holding other black people down...[/quote]

thats true but the black community is unaware for the most part.

[quote]Liberalism is not the same as socialism at all...

A liberal is someone like Howard Dean. A socialist would be someone like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Liberals appeal mainly to the upper and progressive middle class (The top 5% of American taxpayers voted 2 to 1 for Gore), while socialists mainly appeal to the poor (a liberal would do very well in an election in Massachusetts or Connecticut, while a socialist would do much better in West Virginia). A liberal would support environmentalism, a socialist would not. A liberal would support world peace and oppose the draft, while a socialist would support a draft and support ideological warfare (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, and doink Gephardt all voted FOR the Iraq War. Liberalism comes from the term liberal, which means seeking to increase personal freedom. Socialism comes from a term which means seeking to improve the social good. Saying liberalism is the same as socialism is like saying conservatism is the same as libertarianism -- they've evolved to be similar, but not nearly the same.

You also misunderstand Marx -- it's from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Which is, in many ways, even worse than absolute equality -- since the person with the degree would have to work harder for the same thing. [/quote]

the liberals and socialists are all on the same side, regardless of the enviroment and the draft.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]w/e if they had both parents one nurturing, one overbearing, and one controlling the world they wouldn't be so hopeless.[/quote]

That's three parents, isn't it?

[quote]key word 'conquered' the land is their's now. If you went to the store and bought a candy bar and when you were about to leave the cashier saw your candy bar had the golden ticket in it and started yelling at you saying you stole it, would you give it up?[/quote]

No, that's "bought", not "conquered". See the Israelis never paid the Palestinians for their land ... it was more like If you went to the store and you robbed the cashier for a candy bar, you're damn right he'd want it back.

[quote]God said so and the earth and it's in habitants were formed. you can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, and feel it.[/quote]

I thought God was incorporeal. If God is a spirit, how can you see, hear, touch, taste, or feel him?

[quote]you can hear the explosion of gun powder. and when you die do you know you are dead? do you know the bullet killed you? someone else does, thus, third party PERCEPTION.[/quote]

But YOUR reality in that case is that you don't KNOW what killed you ... only someone else did. That doesn't change the fact that it does.

[quote]It does not. and my point is the koran is flawed.[/quote]

So are most books that don't follow the empirical method

[quote]the jews occupied land.

Are you saying that Jews ran England? Last i remember the English had their own gold. [/quote]

In the Middle Ages, the Jews owned most of the gold in England ... the Magna Carta specifically deals with Jews.

[quote]Taxes weren't introduced until 1 kings. Samuel was about samuel and his life and the war between the hebrews and the philistines.[/quote]

READ Samuel. WHen Israel is asking for a king, he says, "He will take a tenth of your sheep, and of your vineyards, etc."

[quote]Nasser's quote proves that any attack after that could not be considered preemptive.[/quote]

Um... because he said he was READY FOR WAR. Thomas Jefferson said he was READY to go to War with France over New Orleans ... that didn't mean he actually did. Being READY to do something and actually doing it are different.

[quote]Many armed forces not all. Israel could have taken Cairo with the soldiers they had there and you are making assumptions about attacking intelligence cruisers. Our guy shouldn't have been there. The USS Liberty was mistaken for an enemy ship.[/quote]

The USS Liberty had an American flag and was broadcasting on American wavelengths...

Israel could not have taken Cairo. Their supplies were running short and the Egyptians had a very strong defense along hte line of the Suez Canal. The reason Israel HAD to attack first was exactly because they were running out of supplies. In order to take Cairo, they would've needed their entire army in Siani, which would've made Syria overrun them from the North.

[quote]first i must ask what you know about american interests.[/quote]

I think our most important interest is not being attacked.

[quote]We have the CIA and Israelis running covert operations.[/quote]

Mossad is the world's biggest terrorist organization. The fact that we support them is morally reprehensible. The CIA at least is accountable to things like "laws" and "ethics". Some of the things that Mossad has done makes Osama bin Laden look like a good guy. Mossad once killed a member of the Norwegian Government for giving a speech opposing Israel. They disguised it as a terrorist attack, but a Norwegian Policeman was able to take down the license plate of a speeding car. It was clearly an Israeli governmental hit. The United Nations, INCLUDING AMERICA, condemned Israel... which kept doing stuff like this.

[quote]All of those countries are politically stable.[/quote]

Russia is hardly politically stable. Half their provinces are in revolt.

