Your statements of the scale of the Earth's resources are absolutely incorrect. See my other reply about the inescapable conclusion of your assumptions.
Nonetheless, the belief that the Earth is beyond its ability to support human life leads to the classic "deer population" dilemna. While you may be ignorant (lack of knowledge) of the scale of the Earth's resources, the inescapable conclusion of your assumption is (insert whatever synonym you want for "evil" here.)
I do believe, given your comments, that you are not advocating the mass extinction of people. My intent was not to place upon you the mantle of "evil." I was trying to deal with the monstrously dangerous concept of over-population of the Earth and the results such a thought would bring.
I hope that makes sense and accurately communicates.
Yup, the Census Bureau defines a "city", for land use measurement, as being 2,500 people. They also state about 3% of the surface of the U.S. is occupied by these "cities." If real density is studied, less than 1% of the U.S. surface is occupied by people.
There are also more trees in the U.S. now than when the Pilgrims arrived. Trees are, essentially, a crop like any other. Lumber is an agricultural product with a longer growth cycle than, say, celery.
There is no shortage of resources of any sort on the Earth for people. There are distribution problems created by people.
The post to which I replied clearly claims a position that the Earth can only support 1 Billion people. It follows, therefore, that more than 1 Billion people are too many people. That leads to 2 options; kill off the excess population or everyone starves as the population grows. This was actually advocated by one of the Eurolunatic "leaders." It is a completely evil concept which is predicated on a complete fallacy and total lack of reverance for the sanctity of human life. It is the same thought process which leds to euthanasia, social Darwinism and eugenics. Stomp out that thought whenever you see it expressed. It is pure evil.
IIRC, there was an American student who researched the implosion method in the 1970s and was able to gather sufficient technical information. I don't really want to get into the details but there was a book and Reader's Digest used it for one of their excerpts. I read it in High School in the 80s. Any decent-sized University or large public lirary will have that stuff but you'd probably have to use the bound Periodical Guides to find it.
I don't hate to rain on that lunatic's comments. The idea that there are too many people and billions should be killed is truly evil and almost incomprehensibly ignorant of the scale of the Earth.
The Marshall Plan did not help. That is a total myth. "Free money" does not encourage growth. It rewards lack of activity and places a falsely high value on less desirable activities.
--
Politically Incorrect Guide to American history, page 190:
The fact is that this program worked no better than any other government givewawy program. France, Germany, and Italy began their economic recoveries before any Marshall aid was disbursed. Austria and Greece, which received sizable amounts of Marshall aid per capita, began to recover only as it was being phased out. Britain received twice the Marshall aid the Germany did , yet British economic growth lagged far behind Germany's over the next decade.
West Germany's postwar economic recovery was so explosive, in fact, that the Germans actually coined a word - Wirtschaftwünder - to describe it. Naturally, Marshall Plan propagandists have attempted to take credit for the West German economic miracle. But the Wirtschaftwünder was the result not of Marshall Plan giveaways but of the market reforms that the Germans introduce.
Indeed, the return to some semblance of a market economy was what contributed to European prosperity. As economist Tyler Cowen points out, "In nearly every country occupied by Germany during the war, the stringent system of Nazi economic controls was continued even after the country was liberated. And in each case, rapid economic growth occurred only after the controls were lifted and sound economic policy established." Marshall aid sometimes served to postpone the drastic economic measures that recipient nations would otherwise have had to make but which could be indefinitely delayed as long as American money kept coming.
sidebar on page 190: The Real Reason Germany Got Back on its Feet
We decided upon and reintroduced the old rules of a free economy, the rules oa laissez-faire. We abolished practically all controls over allocation, prices and wages and replaced them with a price mechanism controlled predominantly by money.
Ludwig Erhard, German economic minister
--
I thought he Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe, too, because that's what I was taught in school. Later, as I gained real-world experience, I realized that was a load of crap. There is no way giving anyone free money helps them. It destroys pride in accomplishment and makes them wards of the government. during the Clinton administration, there was an idea to guarantee every citizen (or was it family?), $20,000 per year. I think that was an idea from Ruckleshouse (spelling?) Anyhoo, that didn't make sense to me at all. I was a very young military officer and that's about all I made. Why should I work all day long and somebody else gets the same money for free? Even worse, what happens to the value of money? Free money removes the concept of "zero" which means the money is worthless.
There are many ways classification works. Without actually seeing the document mentioned at the end of that discussion, it would be very difficult to ascertain if the information was classified or not. Why do I say this? Because each piece of information would have its own classification. The overall classification of the paragraph might be Secret but that doesn't mean every compoent was Secret. Some documents have markings to designate the classification of each line or text and are formatted to separate classification by lines.
There's also the reality that open revelation of the documentation would reveal information which is still classified. Think of the redacted documents where only bits and snips are visible because the other portions are still classified, even down to components of lines. Again, the actual document cited would need to be viewed in its entirety. Actually, the entire set of evidence and testimony would need to be reviewed. The link mentions a judge's opinion but does not provide the actual statement nor is there any mention of vetting of that opinion. Judges can be wrong or act capricously. Maybe the judge only saw portions of the pertinent information.
There are also different levels of "undercover" status which is why I mentioned the laws/statutes that were created after Agee was publishign lists of agents. They are very, very, very narrowly defined. Valerie didn't meet those criteria, all of which must be met.
From a legal standpoint, the sworn testimony and evidence in the Congressional investiagtion trumps any statements made to or by the press. Maybe Valerie lied. Maybe she said what she thought was the truth but was incorrect. At some point, it should have been clear to her that the classification of her name and such no longer existed. The question then becomes one of at which point she was insubordinate to the Chief Executive.
Hmmm...I wonder what practices are followed regarding unintentional release of classified material by the President's staff. It's bound to happen. (Don't get all anti-W, I'm talking about the practicalities of the office.)
Having said that, the whole thing is a dead end because if the President decided to release that information, as is his Prerogative, that information would no longer have been classified, concurrent with his action. Whether she knew it or not is irrelelvant.
You haven't done anything to validate your assertion.
Possession of weapons, in and of itself, doesn't make anyone an agressor. The Police and Federal law enforcement have far more weapons than the American citizens. Possession of chem isn't illegal and is necessary for training and to develop countermeasures.
