Are you at war with state terrorists like Israel who killed at least 800 civilians in southern Lebanon compared to the less than 50 killed by Hizbollah? And no killing 50 innocents is NOT good either, but it seems to me we ought to punish terrorists (including state terrorists) in proportion to the number on innocents they kill and make suffer. Looked at that way Israel is a 4 times bigger terrorist than Hamas and Hizbollah, unless you want to in a racist fashion discount the suffering and death of innocent non-combatant Muslims killed by Israel solely because they are Muslims. Are you at war with state terrorists like the U.S. government that has killed at least 30,000 innocents and likely more than a 100,000 innocents in Iraq? Before you answer consider this, there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Iraq as a country did nothing to us. Also consider that even the conservative lower figure is TEN 911s of completely innocent people who had nothing to do with Saddam's tyranny. If you condemn terrorists for killing innocents make sure you condemn large state terrorists first as they kill most innocents, OK?
I'm suprised you buy the western propagnda if you are really an Iranian Muslim. Hint it is Israel that kills innocents at a 4:1 ratio compared to Hamas and Hizbollah.
Really my stance is pragmatic. I think a substantial uptick in world peace and getting the U.S. out of Muslim gun sights by bringing justice to Palestine is worth 500 billion dollar land purchase. And I really don't see how Israel could complain either. 500 billion is a pretty good price for land that is in essence the same shape and size as a couple desert counties in Nevada. The Palestinians would have their state and the new "jihad" would be building Palestine, Israel is half a trillion richer and can build a giant wall at it's legitimate border and has a legitimate casus belli if still attacked, and the U.S. ends up saving money in the long run as we can DRASTICALLY reduce our military budget when the Islamic world ceases to hate us, what's not to like? Seriously. Although my rhetoric may be harsh at time this proposal was made in all sincerity. The fact that BOTH the pro Israel and pro Palestinian sides have slighted it now shows me that BOTH sides are more interested in conflict than solutions, even solutions that bring RICH benefits to both sides and to the U.S. to boot.
Yes I agree we can't promote illegal behavior that's why Israel ought to come into compliance of the 60+ U.N. resolutions against regarding illegal extra-territorial holding and live within it's rightful 1967 green boundaries.
Jews against thee occupation has a few highlights here:
Yes invading countries and killing their leaders without asking the people of the country involved if that's what they wanted sure is doing sooo much "good" in the world thank for enlightening me as to your imperialist philosophy. I'm sure for example that the Iranians were very pleased when we overthrew their elected leader in the early 60s and installed the Shaw and his Savac secret police. What they weren't grateful, they hate our guts to this day? How could that be? Ditto for Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, etc.
I know you'll have no actual logical response for this so just go ahead and say I "hate America" or some such twaddle and go back to watching Fox. For the rest of you reading who aren't clueless like the parent poster here is a clue from Mark Twain:
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
If you really understand this quote then you are far ahead of the parent poster who is a stooge for the government "right or wrong" at least activists and Libertarians can agree that's bad, right?
Many people on this thread have said in essence that the strong survive which was quite literally the philosophy of fascism.. My point if you take that belligerent attitude that has become very typical here in the U.S. that you ought not to be surprised when for example our CIA overthrows foreign governments, and that we take "regime change" upon ourselves and support the aggressive policies of Israel that we will suffer blowback. Really it's inevitable you kick someone in the balls and they want to strike back, that's just common sense and we have kicked a LOT of people in the balls in the last 60 years.
"945-1949
1945-49 Occupation of part of Germany.
1945-55 Occupation of part of Austria.
1945-46 Occupation of part of Italy.
1945-52 Occupation of Japan.
1945-46 Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines in preparation for independence.
1945-49 Occupation of South Korea and defeat of a leftist insurgency.
1945-91 -- Cold War
1946 -- Trieste (Italy). President Truman ordered the increase of US troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed US Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia. Earlier US naval units had been sent to the scene. Later the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone A.
1945-47 US Marines garrisoned in Mainland China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces after World War II.
1948 -- Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the US Consul General.
1948 -- Berlin. Berlin Airlift After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the US, British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.
1948-49 -- China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans. [edit]
1950-1959
1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action. The Vietnam War was one of the longest military conflicts in U.S. history. Enlarge The Vietnam War was one of the longest military conflicts in U.S. history.
1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the US Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.
1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated US civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.
1955-63 US sends military advisors to assist President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam. [5]
1956 -- Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated US nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.
1958 -- Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of President Camille Chamoun to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside. The President's action was supported by a Congressional resolution passed in 1957 that authorized such actions in that area of the world. [edit]
1960-1969
1959-60 -- The Caribbean. Second Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect US nationals during the Cuban crisis.
1962 -- Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.
1962 -- Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against natio
Alas I see you are right, but I think that it the grammarians who made a mistake for a noun is supposed to be a person, place, or thing, which violence as an action is not, obviously. Where as a verb describes an action such as drinking, or running. Really if you think about it we OUGHT to say violencing for the action of committing violence against a person. To refer to the action violence the same way we refer to an object static in time like a chair is absurd. But who said language or humans ever made any sense? sigh.
