Iraqi Invasion Implications

[ch47fe]

Islamic/Muslim Terrorists

Nobody ran around screaming Koresh was a Christian terrorist because large numbers of "Christian" leaders openly condemn this type of behavior.

UNLIKE the Islamic/Muslim Coummunity leaders. After 9/11 and until this very day the leaders of the American Muslim/Islamic community have not spent the least amount of time openly condemning the acts of Islam.

Sorry but the fact is these idiots did it in the name of Islam. They flew a plane into buildings to kill people.

Don't even try to compare what happened to Koresh to the Islamic wackos. The Feds torched the Waco compound and totally goofed-up that entire operation. The Feds played a large part in pushing Koresh into what happened. He was not openly trying to lure agents into the compund to kill them or other innocents as the 9/11 incident. Even the agents that were inolved in Waco admit massive govenrment errors while all they had to do was wait out a peaceful option. Uncle Sugar's boys wanted a fire fight that day after so many months of little action.

Of course Koresh was an idiot and after all of this happened Falwell, Graham and countless other "Christian" leaders openly condemned how this man used Christ for wrongdoing and mis leading others. I haven't seen any of this behavior from the Islamic/Muslim community?! Truth is, the majority of the muslims here sympathize with these terrorists.

Many of the Muslim/Islamic immigrants have no intention of assimilating into our society. They still make their women wear head dress. If the millions of immigrants from around the world have come here to 'blend' in somewhat so should the Middle easterners. Anyone can retain their heritage that's fine but you should try to assimilate into American society to some degree not try to divide it.

God Bless America!!!

 

[TurboS7]

I would love to fly with you guys, that discussion ate up about 6.0 hours of an 8.0 hour leg.....then continued at the bar.

 

[TWA Dude]

1) The Palestinians aren't killing Jews over religion. They were living peacfully, together with the Jews for well over a thousand years before the Israeli state was created in their midst.

First, they were living "peacefully" together for a thousand years because there were only a several thousand Jews in the area and the government was Ottoman. The land was basically ruined and wasted. With the rise of Zionism (Zion is an ancient name for Jerusalem) and the arrival of more Jews starting in the late 1800's the economics of the region started growing and that attracted both more Jews and more Arab laborers to settle in the area. The Ottoman Turks were happy with the increase in tax revenue. The Balfour Declaration which declared a "favourable" opinion of the eventual formation of a Jewish country immediately led to hostilities by the Arabs. BTW, the Brits retracted the Balfour by the late 30's.

IMO, both of these people are killing each other over real estate, not religion.

Ah, but you have a conceptual misunderstanding. For both Jews and Muslims the land is tied with the religion and one cannot separate the two! For centuries the Jews have existed without their own land only by maintaining their religion, culture and a shared desire to return to their homeland of Israel. That doesn't however give them the right to usurp Arab-owned land. The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 gave land to both Arabs and Jews. The Jews accepted it and the Arabs declared war. The Arabs subsequently lost most of theirs while the Jews lost the Jewish section of Old Jerusalem. During the period of 1949-1967 the Jordanians turned the ancient synagogues into horse stables and didn't allow ANY Jews into the Old City.

There was mention earlier of Jewish terrorism during the formation of Israel. It is shameful that civilians were ever targeted but I must emphasize that it was NOT government-sponsored. In fact, at one point the Israeli government fired on and sank a ship full of desperately needed weapons because they were intended for Menachem Beagan's Irgun group. It was practially a civil war but Beagan wisely decided not to press it. Additionally, before the King David Hotel was blown up the Irgun gave over twenty minutes warning which the Brits arrogantly ignored.

I confess to being biased but as an American I seek freedom and justice for all peoples of the world. To a large extent the Arabs of Palestine are unwilling pawns of the Arab governments and their goal of Israel's destruction. There's no reason why refugee camps were maintained in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt other than to maintain pressure against Israel. Yes, innocents were uprooted from their rightful homes but as has been mentioned here when you declare war and lose that's what happens.

 

[Tim47SIP]

A different view

Just thought you might find this interesting as I sort of pertains to this thread. This is just an opinion of this individual, I'm sure, and is not presented here to come from a factual representation.

DENNIS MILLER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ON THE MID-EAST CONFLICT


A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Don't thank me. I'm a giver.

Here we go: The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation." So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped.

Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish anything In Life and Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of eternal struggle And Death." I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun.