Almost every nation trains and supplies unsanctioned fighting forces.
"Most of the anti-American sentiment around the world can be traced to CIA operations attempting to influence foreign politics." There have been some interventions but your statement of causation is pure conjecture for which proof is impossible. Greed, jealousy and "fall guy" are also reasons for "resenting" America. Emotional immaturity on someone else's part does not create an obligation on the part of the U.S.
The selectable grenade launcher thing you mention has conceptual roots to the movie The Dogs of War and is shown in one of the Futureweapons episodes on TLC and The Military Channel. There was a similar weapon made in South Africa in the 1980s. It's a neat piece of gear but irrelevant to the position you're unsuccessfully trying to validate.
The U.S. is not subservient to the U.N.
You confuse soverignty with sanctuary and absolution of accountability.
Stating the U.S. "earned the animosity of the terrorists and insurgents we fight" shows either a dangerous lack of knowledge of history, a choice to ignore it, or collusion with the adversaries. Arab/Islamofascists have been attacking the West for more than 40 years. Violent lunacy on their part is not caused by the U.S.
The U.S. has had very, very few failures in battles. There is no better equipped, trained or disciplined military than that of the U.S. currently.
The world respects strength and resolve, not self-paralyzing navel gazing. Even so, it's great that destructive people resent the U.S. Those types of people resent all achievers. Respect manifested as security for the U.S. is far more important than the capricious whims of despots.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge. It has nothing to do with patriotism.
You would be making that guess because of my comments about legal issues of intelligence, separation of powers and stuff like that?
Funny you should ask. Somebody sent an almost identical email to my personal address today.
I'm Fred Thompson Jr. who grew up in Tennessee and served in the USAF in SAC and at NSA while Fred Dalton Thompson was a Senator. My Dad, Fred Thompson Sr., has taken Fred Dalton Thompson's dinner reservations in Tennessee a few times totally by accident. A few months ago, any business phone call I made was very, very quickly answered. People in South Carolina see my name on the credit cards and say they voted for me. I usually tell them one of three things; "Law and Order gave me a better offer", "I'm holding out for Attorney General" or "My wife wouldn't let me do it."
Where did they go? Why did the entire world believe Saddam still had them? Saddam had produce and used WMD against Iran and the Kurds. Why did Saddam monkey with the UN inspectors?
Even if they somehow magically disappeared, that does not invalidate the attacks on coalition forcdes for ten years, violation of the oil sles sanctions and continued development of prohibitted missile technologies, among other things.
What proof does anyone have that no bio weapons existed. Why do you assume the status of such things would be public knowledge? That's dangerously naive.
As I recall, the question went to applicability of the laws which went into effect after Agee was publishing lists of covert agents. You can research the name of the woman who wrote the statute. She specifically said, under oath during the Congressional investiagtion, that Valerie did not fit the prerequisites for being undercover. It's applicable because there must be prerequisite grounds for prosecution. Historically, it's very, very, very difficult to bring a charge of treason for instances such as these. It's been a few months since I reviewed this stuff. You're more than welcome to read the Congressional Record and the Federal codes. The statue was written only for a very narrowly defined circumstance.
I don't remember Haydn making any such statement. Can you provide a reference? The exact language would be very critical because if, as was widely stated, Valerie HAD BEEN covert but it had been 10 or 15 years, whatever the time limit was, then wether her name was released would be illegal would depend on a lot of things. As I understand it, she wasn't undercover in the legal sense, which is all that mattered. There are many levels of less-than-open legal status. They are not all "undercover" and not all are "spies" or "agents."
Even so, as I've already stated, if the President directed revealing Valerie's name, there was no crime committed because the President's authority to declassify is absolute and both implicit and explicit. For there to be a crime, there must be grounds. There ain't no "there" there no matter how much anyone tries to parse it.
Intelligence isn't law. It doesn't work that way. Pieces of information have relative authenticity and the aggregate is what is important. The "bad guys" don't follow a script and don't stop what they're doing, surrender and turn everything over to the "good guys" when they are caught.
You could theorize any possible scenario you want. Why didn't Armitage come to Libby's rescue given Libby had saved his butt yers earlier? Why did Bush commute the sentence of Libby? Why did the investigation continue, or even start, given the special prosecutor already knew it was Armitage who revealed Valerie's name? Why did Wilson contradict himself so often?
It sure does seem odd that there hasn't been much documentation released of WMD but don't forget that WMD doesn't only mean nukes. Genetically-modified smallpox could bring Biblical-level problems if it were released and it doesn't take much. I read the book, "Demon in the Freezer" which discussed it. The book was written before the invasion of Iraq and isn't a "drum beating" book. Anyway, it says the Soviets had satellite tech to carry live spores and drop them. It also says Iraq was working on modifying pox. You can read the book to get a better idea of the scale that bio could bring. What is some of it is missing? What if they are scared to tell people that because of possible panic? What if they know some of it is in Western Europe or the U.S. but don't know where? Saddam had used a lot of chem weapons on the Kurds and the whole world thought he had a bunch of stuff. He had been acting as if he did have it. It's possible he HAD destroyed all of it or used it up or somebody else destroyed/stole it. Maybe he was bluffing too long. There were reports of a Russian truck convoy going into Syria just before the invasion. Is that true? If so, what was in the trucks? In the first few weeks after the invasion there were a lot of news stories about huge caches or small arms and cash that were found all over the place. Who knows what was there and where it was hidden. Maybe that stuff doesn't exist and hasn't for years but then why didn't Saddam admit it? He had enough military power to keep the Iranians at bay. Maybe it's being used to blackmail somebody. It doesn't make sense to me but neither do the people who scream WMD didn't exist because they all said it did. I have no idea why the Administration hasn't defended themselves more vigorously. You're right, it looks like a huge PR mistake. I'm not "pretending" there could be a good reason for not releasing information. I don't know any of the "inside information." I'm just thinking about the stuff I see in the press and history. If you look at other intelligence "flaps" with a long-term view, you'll see lots of similar occurrences. The Venona transcripts weren't released until about 10 years ago. Obviously, there was some value in keeping them classified. Just last week it was finally publicly announced that Bill Ballard was actually hunting for the subs Scorpion and Thresher when he found the Titanic in 1985 (I think it was that year.) Obviously, there were reasons not to release the information at that time. Surely, there are valid reasons not to release more information about Iraq. Do you remember the initial reports and all the complaining about how the U.S. troops supposedly allowed some important antiquities museum in Baghdad to be looted? Turns out it was the currators who hid a bunch of the stuff and some of it was stolen by them. Sometimes information is withheld because it would reveal other things that are important. Things are not always what they seem.