Don't you mean Israel needs to call anyone who dares question it's illegal holding of territory an anti-Semite? According to Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh interviewed today on Democracy Now the U.S. and Israel have been planning on invading Lebanon for over a year in a war of aggression using the flimsy casus belli of kidnapping when in fact it is Israel that holds THOUSANDS of kidnapped Muslim civilians, as the first stage in a broader war of aggression against Iran. Fortunately Hizbollah was able to fight Israel to a standstill leading to the current thank G*d cease fire or we might have been looking at WWIII. Eventually all we can hope for is that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Olmert will hang for premeditated war crimes if there is any justice in the world.
Give it up, Americans aren't going to learn what the true story is until it's FAR too late. They've been totally brainwashed by the media and watching the sad spectacle of the Israelis and oil tail wagging the American dog makes me a little less of a "Green" everyday and a little more of an isolationist "right wing" Pat Buchanan supporter. My prediction is that when people in the U.S. figure out that it's not worth dying for oil and Israel that there will be huge isolationist backlash, sadly we aren't there yet, but I suspect war with Iran and a draft would turn things around REALLY quickly, ala Vietnam. Already roughly 60% of the public is sick of the Iraq debacle and it's starting to have some fallout as the drubbing of Lieberman shows. The public HASN'T figured out the WHY of oil and Israel yet mainly because the war does not effect too many people directly, that of course would change if a war with Iran were to come about and I think people would start to get motivated to figure out the whole story.
I also think a president Hilary Clinton is just as likely to attack Iran as Bush/Cheney so it's no longer a left v.s. right thing anymore so much as a isolationist/non interventionist (the left terminology for the same) v.s. a globalist/imperialist/global cop thing.
And if you encourage violence what response do you expect in return? Hint, don't be shocked when "terrorists" blow up your shopping mall or airplane if you boast like louts about beating plowshares into swords. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Of course all you you Christian Zionist supporters of violence have a rather selective memory for your "good book" quotations, don't you?
The Palestinians get their state and Israel gets a HUGE payoff for merely obeying international law under my proposal as is Irael's obligation anyway. I actually make this as a sincere proposal, the fact that Israel's supporters shoot it down to me shows that ISRAEL'S supporters (at least on Slashdot) are more attached to war than thinking about a rational solution. Notice all the flames against my little proposal for making peace and paying Israel 500 billion in American dollars for merely following international law are from supporters of Israel and none from Palestine's supporters, something to think about y'all. Who exactly is spurning the peaces process here on Slashdot while casting aspersions? Hmmmm...
So Israel following international law and being bribed to do so with 500 billion dollars (in my plan) is appeasement, but even though Iran is NOT in violation of any actual international laws it ought to be bombed? Are you neo-cons supporters ever embarrassed by how BLATANTLY biased your arguments are?
Clue # 2 Bush claimed to be enforcing international law on behalf of a U.N. that said please DON'T when Bush went to war against Iraq against the wished of the international community. Then it turned out his casus belli WMDs was phony and what's more former weapons inspectors like Republican Scott Ritter knew it was a phony casus belli from day # 1. Total cost 30,000+ innocent Iraqi lives, 2500+ American soldiers lives, and 400 billion dollars.
Don't you neo-con supporters even feel the littlest bit ashamed when you pretend to be outraged that Iran is an international outlaw yet give Israel a pass for 60+ violations of U.N. resolutions. Does consistency mean NOTHING to you. Ah that's right it does mean nothing for you are the people who disparaged the reality based community. Neo-con policies have failed in a disastrous way, time to step aside in disgrace and let someone else lead us who has basic competence that clearly Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Pearle, and other neo-cons clearly lack. While I am no Dem supporter Lie-berman getting his ass kicked in Connecticut was a good start. Time to clean house of all the AIPAC tit suckers (tens of millions of dollars and counting now) from Hilary to Georgie from BOTH parties. Not to mention the 84 BILLION we have paid out. 500 billion to cut off Israel and get the U.S. out danger from Muslim hated would be a small price to pay indeed if our first priority was clears throat AMERICA, and not Israel's well being. Neo-cons ASSUME that AMERICAN and Israelis self interest converge, where as I assure you they do not and the Muslim people could be our friends if we treated them justly and didn't act like Israel's 2nd state.
"Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2000 Congressional Candidates 1999-2000 Cycle
TOTAL for 1999-2000 Election Cycle $2,044,606 TOTAL 1978-2000 Funds to Congressional Candidates $34,607,182 TOTAL No. of Recipient Candidates, 1978-2000 1,732
Related figures: Total US aid to Israel since 1948: According to the US government: $82 Billion According to WRMEA's calculations: $94 Billion"
Israel did NOT really give back the Gaza strip they pulled out a FEW settlers while bombarding Gaza with rockets the EXACT same way "evil" Hizbollah does as punishment for electing the "wrong" people. They then KIDNAPPED a substantial fraction of the Palestinian parliament because people they didn't like got elected. "Democracy" is just fine with you neo-cons except when it isn't, right? And before you say how dare they elect the "terrorist" Hamas it can be equally be responded how dare Israel elect the know war criminal Ariel Sharon who oversaw the massacre of thousands at refugee camps in Lebanon? If you allow people to make choices from their free will to elect a government sometimes they'll elect people you don't like and if you ACTUALLY believe in democracy you just have to deal. The pulling of a few settlers out of Gaza does NOT equal a viable contiguous Palestinian state, but then you knew that already, so why lie?