No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course-that's where the real fun is - but mostly they want Israel. Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it-for the last fifty-four years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward people on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something. It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Yeah, right! Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshalling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab state into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations coming up against Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our 'Arab allies' as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away. However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City bombing every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. Isn't that sort of a double standard? If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the editerranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . . uh, that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)

 

[prodigal]

surplus1

TWA dude is right on. And of course the Arab world is manipulating the so called "Palestinians" as an issue to divert the attention of their own people from their own crappy existence. Classic dictator tactics: have a big boogey man threat from outside so the people won't think so much about how miserable their lives are. But I think it even goes much deeper than that. The Israel-"palestinian" conflict is the flashpoint for the greater clash of cultures between the West and the Middle East. Look at it as a proxy war between the West and the Arabs much like Vietnam was a kind of proxy war between the US and Soviets. As such, in my view, we all have a lot on the line in Israel. There are an awfully lot of people over there who not only want to drive the Jews into the sea, but mean to destroy the West altogether.
In my view we definitely have serious national security issues at stake in Israel.
Sarcastic and scathing article by Dennis Miller . . . couldn't be more true.
Shalom ya'll.

 

[ch47fe]

You pin heads!!

Gosh, I can't believe you can say the things you have in favor of teh Israelites!!

Tom Brokaw and Dan Slather are telling me weekly about the plight of Palestine. In fact I'm writing a check to help the poor Palestinians. Listen to Dan and Tom they can help you see these people simply want peace and Israel keeps bulling them around with their fancy weapons of destruction. They only danced in teh streets after 9/11 because it was free towel of your choice week at all outlets. The Israel media machine simply made it look like they were celebrating the deaths of the 9/11 attack. It's all a misunderstanding on America. Yasser is a great guy and sponsor of teh state. He's just misunderstood too. He just looks like he is always involved in terrorism. It's all Americas fault because we oppress these people daily. Geesh, everyone can start singing songs of love and communal peace if we just follow the media and trust them. I can't wait to get a big hug from Katie!!!!

If this crap keeps up give me a solar car and start drilling in ANWR until there's not a drop left. If we stop buying oil the towel heads have very little to no leverage on our economy. They don't make all of our little trinkets like Asia. They are a different story.

No, the liberals will never let us look here for oil. It might kill a dolphin or alter the arctic wind patterns if someone breaethes CO2 into the atmosphere up near that pristine area.

Daschel is looking out for us buddy!!!

 

[surplus1]

Tim,

As you correctly point out, Mr. Miller's "summary" is his, decidedly biased, opinion. We all have one of those.

It reminds me of a definition I once read whose author I unfortunately cannot remember.

History: An account mostly false, of events unimportant, brought about by soldiers mostly fools and rulers mostly naves.

Thanks for posting it. Things like that help me to understand why I think as I do.

Regards,

 

[surplus1]

Diatribe Part 1

Originally posted by TWA Dude
First, they were living "peacefully" together for a thousand years because there were only a several thousand Jews in the area and the government was Ottoman.

Thanks for your reply and excellent post. I especially enjoy debate with folks that are informed. Some of your arguments are based on emotion or political preference, but so are mine. We both have to be tolerant of that.

You are mostly correct about the political history of the region during which the Jewish and Muslim populations lived peacefully together. Perhaps as you say the land was "basically wasted and ruined". Many would argue that is the case of the entire region to this day. I argue, that is not the issue. As you appear to point out, Zionism is. Keep in mind that Zionism is essentially a movement of the Jewish people to return from the Diaspora to Palestine; to bring Jewish people from other parts of the world back to their ancestral point of origin, which they regard as centered around Jerusalem. Let us not overlook however that, historically, all of the "tribes" of the region, including the Jews, were nomadic, displaced repeatedly, exiled into assorted "kingdoms", and dominated by foreigners dating back to the ancient Egyptians, the followers of Genghis Khan, the Romans (including later the crusaders), the Syrians the Ottomans and of course the Europeans of "modern" times (not necessarily listed in order of succession.)

As I'm sure you know, the Balfour Declaration was a unilateral declaration of the British government made circa 1917, in support of Zionism. It was endorsed by the US Congress in 1922 and followed shortly by the "mandate". The Mandate for Palestine, authored by the League of Nations in 1922, refers to the creation of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine (not in Israel) and encompassed the territory of the country now known as Jordan. Once again this "mandate" came out of nations foreign to the region and retained the authority of the British over that portion of the "territory" that includes what is now Israel as well as what is now the country of Jordan. My point is, who asked the people of "Palestine" what they wanted or didn't want? In the overwhelming majority they were NOT Jews.