If the U.S. wanted the oil, why hasn't it been taken? If, as you claim, the majority of the public thinks it was an oil grab, who gave them that idea? It's a dumb idea, actually. If the U.S. had that motivation, it would be far easier and more productive to take over Argentina. If the U.S. wanted that oil, why isn't the world supply of oil much higher? That would have been a huge expense compared to buying oil. It doesn't make sense.
I looked at a map before my first post to this thread and saw Libya is between Niger and the ocean, a relatively short distance from Iraq. The way Libya gave up their WMD sure looks like they were rolled. There must be lots of that sort of thing that happens but isn't revealed in the open. Just a few days ago there were some reports (I think it was also here on Slashdot) about the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture's laptop and suspicion the Chinese had copied the hard drive. Why would THAT have been in the news? It seems more like trying to send somebody a message than anything else.
There has been more than enough evidence presented to justify invading Iraq. Continued attacks on coalition forces (UN Security Council surrogates, no less), continued WMD research, terrorst training camps (Google Salman Pak for the most public example), continued research into theater missiles and biochem delivery, cash payments to terrorists, no evidence of destruction of huge stockpiles of WMD, etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure if there have been open press revelations about counterfeiting. That's also very possible, The Iranians had been doing it. That's where the term "superbill" came from. Saddam was supplying US bills to the PLO and other Arab terrorist groups which were counterfeit. His whole regime was based on the Third Reich. Far better to disarm somebody who is very blatant about planning to attack you than after they do it. Smoking guns have already fired.
Immediate disclosure of all intel is never a good thing. Information has value. Sometimes its used to "turn" people. Look at the public disclosure by Libya of their WMD programs, turn over and cesation. That didn't happen because Moamar had a dream. It happened because of intel operations and non-public communications. Publicity makes it much harder to dismantle an enemy because they hide more.
You are contradicting yourself and the evidence. I'll answer but this is the last time.
First, the supposed threat to an undercover agent would be exposure. By definition, that means exposure to someone other than their own association. You seem to have missed that point. Second, it is impossible for any entity to find every person someone has interacted with over the course of 15 years in free societies. It's very clear you don't have any legal or intel experience. Statement of fact.
It's not possible for the general public to know if President Bush "lied" when he said he'd fire anyone involved in revealing a covert agent. First, you'd need inside knowledge to ascertain at what point the administration knew Valerie's actual status. Second, since she wasn't covert, nobody could reveal her as being covert. You refuse to admit the claims have prerequisited which were not met. It is just as valid to say President Bush did indeed fire everyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name as a covert operataive. She did not have the legal status of being covert. That's all there is to it.
You're trying to build a straw man again. By definition, anything the President chooses to release is unclassified. That's all there is to it. You are more than welcome to study the laws.
True, the UN Security Council could issue a piece of paper condemning Saddam but that's all it can do, in and of itself. The UN Security Council is really nothing more than a group of Ambassadors to the UN. Their agreements become the responsibility of the memebre nations. The United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and carries the responsibility to enforce the Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council has no military forces of its own. The conditions of the cease fire did not cease to pertain simply because a subsequent unanimous decision was not reached. The UN Security Council has reached unanimous vote to take military action twice; the Korean War and the first Gulf War. Neither war had been ended. Fact.
Uh...can't "blow a cover" which doesn't exist. See previous message, comments above, basic logic and law.
Joe Wilson was not privy to all intel. He was an unemployed ex-Civil Service worker with no security clearance. In fact, yellowcake from Niger was found in Iraq and there were commercial records of the transactions. Even if it were not, the mere act of pursuing negotiations with Niger for Uranium violated the cease fire. That's all there is to it. 10 years of violating the cease fire agreement of an active war created the obligation and authority to respond militarily. That's the law.
No, it was Jack's column which revealed Valerie's name. Wilson's "article" was so full of lies the Congressional investiagtion threw it out. If it had been an actual trial and he made such claims, he would be guilty of perjury. Jack couldn't reveal Armitage told him Valerie's name until after the falrse trial without creating legal risk to himself. The press will promoteo whatever it chooses to promote. They built a strawman because that's what they wanted.
No, the forged document was widely acknowledge to be forged. That wasn't the only evidence. President Bush stated that the British intel believed Saddam was pursuing Uranium purchase. That statement of fact was followed by Joe Wilson's strawman "article" which has been totally debunked. (Again, Congressional Record to read the investigation testimony and evidence.)
You don't have access to intel information of the sort which would be required to state, with any surety, wether or not nuke materials were found. All you have is free market information.
You're wasting time chasing a poorly-constructed conspiracy theory.
Try to remove your bias and read what I typed. The facts are the facts.
No, it's very naive to think ANYONE a person who was supposedly an undercover agent 15 years prior has dealt with is "potentially exposed." Semantically, your statement is correct but it's not realistic. Everyone, you included, interacts with thousands of people over 15 years. You may have heard of the concept of six degrees of separation. Apply that and it's quickly apprent the words you used, while semantically correct, yield an impossibly large number of contacts when seen from the "outside." It's common for people who have never been in these types of environments to think that type of thing. As I said, read the Congressional Record. The sworn testimony during a Congressional investigation is more accurate than projections.
No, my "argument" does not rest on "the fact that Bush OK'd the leak." By definition, the President can't "leak" anything because "leaking" would involve unauthorized disclosure which, by definition, the President cannot do. It is impossible for the pre-requisite to exist. The President has the authority to declassify, at will, either explicitly or implicitly.
"Abuse of power" is a phrase with no legal definition. The Executive Officer is not subservient to the Representitive Brach of the Federal Government. The CIA is in the Executive Branch, under the authority of the Executive Officer. Again, the President cannot be guilty of violating classification. It really is that simple.