500 billion to bribe the Israelis to follow international law that they should be following ANYWAY for free is really bending over backward to appease Israel. I don't possibly see how the international community could go any farther. Everyone wins Israel has a big bank roll to build desalinization plants and a vast separation wall at it's LEGAL borders, the Arab street is pleased that their Arab brothers are no longer living under the boot heel of Israel, and the U.S. can wean down it's military budget as Muslims will no longer hate us, what's not to like?
I wish moderators had to provide justifications for their moderations. How is providing a solution to the middle east crisis which involves the conservatives beloved market, "flambait," EXACTLY?
Violence isn't "a tool" it's a choice of an action to take (i.e. a verb not noun), and often a bad action to take. For example Bush's attack on Iraq has produced nothing but 30,000+ dead civilians in Iraq, 2500+ dead Americans, 400 billion U.S. dollars down the drain for the war alone, and a civil war. It may make you feel pumped to endorse a course of action of violence, but often a more nuanced course of action has a better outcome. Really we couldn't have done much worse than Bush has done has done using the sledgehammer in lieu of the pen.
For example, for the price of ONE year of the U.S. military budget + the war on terror + Homeland Security I bet we could BUY the west bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights from Israel and GIVE it to the Palestinians and have everyone come out ahead. I'd also hope the U.K., Iran, and Syria would kick in a few billion too, so it might only be say 400 billion out of pocket for the U.S.
With a 500 billion dollar settlement Israel could go back to the 1967 Green line with honor and a sense of just compensation, and billions to build desalinization plants and a big wall at the Green line. Israel would finally be in compliance with the 60+ U.N resolutions against with a Cheshire cat smile with half a trillion it it's pockets. The Muslim world would SUDDENLY go from hating us to loving us for making a big sacrifice to bring the Palestinian state into being, and we here in the U.S. could have give Israel it's LAST payment, and we could reduce our military budget by 50% with no war on terror, and no cold war, which means after 2 years we are saving money that could go for anything from tax cuts, to high speed trains, to health care for all.
Perhaps it would be less satisfying for dunderheaded assholes than watching re-runs of Rambo and chanting USA, USA, violence is like cool maaaan, but hey if you are a muscle head I'm not listening to you for foreign policy advice anyway, right?
Insightful mod parent up, and add that we would not have Jazz at all if there had been strong "intellectual property" laws at the turn of the century. For most all Jazz is variations of standards and most Jazz musicians were too poor buy sheet music for everything they played. Screw the asset planners those are the people John Lennon fought against all his life from "money can't buy you love," to "give peace a chance." The asset planners never created anything in their whole lives and act like vampires on the truly creative person.
I'll end with a little quote from Thomas Jefferson on how absurd the whole idea of intellectual property is:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Are you saying I hate Jews because I think they ought to abide by the laws of the international community? That is not an unreasonable expectation, for example President Bush CLAIMED he was enforcing U.N. resolutions to disarm Iraq when he undertook his war of aggression against Iraq. Unfortunately this turned out to be a lie, a lie that Republican weapons inspector Scott Ritter attempted to warn us about, yet his voice that could have prevented the terrible disaster that is the U.S.'s current situation in Iraq was silenced by the MSM. So no requiring the state of Israel to abide by international law is not anti-semitic it's what we expect of all nation states.
In fact I went to a small liberal arts school (Oberlin College) with a 40% Jewish population and a large co-op system at least somewhat based on Jewish Kibbutz's. While their I had several Jewish girlfriends and gained a great respect for Jewish CULTURE. The Jewish culture has brought us many great thinkers like the composer Mendelssohn, musicians like Issac Stern, and the greatest physicist of the 20th century Albert Einstein. Further I think holocaust denial is foolish and absurd, it is well known that approximately 6 million Jews were killed during the holocaust which ranks as one of the greatest crimes in human history. My criticisms are narrowly focused against the state of Israel and it's policies against the Palestinian people and it's illegal according to the U.N. holding of territory, specifically the Golan Heights/Sheba Farms, the west bank, and Gaza. That these lands are held illegally is not controversial in fact many Jewish intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Uri Averny have written extensive articles about how Israel's illegal land holdings are not only oppressive but cause problems for the Jewish people themselves.
To discuss Israel's state policies openly without fear is no more anti-Semitic than discussing America's foreign policies and being critical of Bush is anti-American. On the contrary being interested enough in America's foreign policy to debate it is the highest form of patriotism. In a similar way we must be able to discuss Israel's foreign policy or the hatred of the Muslim world will only grow and fester and truly anti-Semitic neo-Nazis will be able to exploit the fact that discussing Israel is a taboo subject and will whisper LIES like "The protocols of the Elder's of Zion" (complete fabrication by the Russian Czar's secret police) in gullible people's ears which will lead to true and terrifying anti-Antisemitism that WOULD be a danger to the Jewish people. So can you please retract the spurious claim I am biggot, thank you.