The reasons for which the Balfour Declaration was issued have been debated many times. Usually they are political, strategic and military. However, there is a considerable body of evidence that the Balfour Declaration would never have been endorsed by the British Government were it not for the religious fundamentalists/evangelical beliefs of some prominent Zionist Christians, among them British Prime Minister Lord George, who based their decision on Biblical stories of the Jews eventual return to Zion. If this belief is in fact accurate, then there are indeed religious elements to the conflict. One cannot ignore the fact that the Mandate for Palestine mentions directly the preservation of Christian and Jewish religious sites, but makes no reference whatever to Islamic shrines.

The Mandate for Palestine came out of the after effects of WWI in which the Turkish Empire lost control of the region only to have it divided between the British and the French. Interestingly, the "Mandate" includes these words " in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, ]it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", (emphasis added).

The "State" was to be Palestine, not Israel. It established rights for the Jews in Palestine, including the right to make it their "home", but it did not remove the civil or religious rights of the people who lived there. The Israeli State does remove those rights. The Mandate further states "The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine." Note the "acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews" as opposed to Israeli citizenship, which excludes most if not all of the other peoples of the region.

There is far more to this whole equation than either you or I can resolve in a thousand posts. 1922 was 80 years ago. The "mandate" has since fallen by the wayside, Jordan was created in 1946, Israel in 1948, etc., etc. It's a bloody mess, and people who don't live in Palestine and never have created all of it. Do you still wonder why the natives do not view Westerners with favor?

In our own country, the Indians accepted the arrival of the Pilgrims, shared their food and actually made it possible for the immigrants seeking a new "home" to survive the initial years. That worked just fine until the immigrants decided to take over the land for themselves and remove the "savages", often invoking Christianity and the "name of God" in the process. Strangely, the Indians fought for their land but, were ultimately butchered and defeated by the military and technological superiority of the invaders. What's so different about Palestine? If the Jews had their way, they might well make Indians of the Palestinians and put them on reservations. They've sure been trying.

Reality is that foreign powers may be able to impose their will on other people by virtue of their momentary military advantage. If the people accept, then it works. If they do not and cannot in the majority be eliminated, eventually you have what now exists in Palestine, i.e., civil war by another name.

Let us also not overlook that while Jews may view Zionism as a thirst for return to the point of origin, the facts seem to indicate that this "fervor" is truly motivated by the persecution, over centuries, of Jews by Western and Eastern Europeans alike. I doubt that the Balfour declaration, except for the religious fervor of a few key players, was motivated by much more than a convenient attempt by the British to "get rid of the Jews", as opposed to helping them to "recover a lost homeland". Let us also remember that the hegemony of Europeans, principally the British, and to some extent the French (Syria/Lebanon) is responsible for the division of the area into "created" nations and "installed" monarchs, all courtesy of foreigners who don't belong there and never did.

It is one thing to have your world changed by the natural evolution of local populations. It is entirely another thing to be subjected to ever-increasing immigration of people foreign to the region, who were not born there, not only themselves but for centuries their ancestors, who suddenly declare that they have some "chosen right" to return and displace you. The overwhelming majority of the current population of the country of Israel, is in fact Europeans, who happen to believe in Judaism.

I cannot help but wonder how Americans might react if, as the result of a UN mandate, 20 million Mexicans were to migrate back to California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Texas, establish a new State, take over the land, and displace the Americans who live there placing them in refugee camps. I wonder too what the displaced Americans would resort to doing if this new "migration" was to be accomplished under the guise of Catholicism and supported totally be a superior military power with the ability to win "wars". Hopefully the Americans would not strap bombs to themselves and blow up kids, but my guess is that the guerilla war would continue until the Mexican Catholics went back to Mexico. I don't think that too many of us would be willing to accept the idea that a Mexican return was OK, merely because all of that territory was once Mexico's. We sure didn't worry about it when we took it from them.

Would you call that hypothetical scenario a "conceptual misunderstanding"? As you point out, the Jews have indeed maintained their "identity" by maintaining their religion. However, I challenge your idea that they have maintained their "culture" and a "shared desired to return to their homeland". Perhaps I am wrong, but the truth is I am unable to detect any difference in the "culture" of an American who happens to profess the Jewish religion and another American who doesn't. Ninety-nine out of one hundred times, I can't tell that a person is "Jewish", unless he chooses to tell me. Of course there are the exceptions of what I would call the Jewish extremists, but that holds true of other religious fanatics as well.