As as aside, the legal basis for action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq was laid years ago. The first Gulf War was never officially ended according to the U.N. conditions and Saddam's troops kept violating the cease fire agreement. An existing war cannot be "started" again, it can only be in stasis, continue or end. (The Korean War never ended, either. It's in the same situation, a cease fire agreement.) Saddam's troops violated the cease fire repeatedly during Bill Clinton's terms in office. History didn't start in February of 2001.
WRT "a campaign to make sure the secret is as widely heard as possible", it was Valerie Plame and her husband in conjunction with Vanity Fair and the traditional news media who were proclaiming a "secret" had been revealed. Those are not Federal Branch entities and, most certainly, not controlled by a Republican administration. The President didn't force all the "reporting" and speculating in the press. He didn't put a scarf and sunglasses on Valerie Plame, sit her in a convertible next to her husband, take a photo, write an article and publish them. Valerie, most certainly, wasn't trying to "hide" and wasn't concerned about any past contact who might have been "potentially exposed." If she was, she wouldn't have taken those actions. You can dig through archives such as Lexis-Nexus or even the recorded press briefings on C-Span's website if you wish. What you'll find is the Executive Branch overwhelmingly said there wasn't any "there" there.
Joe Wilson was a paid staffer for John Kerry's Presidential campaign before he wrote the article in which he claimed the VP sent him on a secret mission to gather intel in Niger. Curiously, there was no record of such a meeting, Joe's story changed significantly over time and even he said there was no written record. Additionally, he did state that Iraq was seeking to build increase imports from Niger whose primary exports are livestock products, onions and Uranium ore. Look at a map. Iraq wouldn't get importing onions across Libya then onto ships when they could come from much closer areas. Liby's public renouncement of NBC porograms wasn't an isolated occurrence. It's all in the Congressional Report.
What you are promoting fits the structure of a halfway decent conspiracy theory but only with "a willing suspension of disbelief" given the facts.
First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time. You can check the Congressional Record to read the testimony of the author of the governing regulations.
Second, the ultimate classification authority is the President. This has a long history of precedent. If the President wishes to reveal something which is classified, that's his prerogative. The Soviet nuke missile sites in Cuba were classified information and JFK didn't need anyone's permission to reveal that.
Third, it was Richard Armitage who revealed the information about Valerie Plame. Even the special prosecutor knew that before investigating.
This is a country of laws, It's the usA, not the usSR.
You are more than welcome to create your own country but as long as you are a citizen of or inside the territory of a country, their laws apply. Your capricious desires are irrelevant to the authority of the laws.
"Harm" cannot be defined in the absence of morality. Constructs such as "murder" and "rape" require a moral foundation. (Quick example, Peter the Great did not "rape" his wife on their wedding night. The actions would be defined as rape in the modern U.S. but not by the Russian laws at that time or the Biblical laws under which they lived.) Without it, they are meaningless occurrences. Valuation is subjective, not objective.
Religion is a human codification of the morality of relationship with the deity or dieties.
I didn't make any comment that you said, "politicians can't draw upon their religious beliefs to shape their opinions and outlook." What you said is they shouldn't be allowed to have any public expression of them nore should those beliefs influence their actions.
So...people should not make any public expression of any spiritual beliefs or values and leaders should never do antyhing which has a subjective component. That's lunatic.
Your use of abortion shows you don't comprehend and are ignorant about history. In the U.S., the "legality" of abortion was accomplished through judicial fiat which is expressly contrary to the legal methods of constructing legislation. Regardless of the illegal aspect of abortion's "legality", subjection to the authority of law is not by selective individual whim.
Either you don't comprehend that people's value systems affect how they make decisions, and the overwhelming majority of decisions are subjective, or you are intentionally attempting to prohibit free expression of those with whom you do not agree.
As an example, "If people were really religious for the right reasons they would have no problem keeping their religion private." is nothing more than you proclaiming that anyone with a religious view should not enjoy public expression.
Freedom of religion is not prohibition of religion. All laws are codifications of the moral views of the aggregate society, imperfect as they are. Your statement that an elected official must "compartmentalize their religion" is ludicrous. What you want is to prohibit people from believing or expressing anything other than that which you think.
Apology accepted. Thanks for your well-spoken (er...typed) reply.
I don't remember exactly why I brought up the muscular aspect of Christ. It had something to do with the application of physical force. It might have been something in regard to the responsibility people have as steward of their own bodies to protect them. Sorry, I'd elaborate if I could remember enough.
In Christ performed actions which were prohibited for people, he would have been acting as a hypocrite. In that case, throw the whole thing out. Christ wouldn't be God and it would all be a lie. By "prohibited" I don't mean actions for which people have not been empowered, such as reattaching an ear through non-surgical means. A fairly common example in some Protestant churches is the claim that Christians are prohibited from drinking alcohol and Christ was living under some form of "special circumstances." What a crock.
True, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." but that doesn't absolve people of responsibilities. Would God have given people dominion over the physical Earth then changed his mind later and instructed them to become helpless waifs? In that case, God wouldn't be perfect so wouldn't be worthy of the "position" of God. What you propose, that people should do nothing to enforce accountability amongst themselves, doesn't match the creation stories in Genesis. If people were made in God's image, should they be powerless by choice? Does "turn the other cheek" mean people should allow themselves to be victimized by others? Was Christ saying human society should be nothing more than a near anarchy of victims to evil? Of course not.
Methinks you are mixing the concepts of forgiveness and absolution of responsibilities. They are two very, very different concepts.
No canard, it's right there. Jesus was the blood sacrifice which meets the sin debt of the OT. That's what the OT prophecies point to.
You are cherry picking. Turn the other cheek doesn't mean allow yourself to be killed, stolen from, etc.
The Jesus of the NT was a very buff guy, as would be anyone who was a "carpenter" in an age of only hand tools who was able to throw merchants out of the temple given all trade was done with coin, not electronic credit, and there would have been a lot of hired bodyguards.
Reading a translated few sentences from thousands of pages for five minutes will obviously give a very incorrect impression. Aramaic doesn't include temporal tenses and the overwhelming majority of people alive today would read ancient writings with their current philosophical viewpoints. Microwave mentality never leads to wisdom or insight other than it's stupid to stick your nose in the opening of the popcorn bag when you open it.