1. Bill O Reily yes on Fox compared making students read a book on Islam was comparable to making them read Mein Kamph:
"O'REILLY:...If I were going to UNC in 1941, and you, professor, said, Read "Mein Kampf," I would have said, Hey, professor, with all due respect, shove it. I ain't reading it.
KIRKPATRICK: Why? Well, is that because you think you would have been converted to -- if you read it?
Again an example of "using crude stereotypes on behalf of a fundamentalist religious group (Christians). You can be QUITE certain that "war on Christmas" guy would have no problem with making students read a history of Christianity and he would CERTAINLY never compare the bible to Mein Kamph as he has compared the Koran at least indirectly to. To that offensive to me even as an agnostic.
Further in regards to my first quote from Coulter I suspect you'd be rightly outraged if Fox news had Nasrallah on as a regular guest even if most of his blatantly anti-Semitic statements were made on Lebanon's AL-Manor television (which incidentally the U.S. has banned as a BLATANT violation of the 4th amendment) and not on Fox itself. Why should Fox give a platform to someone who advocates killing ANYONES leaders and forcibly converting them to any religion, it's literally no matter than Nasrallah's worst statements which we don't give a platform to though that should be by free choice and not government decree.
The real problem with the U.S. is not a Muslim threat but our own home grown neo-con fascists who support Israel's wars of aggression (hint Iran is not holding any territory outside it's legal borders that has been protested with 60+ U.N. resolutions), and that further has no respect for out bill of rights as the banning of Al-Manor shows.
"This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." --Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter (National Review Online, 9/13/01)"
This one was in the more upscale neo-con rag The National Review however, she HAS been a Foxnews pundit in the past. How this is ANY better then the vile filth spouted by Nasrallah I haven't a clue. It certainly qualifies as slander people using crude stereotypes on behalf of a fundamentalist religious group." Don't you hate it when radicals outflank you with factual evidence? it sucks fighting people in the reality based community when your people disdain being part of said community, doesn't it?
And Fox news here in the U.S. would NEVER slander people using crude stereotypes on behalf of a fundamentalist religious group (Christians). Yes people in the Muslim world are probably going to hate us for a long time due to the REAL suffering caused by U.S. support of Israel. There will even be collateral damage of irrational hatred against INNOCENT people like yourself who are suffering emotional collateral damage from their insults. But buck up bucko your collateral damage is emotional which is slight compared to an IDF sniper shooting your child, and you having to walk on a "Jewish only road" (do a google search) and waiting at a checkpoint for hours before picking up his body. Israel is in many ways a far WORSE apharteid state than South Africa ever was, yet never receives the condemnation that South Africa rightly did in the U.S. MSM, why is that exactly? For years in the 80s there was a strong boycott against doing business with South Africa and no one was ever accused of being anti African or anti-white. Why does even the suggestion of a boycott against the explicitly racist (yes Jewish only roads is racist) state of Israel AUTOMATICALLY bring charges of anti-Antisemitism? Is the Jewish lobby really so strong in the U.S. that it has made ANY legitimate discussions of the POLICIES of the STATE of Israel taboo? If so we are in serious trouble in the U.S. and the tail is wagging the dog. And yes there is a Jewish lobby do a google search on AIPAC, they and related groups have given hundreds of million of dollars to our politicians over the years and influence everyone from Hilary Clinton to George Bush. So Fox/Rush Limbaugh listeners your dichotomy of Bush to Hilary is false for they represent 99% the same thing in terms of foreign policy and Hilary's bellicose statements about Iran mirror Cheney's EXACTLY.
The person who is a "turkey" is the one who calls his opponent in an argument a "turkey" in lieu of offering counter arguments. I sincerely hope you don't treat your students at driving school this way or you must make their lives a living hell.
Too chickenshit to formulate your own response in your own words to my 5 points. Sad, and you wonder why I have ZERO respect for economists. The good news is fewer and fewer people are fooled and the globalists have to meet on increasingly isolated islands due to popular outrage, and even then their trade agreements that allow multinational corporations to predatorialy seek low wages around the globe thus lowering everyones wages, are crumbling. Goodbye and good riddance.
Since your economics degree obviously didn't teach you sufficient reasoning skills to even refute a non specialists attacks on the fundamentally flawed premises undergirding economic theory I suggest the best "use value" for your degree is toilet paper. Angry economist you have just run into the angrier activist "dismal science," indeed.
Wow how insightful, yes I'll do something tedious by hand using my human brain to do the thing it's best at compared tpo a computer tediously sorting through thousands of e-mails instead of using the powerful search engine of OS X Tiger, and using my extra time to use my brain at what it's worst at compared to computers, creative problem solving. Yippee thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
Are you at war with state terrorists like Israel who killed at least 800 civilians in southern Lebanon compared to the less than 50 killed by Hizbollah? And no killing 50 innocents is NOT good either, but it seems to me we ought to punish terrorists (including state terrorists) in proportion to the number on innocents they kill and make suffer. Looked at that way Israel is a 4 times bigger terrorist than Hamas and Hizbollah, unless you want to in a racist fashion discount the suffering and death of innocent non-combatant Muslims killed by Israel solely because they are Muslims. Are you at war with state terrorists like the U.S. government that has killed at least 30,000 innocents and likely more than a 100,000 innocents in Iraq? Before you answer consider this, there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Iraq as a country did nothing to us. Also consider that even the conservative lower figure is TEN 911s of completely innocent people who had nothing to do with Saddam's tyranny. If you condemn terrorists for killing innocents make sure you condemn large state terrorists first as they kill most innocents, OK?