[quote]They may have been ideologically opposed but joining together to defeat a common enemy would be the best way to go. If that wasn't the plan i seriously believe they need new strategists for the interests of al-qaeda.[/quote]

But why... Iraq? Bin Laden was much more likely to team up with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

[quote]the liberals and socialists are all on the same side, regardless of the enviroment and the draft.[/quote]

And what side is that? The side that disagrees with you?

If you defined everyone that disagreed with you on anything as "the other side", you'd lose everything you ever tried.

[gerundio]

fudge REDNECKS. fudge THE NRA. fudge RACISTS. fudge HOMOPHOBICS. fudge YOU SIKDRAGON.

The United States would be a much better country without these people.

[sikdragon]

fudge people who label people. its people like you that should be taken out and shot.

[sweetdreamsx3]

There's nothing wrong with our country except when people say it's a "free country", it's not. Not one bit. Not at all.

[gerundio]

fudge people who label people. its people like you that should be taken out and shot.

WOW. LAUGH MY ding dong ASS OFF.

I should be shot? LOL.

You're an internet tough guy now, huh?

LMAO. And why exactly should I be shot? Oh, and what gun do you suggest to do the job?

[sikdragon]

im not tryin to act tough, im just saying instigators like you should have two put in the back of the head.

[Heathasm]

its not a disease it is a choice

daresay that is quite ignorant beyong all means?
my moms a hairdresser (lol) so i've met alot of gay men and woman through her
and i've heard their stories. Some try desperately hard to be heterosexual, they even go as far as getting married and having children...and it all goes back to when were were born and the fact that some male and female babies are born with a higher dose of the opposite sex hormones.....

but im almost sure you would rather a person suffer and be miserable with the companionship in their lives rather them be ironically gay and lead at least a somewhat undecided bu happy life....seriously

[gerundio]

im not tryin to act tough, im just saying instigators like you should have two put in the back of the head.

Suuuurrrre.

So...

Are you threatening me?

[gigiopolis]

I actually chose "yes I believe everything America has done is good...etc". But now I kind of change my mind after reading sikdragon's message. You've just embarassed yourself and your fellow Americans. Jeez. Get a life. Just because America is with the times now with things such as gay marriages doesn't mean it's becoming "pussified."

You, however, I think you're still stuck in the middle ages. Get on with it, it's the 21st century. It's people like you who make humans around the world hate America.

[sikdragon]

embarassed? no. I am not stuck in the middle ages. I think you need to reread my message up there. We as a nation have slowly been losing the meaning of what makes a man. Without a male influence children grow up with no discipline, or get discipline but no nurturing. There is the problem because generation after generation are becoming more and more unstable. Soon the whole country will be unbalanced and will leave us open to attack. Yes an actuall invasion of US soil. If it werent for people like me supposedly stuck in the "middle ages" we would just be a territory of Russia or some other country. I am still confused about how my statement reflects any lack of a life?!


Gerundio that wasnt a threat. I am saying your instigation is causing more death and division than any redneck supremist, which I am not.


[quote]daresay that is quite ignorant beyong all means?
my moms a hairdresser (lol) so i've met alot of gay men and woman through her
and i've heard their stories. Some try desperately hard to be heterosexual, they even go as far as getting married and having children...and it all goes back to when were were born and the fact that some male and female babies are born with a higher dose of the opposite sex hormones.....

but im almost sure you would rather a person suffer and be miserable with the companionship in their lives rather them be ironically gay and lead at least a somewhat undecided bu happy life....seriously  [/quote]

So you are saying homosexuals should recieve therapy like cleptomaniacs and compulsive liars rather than take responsibility for their own short comings? Everyone has their problems and it is how we choose to handle them makes us good or evil in the eyes of man. If a person is gay and they just arent attracted to the opposite sex in any way, why not try celibacy? What if you were attracted to an animal? What if you were attracted to children and not your peers? That perversness would not be acceptable. Celibacy is the only escape. Like a cleptomaniac choosing to buy rather than to steal even though stealing seems easier.


[quote]That's three parents, isn't it?[/quote]

No that is two parents and God.

[quote]No, that's "bought", not "conquered". See the Israelis never paid the Palestinians for their land ... it was more like If you went to the store and you robbed the cashier for a candy bar, you're damn right he'd want it back.
[/quote]

No it's not the same. There is no law against the conquering that the Israelis did. It is illegal to steal.