You don't have to agree with what is there. It's intellectually disingenuous to claim anyone can grasp intertwined prophecies and history of thousands of pages with 5 minutes of reading, be it the Bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Bhagadvadgita or cave drawings.
Slashdot Mirror
Your statements of the scale of the Earth's resources are absolutely incorrect. See my other reply about the inescapable conclusion of your assumptions.
Nonetheless, the belief that the Earth is beyond its ability to support human life leads to the classic "deer population" dilemna. While you may be ignorant (lack of knowledge) of the scale of the Earth's resources, the inescapable conclusion of your assumption is (insert whatever synonym you want for "evil" here.)
I do believe, given your comments, that you are not advocating the mass extinction of people. My intent was not to place upon you the mantle of "evil." I was trying to deal with the monstrously dangerous concept of over-population of the Earth and the results such a thought would bring.
I hope that makes sense and accurately communicates.
Yup, the Census Bureau defines a "city", for land use measurement, as being 2,500 people. They also state about 3% of the surface of the U.S. is occupied by these "cities." If real density is studied, less than 1% of the U.S. surface is occupied by people.
There are also more trees in the U.S. now than when the Pilgrims arrived. Trees are, essentially, a crop like any other. Lumber is an agricultural product with a longer growth cycle than, say, celery.
There is no shortage of resources of any sort on the Earth for people. There are distribution problems created by people.
The post to which I replied clearly claims a position that the Earth can only support 1 Billion people. It follows, therefore, that more than 1 Billion people are too many people. That leads to 2 options; kill off the excess population or everyone starves as the population grows. This was actually advocated by one of the Eurolunatic "leaders." It is a completely evil concept which is predicated on a complete fallacy and total lack of reverance for the sanctity of human life. It is the same thought process which leds to euthanasia, social Darwinism and eugenics. Stomp out that thought whenever you see it expressed. It is pure evil.
The bombs used different initiation methods.
IIRC, there was an American student who researched the implosion method in the 1970s and was able to gather sufficient technical information. I don't really want to get into the details but there was a book and Reader's Digest used it for one of their excerpts. I read it in High School in the 80s. Any decent-sized University or large public lirary will have that stuff but you'd probably have to use the bound Periodical Guides to find it.
I don't hate to rain on that lunatic's comments. The idea that there are too many people and billions should be killed is truly evil and almost incomprehensibly ignorant of the scale of the Earth.
The Marshall Plan did not help. That is a total myth. "Free money" does not encourage growth. It rewards lack of activity and places a falsely high value on less desirable activities.
--
Politically Incorrect Guide to American history, page 190:
The fact is that this program worked no better than any other government givewawy program. France, Germany, and Italy began their economic recoveries before any Marshall aid was disbursed. Austria and Greece, which received sizable amounts of Marshall aid per capita, began to recover only as it was being phased out. Britain received twice the Marshall aid the Germany did , yet British economic growth lagged far behind Germany's over the next decade.
West Germany's postwar economic recovery was so explosive, in fact, that the Germans actually coined a word - Wirtschaftwünder - to describe it. Naturally, Marshall Plan propagandists have attempted to take credit for the West German economic miracle. But the Wirtschaftwünder was the result not of Marshall Plan giveaways but of the market reforms that the Germans introduce.
Indeed, the return to some semblance of a market economy was what contributed to European prosperity. As economist Tyler Cowen points out, "In nearly every country occupied by Germany during the war, the stringent system of Nazi economic controls was continued even after the country was liberated. And in each case, rapid economic growth occurred only after the controls were lifted and sound economic policy established." Marshall aid sometimes served to postpone the drastic economic measures that recipient nations would otherwise have had to make but which could be indefinitely delayed as long as American money kept coming.
sidebar on page 190: The Real Reason Germany Got Back on its Feet
We decided upon and reintroduced the old rules of a free economy, the rules oa laissez-faire. We abolished practically all controls over allocation, prices and wages and replaced them with a price mechanism controlled predominantly by money.
Ludwig Erhard, German economic minister
--
I thought he Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe, too, because that's what I was taught in school. Later, as I gained real-world experience, I realized that was a load of crap. There is no way giving anyone free money helps them. It destroys pride in accomplishment and makes them wards of the government. during the Clinton administration, there was an idea to guarantee every citizen (or was it family?), $20,000 per year. I think that was an idea from Ruckleshouse (spelling?) Anyhoo, that didn't make sense to me at all. I was a very young military officer and that's about all I made. Why should I work all day long and somebody else gets the same money for free? Even worse, what happens to the value of money? Free money removes the concept of "zero" which means the money is worthless.
I found this which is interesting: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=762144
There are many ways classification works. Without actually seeing the document mentioned at the end of that discussion, it would be very difficult to ascertain if the information was classified or not. Why do I say this? Because each piece of information would have its own classification. The overall classification of the paragraph might be Secret but that doesn't mean every compoent was Secret. Some documents have markings to designate the classification of each line or text and are formatted to separate classification by lines.
There's also the reality that open revelation of the documentation would reveal information which is still classified. Think of the redacted documents where only bits and snips are visible because the other portions are still classified, even down to components of lines. Again, the actual document cited would need to be viewed in its entirety. Actually, the entire set of evidence and testimony would need to be reviewed. The link mentions a judge's opinion but does not provide the actual statement nor is there any mention of vetting of that opinion. Judges can be wrong or act capricously. Maybe the judge only saw portions of the pertinent information.
There are also different levels of "undercover" status which is why I mentioned the laws/statutes that were created after Agee was publishign lists of agents. They are very, very, very narrowly defined. Valerie didn't meet those criteria, all of which must be met.
From a legal standpoint, the sworn testimony and evidence in the Congressional investiagtion trumps any statements made to or by the press. Maybe Valerie lied. Maybe she said what she thought was the truth but was incorrect. At some point, it should have been clear to her that the classification of her name and such no longer existed. The question then becomes one of at which point she was insubordinate to the Chief Executive.
Hmmm...I wonder what practices are followed regarding unintentional release of classified material by the President's staff. It's bound to happen. (Don't get all anti-W, I'm talking about the practicalities of the office.)
Having said that, the whole thing is a dead end because if the President decided to release that information, as is his Prerogative, that information would no longer have been classified, concurrent with his action. Whether she knew it or not is irrelelvant.