I'm suprised you buy the western propagnda if you are really an Iranian Muslim. Hint it is Israel that kills innocents at a 4:1 ratio compared to Hamas and Hizbollah.
Really my stance is pragmatic. I think a substantial uptick in world peace and getting the U.S. out of Muslim gun sights by bringing justice to Palestine is worth 500 billion dollar land purchase. And I really don't see how Israel could complain either. 500 billion is a pretty good price for land that is in essence the same shape and size as a couple desert counties in Nevada. The Palestinians would have their state and the new "jihad" would be building Palestine, Israel is half a trillion richer and can build a giant wall at it's legitimate border and has a legitimate casus belli if still attacked, and the U.S. ends up saving money in the long run as we can DRASTICALLY reduce our military budget when the Islamic world ceases to hate us, what's not to like? Seriously. Although my rhetoric may be harsh at time this proposal was made in all sincerity. The fact that BOTH the pro Israel and pro Palestinian sides have slighted it now shows me that BOTH sides are more interested in conflict than solutions, even solutions that bring RICH benefits to both sides and to the U.S. to boot.
Yes I agree we can't promote illegal behavior that's why Israel ought to come into compliance of the 60+ U.N. resolutions against regarding illegal extra-territorial holding and live within it's rightful 1967 green boundaries.
Jews against thee occupation has a few highlights here:
http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html
And the full 60+ are here:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html
Yes it would be nice if Israel stopped flagrantly violating international law, wouldn't it?
Yes invading countries and killing their leaders without asking the people of the country involved if that's what they wanted sure is doing sooo much "good" in the world thank for enlightening me as to your imperialist philosophy. I'm sure for example that the Iranians were very pleased when we overthrew their elected leader in the early 60s and installed the Shaw and his Savac secret police. What they weren't grateful, they hate our guts to this day? How could that be? Ditto for Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, etc.
t wain.html
I know you'll have no actual logical response for this so just go ahead and say I "hate America" or some such twaddle and go back to watching Fox. For the rest of you reading who aren't clueless like the parent poster here is a clue from Mark Twain:
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_
If you really understand this quote then you are far ahead of the parent poster who is a stooge for the government "right or wrong" at least activists and Libertarians can agree that's bad, right?
If you say you are at war with an avowed non violent person I say you are an asshole.
Many people on this thread have said in essence that the strong survive which was quite literally the philosophy of fascism.. My point if you take that belligerent attitude that has become very typical here in the U.S. that you ought not to be surprised when for example our CIA overthrows foreign governments, and that we take "regime change" upon ourselves and support the aggressive policies of Israel that we will suffer blowback. Really it's inevitable you kick someone in the balls and they want to strike back, that's just common sense and we have kicked a LOT of people in the balls in the last 60 years.
"945-1949
1945-49 Occupation of part of Germany.
1945-55 Occupation of part of Austria.
1945-46 Occupation of part of Italy.
1945-52 Occupation of Japan.
1945-46 Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines in preparation for independence.
1945-49 Occupation of South Korea and defeat of a leftist insurgency.
1945-91 -- Cold War
1946 -- Trieste (Italy). President Truman ordered the increase of US troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed US Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia. Earlier US naval units had been sent to the scene. Later the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone A.
1945-47 US Marines garrisoned in Mainland China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces after World War II.
1948 -- Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the US Consul General.
1948 -- Berlin. Berlin Airlift After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the US, British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.
1948-49 -- China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.
[edit]
1950-1959
1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action.
The Vietnam War was one of the longest military conflicts in U.S. history.
Enlarge
The Vietnam War was one of the longest military conflicts in U.S. history.
1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the US Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.
1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated US civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.
1955-63 US sends military advisors to assist President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam. [5]
1956 -- Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated US nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.
1958 -- Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of President Camille Chamoun to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside. The President's action was supported by a Congressional resolution passed in 1957 that authorized such actions in that area of the world.
[edit]
1960-1969
1959-60 -- The Caribbean. Second Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect US nationals during the Cuban crisis.
1962 -- Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.
1962 -- Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against natio
Yeah I'm a little shocked too, it's not the same GNU/Linux activist Slashdot I joined in the late 90s. :(
Alas I see you are right, but I think that it the grammarians who made a mistake for a noun is supposed to be a person, place, or thing, which violence as an action is not, obviously. Where as a verb describes an action such as drinking, or running. Really if you think about it we OUGHT to say violencing for the action of committing violence against a person. To refer to the action violence the same way we refer to an object static in time like a chair is absurd. But who said language or humans ever made any sense? sigh.