[quote]I thought God was incorporeal. If God is a spirit, how can you see, hear, touch, taste, or feel him?
[/quote]

No that is not what i was saying. Using the empirical method you can prove that when God says something, it happens. "Let there be light." so on and so forth.

[quote]But YOUR reality in that case is that you don't KNOW what killed you ... only someone else did. That doesn't change the fact that it does.
[/quote]

Have you ever been dead? no. So you don't know if you are dead or not. You could still be alive. It is only by third party perception that your death is recognized.

[quote]So are most books that don't follow the empirical method
[/quote]

No the empirical method has nothing to do with it.

[quote]
In the Middle Ages, the Jews owned most of the gold in England ... the Magna Carta specifically deals with Jews.
[/quote]

Well that is just one more reason that they were despised, not the only reason.

[quote]READ Samuel. WHen Israel is asking for a king, he says, "He will take a tenth of your sheep, and of your vineyards, etc."
[/quote]

I have read it. You said that Samuel says not to pay your taxes when in fact it does not.

[quote]Um... because he said he was READY FOR WAR. Thomas Jefferson said he was READY to go to War with France over New Orleans ... that didn't mean he actually did. Being READY to do something and actually doing it are different.
[/quote]

when they are aware that an attack is being provoked, there is no way you can say that was preemptive. That was the point I was trying to make. Nasser's quote supports that.

[quote]The USS Liberty had an American flag and was broadcasting on American wavelengths...

Israel could not have taken Cairo. Their supplies were running short and the Egyptians had a very strong defense along hte line of the Suez Canal. The reason Israel HAD to attack first was exactly because they were running out of supplies. In order to take Cairo, they would've needed their entire army in Siani, which would've made Syria overrun them from the North.

[/quote]

You do not know this. No one knows what could've happened because it didn't happen. We can only speculate. The Israeli was 100 km from Cairo. In my opinion they could have taken Cairo and all of Africa if that was God's will.

[quote]
I think our most important interest is not being attacked.

[/quote]

Ok so if we were to become a communist nation so the world would become our allies would you believe America's interest would be fulfilled? but that's right you did say you think, so i guess you should rethink.


[quote]Mossad is the world's biggest terrorist organization. The fact that we support them is morally reprehensible. The CIA at least is accountable to things like "laws" and "ethics". Some of the things that Mossad has done makes Osama bin Laden look like a good guy. Mossad once killed a member of the Norwegian Government for giving a speech opposing Israel. They disguised it as a terrorist attack, but a Norwegian Policeman was able to take down the license plate of a speeding car. It was clearly an Israeli governmental hit. The United Nations, INCLUDING AMERICA, condemned Israel... which kept doing stuff like this.
[/quote]

Israel protecting their interest in not letting the power of their enemies rise beyond their defenses is bad? The most hated country in the world defending itself using a different set of laws in war is different. Israel was attacked first.

[quote]Russia is hardly politically stable. Half their provinces are in revolt.
[/quote]

Russia is a super power.

The middle eastern countries are runned by counsels of hundreds of princes.

[quote]But why... Iraq? Bin Laden was much more likely to team up with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
[/quote]

Iraq was a very rich country. The whole of the nation's resources was being used to fund the interests of Muslim fundamentalists and terrorist organizations.

[quote]And what side is that? The side that disagrees with you?

If you defined everyone that disagreed with you on anything as "the other side", you'd lose everything you ever tried. [/quote]

Not the side that disagrees with me. It is the side of greedy ignorant bastards.

Of course that statement appears to support yours, but it doesn't.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]embarassed? no. I am not stuck in the middle ages. I think you need to reread my message up there. We as a nation have slowly been losing the meaning of what makes a man. Without a male influence children grow up with no discipline, or get discipline but no nurturing. There is the problem because generation after generation are becoming more and more unstable. Soon the whole country will be unbalanced and will leave us open to attack. Yes an actuall invasion of US soil. If it werent for people like me supposedly stuck in the "middle ages" we would just be a territory of Russia or some other country. I am still confused about how my statement reflects any lack of a life?![/quote]

No country on Earth has the physical capability of invading US soil... the two oceans make it hard for large armies to land.

[quote]Gerundio that wasnt a threat. I am saying your instigation is causing more death and division than any redneck supremist, which I am not.[/quote]

How so? The war is what caused death in the first place... By opposing it, you are causing division, which is not a bad thing most of the tmie.