What's the difference? In America, the Jews are not persecuted and never have been (certainly no more than the Irish were initially). In Europe, anti-Semitism has been forever rampant and so remains today, although "under cover" in most cases. I don't see any mass immigration of American Jews to Israel in search of their "culture" or their "homeland". Yet, millions of Zionists from Europe flock to Israel whenever they can from every European country beginning with Russia and stretching westward to the British Isles.

Continued in Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Diatribe Part 2

Yes, the Arabs declared war because they never accepted the European/American imposed UN Partition Plan. While you say that plan "gave" land to both Arabs and Jews (which is technically correct), whose land did it give to the Jews? Did the U, N. own land in the region that it could "give to the Jews" or did it simply take this land from Arabs? Perhaps I lack the perspective and knowledge (please correct me if I do) but I would really like to know where the UN obtained the land that it "gave" to the Jews and who "gave" that land to the UN in the first instance. The British who took it from the Turks?

The Arabs indeed lost the war. We often subscribe to the concept "to the victor go the spoils", but I have to ask: what made it possible for the Israelis to win the war(s)? Did they do this independently or was it accomplished by virtue of the support and military might of the United States? If tomorrow the United States of America were to withdraw its unlimited financial and military support of the Zionist State, how long do you believe Israel would last? Reportedly, Israel has nuclear capability. If this is true (and I believe that it is), how did Israel accomplish this? Was it developed internally by Israeli scientists with no assistance from the USA or other western nations with nuclear capability? Would the Israeli's use their nuclear power if faced with a losing situation that they could not otherwise win?

When the Egyptians attacked Israel in the 70's, the Israeli air force was devastated in the early days of the conflict. Without its vastly superior air force, many would argue that Israel is not defensible. While I will not be the first to acknowledge the exceptional skill of Israeli pilots (often exceeding ours), how did the Israeli air force recover and go on to win the war? Did they do this on their own or was it the result of an extraordinary replacement effort provided by the United States?

Please don't misunderstand me. I am glad that the Israelis won the war and were able to preserve the existence of their country. I'm just not blind to the fact that they have never done this on their own. If the United States were to change sides tomorrow, Israel would not exist in less than a year. They would certainly fight bravely and to the finish, but they could not win. Well, the Arabs can't win either, as long as the US supports the Israeli military. Like it or not, that's the truth.

I'll grant you that the Jordanians, more than 60% of whom are really Palestinians, (don't forget that "Jordan" is a sub-division of Palestine and a creation of the British, including it's "King" - father I believe of the present king.), defiled many Jewish religious sites. There is no lack of defiled mosques, by Jews and Christians alike.

I notice you say that Irgun terrorism what not "government-sponsored". Is that because the Israeli's had no recognized government at the time? Yes, I've heard that the Brits "ignored" Began's "warning", What if they did? I hope you are not implying that acts of terrorism are OK, if adequate "warning" is given. If that's the case, I'm quite sure UBL would tell us that he's been "warning" us for years. I can't buy that concept as justification. Yes the "warning" was given, but it was no less terrorism because of that nor was the Kind David Hotel and isolated incident.

My point was simple really. When the Jews saw fit to engage in terrorism to accomplish the exodus of the British and the establishment of the Israeli State, they did it. Their methodology may have been slightly different. The current Prime Minister of Israel is hardly a saint. I think he can match Arafat for atrocities (although different in format) any day of the week. While we in the west choose not to call his recorded "excursions" with the military "terrorism", I suspect that the Arabs have a different point of view. Terrorism appears to have different definitions dependent on the practitioner.

When Hitler was exterminating the Jews in Europe, we didn't call that terrorism either. As a matter of fact, most of the western "allies" took the position that they just didn't believe the "rumors" and ignored it. It was only after our victorious soldiers discovered the camps and took pictures, that we were forced to admit what was going on and cry foul. While it was happening, we were essentially silent as millions of Jews were systematically exterminated. Today the Germans are "allies" of the Israelis.

I confess to being biased but as an American I seek freedom and justice for all peoples of the world.

As an American, I also seek freedom and justice for all peoples of the world. The difference between us is perhaps that I am NOT biased. I see the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Arabs as people too. I guess I don't subscribe to the Biblical designation of the Jews as God's chosen people. My God loves ALL people, Jews or not.

It happens I've been to the region more than once. I've walked the streets of Beirut, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Cairo, Riyadh and Mecca too. I'm not a Jew and I'm not a Muslim. I'm a Roman Catholic and have no Arabian ancestry. The truth is I can't tell the difference between a true Palestinian and a Jew from the region. I can sure tell a German or a Hungarian or a Pole or a Russian of the Jewish faith, however.