Don't you mean Israel needs to call anyone who dares question it's illegal holding of territory an anti-Semite?
1 4/1358255
According to Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh interviewed today on Democracy Now the U.S. and Israel have been planning on invading Lebanon for over a year in a war of aggression using the flimsy casus belli of kidnapping when in fact it is Israel that holds THOUSANDS of kidnapped Muslim civilians, as the first stage in a broader war of aggression against Iran. Fortunately Hizbollah was able to fight Israel to a standstill leading to the current thank G*d cease fire or we might have been looking at WWIII. Eventually all we can hope for is that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Olmert will hang for premeditated war crimes if there is any justice in the world.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/
Give it up, Americans aren't going to learn what the true story is until it's FAR too late. They've been totally brainwashed by the media and watching the sad spectacle of the Israelis and oil tail wagging the American dog makes me a little less of a "Green" everyday and a little more of an isolationist "right wing" Pat Buchanan supporter. My prediction is that when people in the U.S. figure out that it's not worth dying for oil and Israel that there will be huge isolationist backlash, sadly we aren't there yet, but I suspect war with Iran and a draft would turn things around REALLY quickly, ala Vietnam. Already roughly 60% of the public is sick of the Iraq debacle and it's starting to have some fallout as the drubbing of Lieberman shows. The public HASN'T figured out the WHY of oil and Israel yet mainly because the war does not effect too many people directly, that of course would change if a war with Iran were to come about and I think people would start to get motivated to figure out the whole story.
I also think a president Hilary Clinton is just as likely to attack Iran as Bush/Cheney so it's no longer a left v.s. right thing anymore so much as a isolationist/non interventionist (the left terminology for the same) v.s. a globalist/imperialist/global cop thing.
And if you encourage violence what response do you expect in return? Hint, don't be shocked when "terrorists" blow up your shopping mall or airplane if you boast like louts about beating plowshares into swords. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Of course all you you Christian Zionist supporters of violence have a rather selective memory for your "good book" quotations, don't you?
The Palestinians get their state and Israel gets a HUGE payoff for merely obeying international law under my proposal as is Irael's obligation anyway. I actually make this as a sincere proposal, the fact that Israel's supporters shoot it down to me shows that ISRAEL'S supporters (at least on Slashdot) are more attached to war than thinking about a rational solution. Notice all the flames against my little proposal for making peace and paying Israel 500 billion in American dollars for merely following international law are from supporters of Israel and none from Palestine's supporters, something to think about y'all. Who exactly is spurning the peaces process here on Slashdot while casting aspersions? Hmmmm...
So Israel following international law and being bribed to do so with 500 billion dollars (in my plan) is appeasement, but even though Iran is NOT in violation of any actual international laws it ought to be bombed? Are you neo-cons supporters ever embarrassed by how BLATANTLY biased your arguments are?
Clue # 2 Bush claimed to be enforcing international law on behalf of a U.N. that said please DON'T when Bush went to war against Iraq against the wished of the international community. Then it turned out his casus belli WMDs was phony and what's more former weapons inspectors like Republican Scott Ritter knew it was a phony casus belli from day # 1. Total cost 30,000+ innocent Iraqi lives, 2500+ American soldiers lives, and 400 billion dollars.
Don't you neo-con supporters even feel the littlest bit ashamed when you pretend to be outraged that Iran is an international outlaw yet give Israel a pass for 60+ violations of U.N. resolutions. Does consistency mean NOTHING to you. Ah that's right it does mean nothing for you are the people who disparaged the reality based community. Neo-con policies have failed in a disastrous way, time to step aside in disgrace and let someone else lead us who has basic competence that clearly Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Pearle, and other neo-cons clearly lack. While I am no Dem supporter Lie-berman getting his ass kicked in Connecticut was a good start. Time to clean house of all the AIPAC tit suckers (tens of millions of dollars and counting now) from Hilary to Georgie from BOTH parties. Not to mention the 84 BILLION we have paid out. 500 billion to cut off Israel and get the U.S. out danger from Muslim hated would be a small price to pay indeed if our first priority was clears throat AMERICA, and not Israel's well being. Neo-cons ASSUME that AMERICAN and Israelis self interest converge, where as I assure you they do not and the Muslim people could be our friends if we treated them justly and didn't act like Israel's 2nd state.
"Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2000 Congressional Candidates
1999-2000 Cycle
TOTAL for 1999-2000 Election Cycle $2,044,606
TOTAL 1978-2000 Funds to Congressional Candidates $34,607,182
TOTAL No. of Recipient Candidates, 1978-2000 1,732
Related figures:
Total US aid to Israel since 1948:
According to the US government: $82 Billion
According to WRMEA's calculations: $94 Billion"
http://www.washington-report.org/html/aipac.htm
Israel did NOT really give back the Gaza strip they pulled out a FEW settlers while bombarding Gaza with rockets the EXACT same way "evil" Hizbollah does as punishment for electing the "wrong" people. They then KIDNAPPED a substantial fraction of the Palestinian parliament because people they didn't like got elected. "Democracy" is just fine with you neo-cons except when it isn't, right? And before you say how dare they elect the "terrorist" Hamas it can be equally be responded how dare Israel elect the know war criminal Ariel Sharon who oversaw the massacre of thousands at refugee camps in Lebanon? If you allow people to make choices from their free will to elect a government sometimes they'll elect people you don't like and if you ACTUALLY believe in democracy you just have to deal. The pulling of a few settlers out of Gaza does NOT equal a viable contiguous Palestinian state, but then you knew that already, so why lie?