Furthermore, the war was an executive (not congressional) action, and therefore Unconstitutional. Resisting--to the point of defensive force--an unconstitutionaal action of government is not only justified, but is a duty of all citizens.

[quote]So you are saying homosexuals should recieve therapy like cleptomaniacs and compulsive liars rather than take responsibility for their own short comings? Everyone has their problems and it is how we choose to handle them makes us good or evil in the eyes of man. If a person is gay and they just arent attracted to the opposite sex in any way, why not try celibacy? What if you were attracted to an animal? What if you were attracted to children and not your peers? That perversness would not be acceptable. Celibacy is the only escape. Like a cleptomaniac choosing to buy rather than to steal even though stealing seems easier.[/quote]

Sex with animals is legal in most states ... you see, animals don't have rights.

Sex with children SHOULD be legal --- AS LONG AS the children consent. You see, consentual activity is inherently legitimate, whereas passing laws against such activity is inherently coercive, and therefore bad.

If two people want to have sex, it is their right. If you oppose having sex with people of your same gender, Don't Do It!

[quote]No it's not the same. There is no law against the conquering that the Israelis did. It is illegal to steal.[/quote]

The Holocaust was cmopletely legal... does that mean it was a good idea?

In either case, law was used as legal fiat. It was not legitimate. The Palestinians had every right to resist an Israeli takeover of their land that the Poles had to resist the Germans, or we had to resist the British in the War of 1812.

[quote]No that is not what i was saying. Using the empirical method you can prove that when God says something, it happens. "Let there be light." so on and so forth.[/quote]

That's completely correct actually.

The logical statement If P, then Q is always true IF P IS FALSE in teh first place.

"When God says something, it happens" is true -- because "God says something" is false. Now try to prove using that method that GOD SAYS THINGS. It becomes harder, doesn't it?

[quote]Have you ever been dead? no. So you don't know if you are dead or not. You could still be alive. It is only by third party perception that your death is recognized.[/quote]

So... if I perceive you to be dead, then you are dead?

[quote]No the empirical method has nothing to do with it.[/quote]

To the contrary, the empirical method is how facts are established. It has everything to do with everything.

[quote]I have read it. You said that Samuel says not to pay your taxes when in fact it does not.[/quote]

Samuel says taxes are UNJUSTIFIED, not not to pay them. Let me get my bible:
1 Samuel 8:10-18:
"So Samuel reported all tehy words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow the ground and to reap his harvest, and to make implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He wil ltake one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and courrtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to work. He will take one-tenth of your flock, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry ouy because of your king, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

The Italics sections clearly describe a tax.

[quote]when they are aware that an attack is being provoked, there is no way you can say that was preemptive. That was the point I was trying to make. Nasser's quote supports that.[/quote]

A preemptive attack is when you attack first withotu being attacked. Israel was not attacked by Egypt. They attacked first.

It doesn't matter what they said. When someone says your hair looks messy is not an excuse to hit them.

[quote]You do not know this. No one knows what could've happened because it didn't happen. We can only speculate. The Israeli was 100 km from Cairo. In my opinion they could have taken Cairo and all of Africa if that was God's will.[/quote]

Too bad the Ark of the Covenant was in Ethiopia. .

The Israeli advance had STOPPED. They didn't have enough troops to break the Egyptian defenses around the Suez Canal. If they could've taken Cairo, they would have -- since that would've ended the war. The Israelis already overran their supply lines -- if the war went on, Egypt would've been able to rally and push the Israelis back. Plus, both the Soviets AND the Americans were supporting Egypt at this time ... a world war where the USSR and USA and teh Arabs allied against Israel and France would've ended very quickly in a USSR/USA/Egypt victory.

The Germans TOTALLY destroyed the Russian Army in 1941, but they STILL lost the war -- because they overextended their supplies. Without oil, they had to abandon their tanks while the Russians regrouped in Moscow to push them back.

THem taking all of Africa is entirely uneralistic -- America couldn't even do that. Guns are only one small part of the military -- the most important part of military science is supply and logistics. No power on Earth can supply forces everywhere in Africa. It's a big continent.

God is good for insprinig your troops to bravely defend teh home soil... but God won't rush new oil to your tanks, and new food to your troops.

[quote]Ok so if we were to become a communist nation so the world would become our allies would you believe America's interest would be fulfilled? but that's right you did say you think, so i guess you should rethink.[/quote]

No. I said BECAUSE WE INVADED IRAQ, communist parties around the world are GAINING STRENGTH and will soon be able to control the governments of our key allies, which will FORCE us to resort to Isolationism.