"If anything, the punishment for breaking a law should be more severe the higher up in the government you are."
:P
That wouldn't be equal protection, though. Accountability should be higher as responsibility increase, true.
"I was paraphrasing Richard Nixon, Who we all know was not a crook."
Yeah, Crooks steal things. Nixon's guys were planting documents in the Democrat offices in the Watergate building.
You haven't done anything to validate your assertion.
Possession of weapons, in and of itself, doesn't make anyone an agressor. The Police and Federal law enforcement have far more weapons than the American citizens. Possession of chem isn't illegal and is necessary for training and to develop countermeasures.
Almost every nation trains and supplies unsanctioned fighting forces.
"Most of the anti-American sentiment around the world can be traced to CIA operations attempting to influence foreign politics." There have been some interventions but your statement of causation is pure conjecture for which proof is impossible. Greed, jealousy and "fall guy" are also reasons for "resenting" America. Emotional immaturity on someone else's part does not create an obligation on the part of the U.S.
The selectable grenade launcher thing you mention has conceptual roots to the movie The Dogs of War and is shown in one of the Futureweapons episodes on TLC and The Military Channel. There was a similar weapon made in South Africa in the 1980s. It's a neat piece of gear but irrelevant to the position you're unsuccessfully trying to validate.
The U.S. is not subservient to the U.N.
You confuse soverignty with sanctuary and absolution of accountability.
Stating the U.S. "earned the animosity of the terrorists and insurgents we fight" shows either a dangerous lack of knowledge of history, a choice to ignore it, or collusion with the adversaries. Arab/Islamofascists have been attacking the West for more than 40 years. Violent lunacy on their part is not caused by the U.S.
The U.S. has had very, very few failures in battles. There is no better equipped, trained or disciplined military than that of the U.S. currently.
The world respects strength and resolve, not self-paralyzing navel gazing. Even so, it's great that destructive people resent the U.S. Those types of people resent all achievers. Respect manifested as security for the U.S. is far more important than the capricious whims of despots.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge. It has nothing to do with patriotism.
You would be making that guess because of my comments about legal issues of intelligence, separation of powers and stuff like that?
Funny you should ask. Somebody sent an almost identical email to my personal address today.
I'm Fred Thompson Jr. who grew up in Tennessee and served in the USAF in SAC and at NSA while Fred Dalton Thompson was a Senator. My Dad, Fred Thompson Sr., has taken Fred Dalton Thompson's dinner reservations in Tennessee a few times totally by accident. A few months ago, any business phone call I made was very, very quickly answered. People in South Carolina see my name on the credit cards and say they voted for me. I usually tell them one of three things; "Law and Order gave me a better offer", "I'm holding out for Attorney General" or "My wife wouldn't let me do it."
Where did they go? Why did the entire world believe Saddam still had them? Saddam had produce and used WMD against Iran and the Kurds. Why did Saddam monkey with the UN inspectors?
Even if they somehow magically disappeared, that does not invalidate the attacks on coalition forcdes for ten years, violation of the oil sles sanctions and continued development of prohibitted missile technologies, among other things.
What proof does anyone have that no bio weapons existed. Why do you assume the status of such things would be public knowledge? That's dangerously naive.
Those comments are deranged and devoid of history.
It's clear you have no intel background. You are incorrect.
As I recall, the question went to applicability of the laws which went into effect after Agee was publishing lists of covert agents. You can research the name of the woman who wrote the statute. She specifically said, under oath during the Congressional investiagtion, that Valerie did not fit the prerequisites for being undercover. It's applicable because there must be prerequisite grounds for prosecution. Historically, it's very, very, very difficult to bring a charge of treason for instances such as these. It's been a few months since I reviewed this stuff. You're more than welcome to read the Congressional Record and the Federal codes. The statue was written only for a very narrowly defined circumstance.
I don't remember Haydn making any such statement. Can you provide a reference? The exact language would be very critical because if, as was widely stated, Valerie HAD BEEN covert but it had been 10 or 15 years, whatever the time limit was, then wether her name was released would be illegal would depend on a lot of things. As I understand it, she wasn't undercover in the legal sense, which is all that mattered. There are many levels of less-than-open legal status. They are not all "undercover" and not all are "spies" or "agents."
Even so, as I've already stated, if the President directed revealing Valerie's name, there was no crime committed because the President's authority to declassify is absolute and both implicit and explicit. For there to be a crime, there must be grounds. There ain't no "there" there no matter how much anyone tries to parse it.
Intelligence isn't law. It doesn't work that way. Pieces of information have relative authenticity and the aggregate is what is important. The "bad guys" don't follow a script and don't stop what they're doing, surrender and turn everything over to the "good guys" when they are caught.
You could theorize any possible scenario you want. Why didn't Armitage come to Libby's rescue given Libby had saved his butt yers earlier? Why did Bush commute the sentence of Libby? Why did the investigation continue, or even start, given the special prosecutor already knew it was Armitage who revealed Valerie's name? Why did Wilson contradict himself so often?
It sure does seem odd that there hasn't been much documentation released of WMD but don't forget that WMD doesn't only mean nukes. Genetically-modified smallpox could bring Biblical-level problems if it were released and it doesn't take much. I read the book, "Demon in the Freezer" which discussed it. The book was written before the invasion of Iraq and isn't a "drum beating" book. Anyway, it says the Soviets had satellite tech to carry live spores and drop them. It also says Iraq was working on modifying pox. You can read the book to get a better idea of the scale that bio could bring. What is some of it is missing? What if they are scared to tell people that because of possible panic? What if they know some of it is in Western Europe or the U.S. but don't know where? Saddam had used a lot of chem weapons on the Kurds and the whole world thought he had a bunch of stuff. He had been acting as if he did have it. It's possible he HAD destroyed all of it or used it up or somebody else destroyed/stole it. Maybe he was bluffing too long. There were reports of a Russian truck convoy going into Syria just before the invasion. Is that true? If so, what was in the trucks? In the first few weeks after the invasion there were a lot of news stories about huge caches or small arms and cash that were found all over the place. Who knows what was there and where it was hidden. Maybe that stuff doesn't exist and hasn't for years but then why didn't Saddam admit it? He had enough military power to keep the Iranians at bay. Maybe it's being used to blackmail somebody. It doesn't make sense to me but neither do the people who scream WMD didn't exist because they all said it did. I have no idea why the Administration hasn't defended themselves more vigorously. You're right, it looks like a huge PR mistake. I'm not "pretending" there could be a good reason for not releasing information. I don't know any of the "inside information." I'm just thinking about the stuff I see in the press and history. If you look at other intelligence "flaps" with a long-term view, you'll see lots of similar occurrences. The Venona transcripts weren't released until about 10 years ago. Obviously, there was some value in keeping them classified. Just last week it was finally publicly announced that Bill Ballard was actually hunting for the subs Scorpion and Thresher when he found the Titanic in 1985 (I think it was that year.) Obviously, there were reasons not to release the information at that time. Surely, there are valid reasons not to release more information about Iraq. Do you remember the initial reports and all the complaining about how the U.S. troops supposedly allowed some important antiquities museum in Baghdad to be looted? Turns out it was the currators who hid a bunch of the stuff and some of it was stolen by them. Sometimes information is withheld because it would reveal other things that are important. Things are not always what they seem.