500 billion to bribe the Israelis to follow international law that they should be following ANYWAY for free is really bending over backward to appease Israel. I don't possibly see how the international community could go any farther. Everyone wins Israel has a big bank roll to build desalinization plants and a vast separation wall at it's LEGAL borders, the Arab street is pleased that their Arab brothers are no longer living under the boot heel of Israel, and the U.S. can wean down it's military budget as Muslims will no longer hate us, what's not to like?
I wish moderators had to provide justifications for their moderations. How is providing a solution to the middle east crisis which involves the conservatives beloved market, "flambait," EXACTLY?
Violence isn't "a tool" it's a choice of an action to take (i.e. a verb not noun), and often a bad action to take. For example Bush's attack on Iraq has produced nothing but 30,000+ dead civilians in Iraq, 2500+ dead Americans, 400 billion U.S. dollars down the drain for the war alone, and a civil war. It may make you feel pumped to endorse a course of action of violence, but often a more nuanced course of action has a better outcome. Really we couldn't have done much worse than Bush has done has done using the sledgehammer in lieu of the pen.
For example, for the price of ONE year of the U.S. military budget + the war on terror + Homeland Security I bet we could BUY the west bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights from Israel and GIVE it to the Palestinians and have everyone come out ahead. I'd also hope the U.K., Iran, and Syria would kick in a few billion too, so it might only be say 400 billion out of pocket for the U.S.
With a 500 billion dollar settlement Israel could go back to the 1967 Green line with honor and a sense of just compensation, and billions to build desalinization plants and a big wall at the Green line. Israel would finally be in compliance with the 60+ U.N resolutions against with a Cheshire cat smile with half a trillion it it's pockets. The Muslim world would SUDDENLY go from hating us to loving us for making a big sacrifice to bring the Palestinian state into being, and we here in the U.S. could have give Israel it's LAST payment, and we could reduce our military budget by 50% with no war on terror, and no cold war, which means after 2 years we are saving money that could go for anything from tax cuts, to high speed trains, to health care for all.
Perhaps it would be less satisfying for dunderheaded assholes than watching re-runs of Rambo and chanting USA, USA, violence is like cool maaaan, but hey if you are a muscle head I'm not listening to you for foreign policy advice anyway, right?
Insightful mod parent up, and add that we would not have Jazz at all if there had been strong "intellectual property" laws at the turn of the century. For most all Jazz is variations of standards and most Jazz musicians were too poor buy sheet music for everything they played.
d eas_pr.html
Screw the asset planners those are the people John Lennon fought against all his life from "money can't buy you love," to "give peace a chance." The asset planners never created anything in their whole lives and act like vampires on the truly creative person.
I'll end with a little quote from Thomas Jefferson on how absurd the whole idea of intellectual property is:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.i
The rest of this essay might teach you something as well.
Are you saying I hate Jews because I think they ought to abide by the laws of the international community? That is not an unreasonable expectation, for example President Bush CLAIMED he was enforcing U.N. resolutions to disarm Iraq when he undertook his war of aggression against Iraq. Unfortunately this turned out to be a lie, a lie that Republican weapons inspector Scott Ritter attempted to warn us about, yet his voice that could have prevented the terrible disaster that is the U.S.'s current situation in Iraq was silenced by the MSM. So no requiring the state of Israel to abide by international law is not anti-semitic it's what we expect of all nation states.
l
In fact I went to a small liberal arts school (Oberlin College) with a 40% Jewish population and a large co-op system at least somewhat based on Jewish Kibbutz's. While their I had several Jewish girlfriends and gained a great respect for Jewish CULTURE. The Jewish culture has brought us many great thinkers like the composer Mendelssohn, musicians like Issac Stern, and the greatest physicist of the 20th century Albert Einstein. Further I think holocaust denial is foolish and absurd, it is well known that approximately 6 million Jews were killed during the holocaust which ranks as one of the greatest crimes in human history. My criticisms are narrowly focused against the state of Israel and it's policies against the Palestinian people and it's illegal according to the U.N. holding of territory, specifically the Golan Heights/Sheba Farms, the west bank, and Gaza. That these lands are held illegally is not controversial in fact many Jewish intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Uri Averny have written extensive articles about how Israel's illegal land holdings are not only oppressive but cause problems for the Jewish people themselves.
See: http://www.strike-the-root.com/archive/avnery.htm
To discuss Israel's state policies openly without fear is no more anti-Semitic than discussing America's foreign policies and being critical of Bush is anti-American. On the contrary being interested enough in America's foreign policy to debate it is the highest form of patriotism. In a similar way we must be able to discuss Israel's foreign policy or the hatred of the Muslim world will only grow and fester and truly anti-Semitic neo-Nazis will be able to exploit the fact that discussing Israel is a taboo subject and will whisper LIES like "The protocols of the Elder's of Zion" (complete fabrication by the Russian Czar's secret police) in gullible people's ears which will lead to true and terrifying anti-Antisemitism that WOULD be a danger to the Jewish people. So can you please retract the spurious claim I am biggot, thank you.