[quote]Israel protecting their interest in not letting the power of their enemies rise beyond their defenses is bad?  The most hated country in the world defending itself using a different set of laws in war is different. Israel was attacked first.[/quote]

No they weren't. The first two Arab-Israeli Wars, in 1948 and 1956, were started by Israel. Arab nations did not attack Israel until 1967.

[quote]Russia is a super power.[/quote]

The fact that they are losing a war with Cechneya proves they aren't.

[quote]The middle eastern countries are runned by counsels of hundreds of princes.[/quote]

If they are that weak, then they don't pose a threat to us. QED attack was unjustifiable.

[quote]Iraq was a very rich country. The whole of the nation's resources was being used to fund the interests of Muslim fundamentalists and terrorist organizations.[/quote]

Or fighting terrorism ... Hussein waged a massive war against Al-Qaeda when they bottled up in the North of the country. Al-Qaeda was supported by teh Kurds, who are historically very hostile to Saddam.

[quote]Not the side that disagrees with me. It is the side of greedy ignorant bastards.[/quote]

Rrrrrrrrright...

There are a lot of greedy ignorant bastards on both sides.

But the distinction between Liberal and Socialist is HUGE:
From the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
Liberalism - 2a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority

Socialism - 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Get it? Liberalism says: Individual good. Socialism says: Individual bad. Liberalism says: Capitalism, Constitutional Democracy, and Liberty. Socialism says: Planned Economy, Authoritarianism, and Social Equality. Liberalism is like the Thomas Jefferson. Socialsim is like Karl Marx.

MOST democrats today are actually socialists, not liberals (though a few can still be called liberals). There are very few liberals left in America -- and they are probably evenly split between teh Republicans and Democrats.

[cornflakes]

An American here, and I hate it. America is now a bastard of a country. It should not govern the world. We should remove the current administration.

Nothing wrong with Socialism.

And America is not safe anymore, the oceans don't protect us anymore. As 9.11 showed us.

[Spirited Away]

An American here, and I hate it. America is now a bastard of a country. It should not govern the world. We should remove the current administration.

Then leave. I don't think I'd want you to be here to vote for an administration when you don't seem to understand how politics work. I'll give you a hint: Congress.

And America is not safe anymore, the oceans don't protect us anymore. As 9.11 showed us.

What countries are you comparing the US with to get that kind of conclusion? You do realize the scheme of things right? When you're in power, there will be people who want to take you down... I thought, that much was obvious .

[cornflakes]

I know politics darling.
I don't kiss Bush's ass too.

[cornflakes]

oops double post.

[Spirited Away]

I know politics darling.
I don't kiss Bush's ass too.

Kissing ass is overrated. Politics shouldn't be.

Define kissing ass, then we'll talk. Though I don't know when patriotic became equal with kissing ass.

[ComradeRed]

An American here, and I hate it. America is now a bastard of a country. It should not govern the world. We should remove the current administration.

Nothing wrong with Socialism.

And America is not safe anymore, the oceans don't protect us anymore. As 9.11 showed us.

Socialism is the worst ideology ever to be devised by man.

Even though socialism itself is well-intentioned, it paves the road to violent Nazi and authoritarian ideologies. Socialism causes a psychological change in the people, making them dependant on government, and thus almost guarantees that a malignant oppressive one will take power. Read FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom for more information on this phenomenon. But I will say this:

Before Hitler took power in Germany, the government was controlled by the Democratic Socialists.
In the period before Stalin came to power in Russia, the government was run under the socialist government of Lenin (their Constitution comes almost directly from Karl Marx).
In communist China, a socialist government reigned for 50 years before being replaced by Mao's Red Government.

EVERY dictatorship in the last 150 years has been preceded by socialism.

America may not be safe from attack, but it is safe from invasion. It's one thing to blow up NYC. It's another to occupy it with troops.

[sikdragon]

[quote]No country on Earth has the physical capability of invading US soil... the two oceans make it hard for large armies to land.
[/quote]

Number one, I wasn't talking to you with that one.
Number two, You are talking about currently, I was talking about long into the future.

[quote]How so? The war is what caused death in the first place... By opposing it, you are causing division, which is not a bad thing most of the tmie.