In Beirut, I couldn't tell who was Christian or Islamic by looking at him or talking with him, unless we got to talk about politics. I wasn't happy when I sat at home here in the US and watched TV pictures of rockets destroying everything of worth in the city and killing kids on both sides of a senseless war. I also wasn't happy when my government exposed hundreds of our young American boys unnecessarily (IMO) only to have them killed by warring factions called "terrorists". I wasn't happy when all that "the great Reagan" did about it was lob a few shells from and old battleship at some Syrians in a mountain hideout.

I do not believe that the policy of my government in the Middle East promotes "freedom and justice for all". On the contrary, I think it promotes exactly the opposite for most of that region's people, while we pursue the interests of black gold and the money that comes from it.

If my grandson's should have to lose their lives in a distant, unknown and hostile place like the mountains of Afghanistan in defense of our country, I am willing to make that sacrifice. However, I do NOT want to shed even one ounce of the blood of American youth in defense of the Israeli State, nor of the Palestinians, nor to protect the Saudis or the Egyptians or to attack Saddam Hussein, because it suits the politics of GWB or the oil interests of Dick Cheney, et al.. I am not willing to sacrifice my own life or the lives of my family, friends and neighbor's children for money. And I do NOT confuse money and liberty. I can tell the difference.

With the exception of our current actions in Afghanistan and directly related thereto, in my opinion, the last time the United States took part in a justified war was WWII. To me, the Korean War was not justified. The Vietnam War was not justified and the Gulf War was not justified. Neither were our military excursions in Grenada or Panama nor the sacrifice of our young marines in Lebanon. I agree with our efforts in the Balkans. When attacked, it is our responsibility as Americans to defend this nation. When human slaughter is taking place, I can deal with intervention to prevent it, providing we do not decide that some people are "more entitled to freedom and justice" than other people in the conflict (that's what we are doing in the Balkans).

I won't support imperialism by the United States any more than I supported it by Great Britain, France, the Dutch, the Germans, the Japanese or the Soviet Union. Perhaps those views are not popular but I can deal with that. When it comes to defending this country I'm no pacifist. When it comes to meddling in the affairs of other peoples, I am.

As I look back on my own lifetime, my father fought in a war, my older brothers fought in another, I fought in one, my nephews fought in still another (happily we missed the Gulf War). Some of them died, others made it through. All of these wars had the alleged purpose of preventing future wars and, more recently, defending "freedom" in places where it has never existed. None of them accomplished the objective. Now it's my grandson's turn. When they carry our flag in defense of the United States, I am proud beyond words. However, I don't want them waving that flag in pursuit of money or the control of another man's possessions or political ambitions.

If and when our government can produce hard evidence that Iraq in fact poses an immediate and dangerous threat to the American people, I will support our efforts to remove that threat. I will not support such action when its purpose is to pursue our financial or political interests in the region. Our current President has not convinced me that we should make war on Iraq and I don't support him in that effort until he does.

Today, the United States of America is the only "super power" in the world. However, there have been other super powers in the past. None of them survived. We are supposed to be "different". I'm all for being "different" and have no desire to repeat the historical errors of the world's former and now defunct super powers. IMO, the very last thing this country needs to do is become an imperial power. We already do too much of that. And no, that does not mean I'm an isolationist. Far from it.

Best regards

 

[desert pilot]

Realy long post,SO i MISSED THE POINT.If the american indians start a war for independence and return of their lands,if hawai demands independence,if california and the rest of the becoming hispanic states aided by all south and central american states go to war over what they think is theirs,IRELAND DEMANDS THE BRITISH LEAVE THE NORTH,AND JUST THE REST OF THE WORLD-NOBODY IS LIVING ON HIS ORIGINAL SPOT-WHO IS RIGHT,WHO DECIDES,WHEN DO YOU JUSTIFY MASS MURDER,ARAFAT IS A TERRORIST...YOU CAN GIVE HIM THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE BUT THE FACT REMAINS.THE GERMANS AND THE JAPS NEEDED TO BE STOPPED,WAITING TOO LONG DID NOT HELP,YOU MIGHT CONSIDER STOPPING THE ARABS NOW,SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TAKE SIDES,TRYING TO SWITCH SIDES AND JUSTIFY THE ARABS AS MANY ARE DOING COULD BE QUITE A BAD IDEA,IF YOU KNOW THE ARABS YOU KNOW BY NOW THAT SWEET TALK WONT HELP.