1. Bill O Reily yes on Fox compared making students read a book on Islam was comparable to making them read Mein Kamph:
...If I were going to UNC in 1941, and you, professor, said, Read "Mein Kampf," I would have said, Hey, professor, with all due respect, shove it. I ain't reading it.
"O'REILLY:
KIRKPATRICK: Why? Well, is that because you think you would have been converted to -- if you read it?
O'REILLY: No. It's because it's tripe. "
http://www.wordridden.com/post/138
Again an example of "using crude stereotypes on behalf of a fundamentalist religious group (Christians). You can be QUITE certain that "war on Christmas" guy would have no problem with making students read a history of Christianity and he would CERTAINLY never compare the bible to Mein Kamph as he has compared the Koran at least indirectly to. To that offensive to me even as an agnostic.
Further in regards to my first quote from Coulter I suspect you'd be rightly outraged if Fox news had Nasrallah on as a regular guest even if most of his blatantly anti-Semitic statements were made on Lebanon's AL-Manor television (which incidentally the U.S. has banned as a BLATANT violation of the 4th amendment) and not on Fox itself. Why should Fox give a platform to someone
who advocates killing ANYONES leaders and forcibly converting them to any religion, it's literally no matter than Nasrallah's worst statements which we don't give a platform to though that should be by free choice and not government decree.
The real problem with the U.S. is not a Muslim threat but our own home grown neo-con fascists who support Israel's wars of aggression (hint Iran is not holding any territory outside it's legal borders that has been protested with 60+ U.N. resolutions), and that further has no respect for out bill of rights as the banning of Al-Manor shows.
"This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
--Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter (National Review Online, 9/13/01)"
This one was in the more upscale neo-con rag The National Review however, she HAS been a Foxnews pundit in the past. How this is ANY better then the vile filth spouted by Nasrallah I haven't a clue. It certainly qualifies as slander people using crude stereotypes on behalf of a fundamentalist religious group." Don't you hate it when radicals outflank you with factual evidence? it sucks fighting people in the reality based community when your people disdain being part of said community, doesn't it?
And Fox news here in the U.S. would NEVER slander people using crude stereotypes on behalf of a fundamentalist religious group (Christians). Yes people in the Muslim world are probably going to hate us for a long time due to the REAL suffering caused by U.S. support of Israel. There will even be collateral damage of irrational hatred against INNOCENT people like yourself who are suffering emotional collateral damage from their insults. But buck up bucko your collateral damage is emotional which is slight compared to an IDF sniper shooting your child, and you having to walk on a "Jewish only road" (do a google search) and waiting at a checkpoint for hours before picking up his body. Israel is in many ways a far WORSE apharteid state than South Africa ever was, yet never receives the condemnation that South Africa rightly did in the U.S. MSM, why is that exactly? For years in the 80s there was a strong boycott against doing business with South Africa and no one was ever accused of being anti African or anti-white. Why does even the suggestion of a boycott against the explicitly racist (yes Jewish only roads is racist) state of Israel AUTOMATICALLY bring charges of anti-Antisemitism? Is the Jewish lobby really so strong in the U.S. that it has made ANY legitimate discussions of the POLICIES of the STATE of Israel taboo? If so we are in serious trouble in the U.S. and the tail is wagging the dog. And yes there is a Jewish lobby do a google search on AIPAC, they and related groups have given hundreds of million of dollars to our politicians over the years and influence everyone from Hilary Clinton to George Bush. So Fox/Rush Limbaugh listeners your dichotomy of Bush to Hilary is false for they represent 99% the same thing in terms of foreign policy and Hilary's bellicose statements about Iran mirror Cheney's EXACTLY.
The person who is a "turkey" is the one who calls his opponent in an argument a "turkey" in lieu of offering counter arguments. I sincerely hope you don't treat your students at driving school this way or you must make their lives a living hell.
Too chickenshit to formulate your own response in your own words to my 5 points. Sad, and you wonder why I have ZERO respect for economists. The good news is fewer and fewer people are fooled and the globalists have to meet on increasingly isolated islands due to popular outrage, and even then their trade agreements that allow multinational corporations to predatorialy seek low wages around the globe thus lowering everyones wages, are crumbling. Goodbye and good riddance.
Since your economics degree obviously didn't teach you sufficient reasoning skills to even refute a non specialists attacks on the fundamentally flawed premises undergirding economic theory I suggest the best "use value" for your degree is toilet paper. Angry economist you have just run into the angrier activist "dismal science," indeed.
Wow how insightful, yes I'll do something tedious by hand using my human brain to do the thing it's best at compared tpo a computer tediously sorting through thousands of e-mails instead of using the powerful search engine of OS X Tiger, and using my extra time to use my brain at what it's worst at compared to computers, creative problem solving. Yippee thanks!
(set sarcasm="off)