Furthermore, the war was an executive (not congressional) action, and therefore Unconstitutional. Resisting--to the point of defensive force--an unconstitutionaal action of government is not only justified, but is a duty of all citizens.
[/quote]

Buddy, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about with Gerundio.

[quote]
Sex with animals is legal in most states ... you see, animals don't have rights.

Sex with children SHOULD be legal --- AS LONG AS the children consent. You see, consentual activity is inherently legitimate, whereas passing laws against such activity is inherently coercive, and therefore bad.

If two people want to have sex, it is their right. If you oppose having sex with people of your same gender, Don't Do It!

[/quote]

That doesnt make it less perverse.

Pedophilia shouldn't be legal. Children lack understanding of their situation with a consent seeking adult. Adolescence with sexual expierience with an adult grow up traumatized and are physically hurt. Children cannot give consent due to their lack of knowledge and probable lack of parental consent.

[quote]

The Holocaust was cmopletely legal... does that mean it was a good idea?

In either case, law was used as legal fiat. It was not legitimate. The Palestinians had every right to resist an Israeli takeover of their land that the Poles had to resist the Germans, or we had to resist the British in the War of 1812.
[/quote]

They have the right to resist. Without the power to overcome the offending party they are no longer entitled to their land. Power is law.

[quote]That's completely correct actually.

The logical statement If P, then Q is always true IF P IS FALSE in teh first place.

"When God says something, it happens" is true -- because "God says something" is false. Now try to prove using that method that GOD SAYS THINGS. It becomes harder, doesn't it?[/quote]

It does become harder but some of the words God has said have been recorded and the effects can be: seen, heard, felt, smelt, and tasted around the world.

[quote]
So... if I perceive you to be dead, then you are dead?

[/quote]
Yes, in your reality.


[quote]To the contrary, the empirical method is how facts are established. It has everything to do with everything.
[/quote]
NO. It has nothing to do with the point I was making by saying the way it was written can be read and you can prove it's flaws logically.

[quote]
Samuel says taxes are UNJUSTIFIED, not not to pay them. Let me get my bible:
1 Samuel 8:10-18:
"So Samuel reported all tehy words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow the ground and to reap his harvest, and to make implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He wil ltake one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and courrtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to work. He will take one-tenth of your flock, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry ouy because of your king, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

The Italics sections clearly describe a tax.[/quote]

the word tax was not introduced until later on.

That is saying they will be taxed by their King, not to not pay the taxes.

not not paying them means to pay them, double negative you see.

Even if something on Earth is unjust, like the Police, The Bible still says to follow the laws of the land. That is to the point where you have a choice between God and law.

[quote]A preemptive attack is when you attack first withotu being attacked. Israel was not attacked by Egypt. They attacked first.

It doesn't matter what they said. When someone says your hair looks messy is not an excuse to hit them.
[/quote]

preemptive means to attack before with only one side having knowledge to gain an advantage over an enemy strike. Like a surprise attack.

Nasser was aware of his provocation of Israel and was expecting an attack soon.

[quote]Too bad the Ark of the Covenant was in Ethiopia. .

The Israeli advance had STOPPED. They didn't have enough troops to break the Egyptian defenses around the Suez Canal. If they could've taken Cairo, they would have -- since that would've ended the war. The Israelis already overran their supply lines -- if the war went on, Egypt would've been able to rally and push the Israelis back. Plus, both the Soviets AND the Americans were supporting Egypt at this time ... a world war where the USSR and USA and teh Arabs allied against Israel and France would've ended very quickly in a USSR/USA/Egypt victory.

The Germans TOTALLY destroyed the Russian Army in 1941, but they STILL lost the war -- because they overextended their supplies. Without oil, they had to abandon their tanks while the Russians regrouped in Moscow to push them back.

THem taking all of Africa is entirely uneralistic -- America couldn't even do that. Guns are only one small part of the military -- the most important part of military science is supply and logistics. No power on Earth can supply forces everywhere in Africa. It's a big continent.

God is good for insprinig your troops to bravely defend teh home soil... but God won't rush new oil to your tanks, and new food to your troops.
[/quote]

IF< key word. If it is God's will, it will happen.

God will rush new oil to tanks and new food to troops if that is for the good of his will.


[quote]No. I said BECAUSE WE INVADED IRAQ, communist parties around the world are GAINING STRENGTH and will soon be able to control the governments of our key allies, which will FORCE us to resort to Isolationism.
[/quote]
So we are to let our people die to keep allies?