If the U.S. wanted the oil, why hasn't it been taken? If, as you claim, the majority of the public thinks it was an oil grab, who gave them that idea? It's a dumb idea, actually. If the U.S. had that motivation, it would be far easier and more productive to take over Argentina. If the U.S. wanted that oil, why isn't the world supply of oil much higher? That would have been a huge expense compared to buying oil. It doesn't make sense.
I looked at a map before my first post to this thread and saw Libya is between Niger and the ocean, a relatively short distance from Iraq. The way Libya gave up their WMD sure looks like they were rolled. There must be lots of that sort of thing that happens but isn't revealed in the open. Just a few days ago there were some reports (I think it was also here on Slashdot) about the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture's laptop and suspicion the Chinese had copied the hard drive. Why would THAT have been in the news? It seems more like trying to send somebody a message than anything else.
There has been more than enough evidence presented to justify invading Iraq. Continued attacks on coalition forces (UN Security Council surrogates, no less), continued WMD research, terrorst training camps (Google Salman Pak for the most public example), continued research into theater missiles and biochem delivery, cash payments to terrorists, no evidence of destruction of huge stockpiles of WMD, etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure if there have been open press revelations about counterfeiting. That's also very possible, The Iranians had been doing it. That's where the term "superbill" came from. Saddam was supplying US bills to the PLO and other Arab terrorist groups which were counterfeit. His whole regime was based on the Third Reich. Far better to disarm somebody who is very blatant about planning to attack you than after they do it. Smoking guns have already fired.
Immediate disclosure of all intel is never a good thing. Information has value. Sometimes its used to "turn" people. Look at the public disclosure by Libya of their WMD programs, turn over and cesation. That didn't happen because Moamar had a dream. It happened because of intel operations and non-public communications. Publicity makes it much harder to dismantle an enemy because they hide more.
Rational people don't have any problem with this.
You are contradicting yourself and the evidence. I'll answer but this is the last time.
First, the supposed threat to an undercover agent would be exposure. By definition, that means exposure to someone other than their own association. You seem to have missed that point. Second, it is impossible for any entity to find every person someone has interacted with over the course of 15 years in free societies. It's very clear you don't have any legal or intel experience. Statement of fact.
It's not possible for the general public to know if President Bush "lied" when he said he'd fire anyone involved in revealing a covert agent. First, you'd need inside knowledge to ascertain at what point the administration knew Valerie's actual status. Second, since she wasn't covert, nobody could reveal her as being covert. You refuse to admit the claims have prerequisited which were not met. It is just as valid to say President Bush did indeed fire everyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name as a covert operataive. She did not have the legal status of being covert. That's all there is to it.
You're trying to build a straw man again. By definition, anything the President chooses to release is unclassified. That's all there is to it. You are more than welcome to study the laws.
True, the UN Security Council could issue a piece of paper condemning Saddam but that's all it can do, in and of itself. The UN Security Council is really nothing more than a group of Ambassadors to the UN. Their agreements become the responsibility of the memebre nations. The United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and carries the responsibility to enforce the Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council has no military forces of its own. The conditions of the cease fire did not cease to pertain simply because a subsequent unanimous decision was not reached. The UN Security Council has reached unanimous vote to take military action twice; the Korean War and the first Gulf War. Neither war had been ended. Fact.
Uh...can't "blow a cover" which doesn't exist. See previous message, comments above, basic logic and law.
Joe Wilson was not privy to all intel. He was an unemployed ex-Civil Service worker with no security clearance. In fact, yellowcake from Niger was found in Iraq and there were commercial records of the transactions. Even if it were not, the mere act of pursuing negotiations with Niger for Uranium violated the cease fire. That's all there is to it. 10 years of violating the cease fire agreement of an active war created the obligation and authority to respond militarily. That's the law.
No, it was Jack's column which revealed Valerie's name. Wilson's "article" was so full of lies the Congressional investiagtion threw it out. If it had been an actual trial and he made such claims, he would be guilty of perjury. Jack couldn't reveal Armitage told him Valerie's name until after the falrse trial without creating legal risk to himself. The press will promoteo whatever it chooses to promote. They built a strawman because that's what they wanted.
No, the forged document was widely acknowledge to be forged. That wasn't the only evidence. President Bush stated that the British intel believed Saddam was pursuing Uranium purchase. That statement of fact was followed by Joe Wilson's strawman "article" which has been totally debunked. (Again, Congressional Record to read the investigation testimony and evidence.)
You don't have access to intel information of the sort which would be required to state, with any surety, wether or not nuke materials were found. All you have is free market information.
You're wasting time chasing a poorly-constructed conspiracy theory.
Try to remove your bias and read what I typed. The facts are the facts.
No, it's very naive to think ANYONE a person who was supposedly an undercover agent 15 years prior has dealt with is "potentially exposed." Semantically, your statement is correct but it's not realistic. Everyone, you included, interacts with thousands of people over 15 years. You may have heard of the concept of six degrees of separation. Apply that and it's quickly apprent the words you used, while semantically correct, yield an impossibly large number of contacts when seen from the "outside." It's common for people who have never been in these types of environments to think that type of thing. As I said, read the Congressional Record. The sworn testimony during a Congressional investigation is more accurate than projections.