[quote]No they weren't. The first two Arab-Israeli Wars, in 1948 and 1956, were started by Israel. Arab nations did not attack Israel until 1967.
[/quote]

They were attacked on several occasions long before the arab nations of today were established.

[quote]The fact that they are losing a war with Cechneya proves they aren't.
[/quote]

If we were to launch a nuclear missile at them, they could launch many back in retalliation. That makes them a super power.

[quote]
If they are that weak, then they don't pose a threat to us. QED attack was unjustifiable.
[/quote]

No I didn't say weak, i said unstable. Their governments are so wishy-washy they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.

[quote]Or fighting terrorism ... Hussein waged a massive war against Al-Qaeda when they bottled up in the North of the country. Al-Qaeda was supported by teh Kurds, who are historically very hostile to Saddam.

[/quote]

Ok whatever that still doesnt make them any less of the threat they were to the US.


[quote]

Rrrrrrrrright...

There are a lot of greedy ignorant bastards on both sides.

But the distinction between Liberal and Socialist is HUGE:
From the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
Liberalism - 2a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority

Socialism - 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Get it? Liberalism says: Individual good. Socialism says: Individual bad. Liberalism says: Capitalism, Constitutional Democracy, and Liberty. Socialism says: Planned Economy, Authoritarianism, and Social Equality. Liberalism is like the Thomas Jefferson. Socialsim is like Karl Marx.

MOST democrats today are actually socialists, not liberals (though a few can still be called liberals). There are very few liberals left in America -- and they are probably evenly split between teh Republicans and Democrats.
[/quote]

I didn't say there weren't any greedy bastards in the republican party. I was saying they both liberals and closet socialistsin the democratic party are trying to make this country socialist. The liberals who don't believe they are making us into a socialist country are still supporting the party financially and with face value giving the socialist party popular puppets to help sway the majority.

[quote]There's nothing wrong with our country except when people say it's a "free country", it's not. Not one bit. Not at all. [/quote]

as of now we can still carry bibles of any type and can openly be any religion without direct government persecution.
We are considerably more free than many countries.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]Number one, I wasn't talking to you with that one.
Number two, You are talking about currently, I was talking about long into the future.[/quote]

But since all reality is perception, oceans don't really exist. In fact, we are being invaded by Canadians right now -- you just don't see it.

[quote]That doesnt make it less perverse.[/quote]

Perverse is anything that is unnatural, right?

The natural purpose of sex is to have children. Therefore, ANY sexual lifestyle that has a purpose other than having children is perverse. Monogamy is technically a perverse sexual relationship -- since it is not necessary for the purpose of having children. So is celibacy. The only non-perverse sexual relationship is trying to have as much sex to produce as many children as possible.

[quote]Pedophilia shouldn't be legal. Children lack understanding of their situation with a consent seeking adult. Adolescence with sexual expierience with an adult grow up traumatized and are physically hurt. Children cannot give consent due to their lack of knowledge and probable lack of parental consent.[/quote]

You are making generalizations -- a lot of adults don't even have the mental capability to choose to have sex, but a lot of 15 year olds do.

[quote]They have the right to resist. Without the power to overcome the offending party they are no longer entitled to their land. Power is law.[/quote]

So whoever has teh most guns is right?

Then you have no right to complain about terrorist attacks against Israel. If Arafat gets nuclear weapons and blows Tel Aviv into glass, then he would be perfectly justified according to yo -- after all, power is law.

In fact, if you argue that might makes right, it's hard to say that anyone has rights or entitlements at all -- which means that the fundamental basis of the law doesn't exist. If the ends justify the means, then law does not exist. (since the law addresses means, not ends). In that case, power is NOT law -- there IS no law. You have anarchy --> which is bad because it leads to chaos and warfare. The ONLY way we will ever get peace in Israel/Palestine is if the two sides get together and draft a common set of laws that derives from legitimacy, not power. BUT we must allow them to set their own course -- it's not our fight.

[quote]It does become harder but some of the words God has said have been recorded and the effects can be: seen, heard, felt, smelt, and tasted around the world.[/quote]

But if all reality is perception as you argue, then you can't say that you've ever actually seen heard felt smelt or tasted anything real.

[quote]Yes, in your reality.[/quote]

There is only ONE reality. People have different TAKES on it (i.e. perceptions), thus people SEE reality differently, but there is only ONE objective reality, which is what holds people together. It's why we percieve the same things.

[quote]the word tax was not introduced until later on.[/quote]

But that was STILL A TAX! A tax by any other name is still a tax. You're arguing semantics.

[quote]That is saying they will be taxed by their King, not to not pay the taxes.

not not paying them means to pay them, double negative you see.[/quote]

No, it's arguing that TAXES ARE BAD. The Bible never says not to pay taxes, it says that taxes are bad.

[quote]Even if something on Earth is unjust, like the Police, The Bible still says to follow the laws of the land. That is to the point where you have a choice between God and law.[/quote]

Yes, I believe you are referring to Romans 13... which is another HUGE contradiction... if everyone is supposed to follow the laws of the land, why didn't Jesus worship Zeus? Why did the Jews complain about their slavery? Etc.

[quote]preemptive means to attack before with only one side having knowledge to gain an advantage over an enemy strike. Like a surprise attack.

Nasser was aware of his provocation of Israel and was expecting an attack soon.[/quote]

It WAS a surprise attack ... that's why it ended so quickly. Egypt's defense line was over 100 miles inland. If they knew about the attack, they would've defended closer to the border.

[quote]IF< key word. If it is God's will, it will happen.

God will rush new oil to tanks and new food to troops if that is for the good of his will.[/quote]

"If it is God's will, it will happen" is a true statement.

Of course, it was not God's will so the point is moot.

If you argue that God's will takes precedence over the laws of physics, then in fact there is no point in arguing -- since everything is already determined.

[quote]So we are to let our people die to keep allies?[/quote]

Nope. We DONT NEED ALLIES. But we also shouldn't let our people die to kill other people. We should follow the advice of the Founding Fathers: Friendship and peace, and honest trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

[quote]They were attacked on several occasions long before the arab nations of today were established.[/quote]

Yes... by the British.

[quote]If we were to launch a nuclear missile at them, they could launch many back in retalliation. That makes them a super power.[/quote]

By that logic, North Korea is a superpower.

[quote]No I didn't say weak, i said unstable. Their governments are so wishy-washy they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.[/quote]

So is Russia's government. Terrorists will have a much easier time getting nukes from Russia than from North Korea. Putin doesn't even KNOW where all his nukes are, because he has so many of them.

[quote]Ok whatever that still doesnt make them any less of the threat they were to the US.[/quote]

Iraq was not harboring terrorists, but they were still a threat! What the hell? WE MADE THEM A THREAT. Even in 1991, they were a threat to Saudi Arabia, not us.

EVERY major terrorist attack against the US since 1989 was carried out by Saudis. Why? Because all our troops in the Mid East were in Saudi Arabia. The next wave of terrorist attacks will be coming from Iraqis.

[quote]I didn't say there weren't any greedy bastards in the republican party. I was saying they both liberals and closet socialistsin the democratic party are trying to make this country socialist. The liberals who don't believe they are making us into a socialist country are still supporting the party  financially and with face value giving the socialist party popular puppets to help sway the majority.[/quote]

That's completely false. The father of modern conservatism was a man by the name of Barry Goldwater. A lot of people said about him the same things you say about libaerls now -- that he increasd support for the Republican Party, thus empowering the "me-too" conservatives (people like Dubya).

Eventually, Goldwater won the Republican nomination, defeating the popular Rockefeller. When he was campaigning in California, he had so many volutneers, he created volunteers to tell other volunteers what to do. Goldwater took back the Republican Party. Now if Goldwater followed your logic and thought "well the Republicans are doomed anyway, so I better support the Democrats", then the Republican Party of today would be worshipping Benito Mussolini (in many ways, it is, but it'd be doing that even more so).

The same way, the Democratic Party is redeemable today, as is the Republican Party. But for that to happen, there needs to be a Liberal revolution against the Socailists -- just like there needs to be a Libertarian (liberal) revolution against Religious Nuts and Neoconservatives in the Republican Party (there are probably more 'liberals' in the classic sense of the word in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party). That's the only way things are going to change.

[quote]as of now we can still carry bibles of any type and can openly be any religion without direct government persecution. We are considerably more free than many countries.[/quote]

Definitely. We have a lot of religious freedom.

But do we have a lot of economic freedom? No. A lot of property rights? No. Free speech? No. Free use of our own bodies? No. Free association? Hell no.

We are still more free than most nations -- but that's because other nations are being repressed faster than we are, not because we are still a free country.