No, my "argument" does not rest on "the fact that Bush OK'd the leak." By definition, the President can't "leak" anything because "leaking" would involve unauthorized disclosure which, by definition, the President cannot do. It is impossible for the pre-requisite to exist. The President has the authority to declassify, at will, either explicitly or implicitly.
"Abuse of power" is a phrase with no legal definition. The Executive Officer is not subservient to the Representitive Brach of the Federal Government. The CIA is in the Executive Branch, under the authority of the Executive Officer. Again, the President cannot be guilty of violating classification. It really is that simple.
As as aside, the legal basis for action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq was laid years ago. The first Gulf War was never officially ended according to the U.N. conditions and Saddam's troops kept violating the cease fire agreement. An existing war cannot be "started" again, it can only be in stasis, continue or end. (The Korean War never ended, either. It's in the same situation, a cease fire agreement.) Saddam's troops violated the cease fire repeatedly during Bill Clinton's terms in office. History didn't start in February of 2001.
WRT "a campaign to make sure the secret is as widely heard as possible", it was Valerie Plame and her husband in conjunction with Vanity Fair and the traditional news media who were proclaiming a "secret" had been revealed. Those are not Federal Branch entities and, most certainly, not controlled by a Republican administration. The President didn't force all the "reporting" and speculating in the press. He didn't put a scarf and sunglasses on Valerie Plame, sit her in a convertible next to her husband, take a photo, write an article and publish them. Valerie, most certainly, wasn't trying to "hide" and wasn't concerned about any past contact who might have been "potentially exposed." If she was, she wouldn't have taken those actions. You can dig through archives such as Lexis-Nexus or even the recorded press briefings on C-Span's website if you wish. What you'll find is the Executive Branch overwhelmingly said there wasn't any "there" there.
Joe Wilson was a paid staffer for John Kerry's Presidential campaign before he wrote the article in which he claimed the VP sent him on a secret mission to gather intel in Niger. Curiously, there was no record of such a meeting, Joe's story changed significantly over time and even he said there was no written record. Additionally, he did state that Iraq was seeking to build increase imports from Niger whose primary exports are livestock products, onions and Uranium ore. Look at a map. Iraq wouldn't get importing onions across Libya then onto ships when they could come from much closer areas. Liby's public renouncement of NBC porograms wasn't an isolated occurrence. It's all in the Congressional Report.
What you are promoting fits the structure of a halfway decent conspiracy theory but only with "a willing suspension of disbelief" given the facts.
That's not how classification works.
First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time. You can check the Congressional Record to read the testimony of the author of the governing regulations.
Second, the ultimate classification authority is the President. This has a long history of precedent. If the President wishes to reveal something which is classified, that's his prerogative. The Soviet nuke missile sites in Cuba were classified information and JFK didn't need anyone's permission to reveal that.
Third, it was Richard Armitage who revealed the information about Valerie Plame. Even the special prosecutor knew that before investigating.
This is a country of laws, It's the usA, not the usSR.
You can watch a Seadragon presentation from TED at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129
focus-plus context screens are similar http://www.patrickbaudisch.com/projects/focuspluscontextscreens/index.html
You are more than welcome to create your own country but as long as you are a citizen of or inside the territory of a country, their laws apply. Your capricious desires are irrelevant to the authority of the laws.
"Harm" cannot be defined in the absence of morality. Constructs such as "murder" and "rape" require a moral foundation. (Quick example, Peter the Great did not "rape" his wife on their wedding night. The actions would be defined as rape in the modern U.S. but not by the Russian laws at that time or the Biblical laws under which they lived.) Without it, they are meaningless occurrences. Valuation is subjective, not objective.
Religion is a human codification of the morality of relationship with the deity or dieties.
I didn't make any comment that you said, "politicians can't draw upon their religious beliefs to shape their opinions and outlook." What you said is they shouldn't be allowed to have any public expression of them nore should those beliefs influence their actions.
So...people should not make any public expression of any spiritual beliefs or values and leaders should never do antyhing which has a subjective component. That's lunatic.
Your use of abortion shows you don't comprehend and are ignorant about history. In the U.S., the "legality" of abortion was accomplished through judicial fiat which is expressly contrary to the legal methods of constructing legislation. Regardless of the illegal aspect of abortion's "legality", subjection to the authority of law is not by selective individual whim.
That's poppycock.
Either you don't comprehend that people's value systems affect how they make decisions, and the overwhelming majority of decisions are subjective, or you are intentionally attempting to prohibit free expression of those with whom you do not agree.
As an example, "If people were really religious for the right reasons they would have no problem keeping their religion private." is nothing more than you proclaiming that anyone with a religious view should not enjoy public expression.
Freedom of religion is not prohibition of religion. All laws are codifications of the moral views of the aggregate society, imperfect as they are. Your statement that an elected official must "compartmentalize their religion" is ludicrous. What you want is to prohibit people from believing or expressing anything other than that which you think.
What an evil thought process you have.
Apology accepted. Thanks for your well-spoken (er...typed) reply.
I don't remember exactly why I brought up the muscular aspect of Christ. It had something to do with the application of physical force. It might have been something in regard to the responsibility people have as steward of their own bodies to protect them. Sorry, I'd elaborate if I could remember enough.
In Christ performed actions which were prohibited for people, he would have been acting as a hypocrite. In that case, throw the whole thing out. Christ wouldn't be God and it would all be a lie. By "prohibited" I don't mean actions for which people have not been empowered, such as reattaching an ear through non-surgical means. A fairly common example in some Protestant churches is the claim that Christians are prohibited from drinking alcohol and Christ was living under some form of "special circumstances." What a crock.
True, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." but that doesn't absolve people of responsibilities. Would God have given people dominion over the physical Earth then changed his mind later and instructed them to become helpless waifs? In that case, God wouldn't be perfect so wouldn't be worthy of the "position" of God. What you propose, that people should do nothing to enforce accountability amongst themselves, doesn't match the creation stories in Genesis. If people were made in God's image, should they be powerless by choice? Does "turn the other cheek" mean people should allow themselves to be victimized by others? Was Christ saying human society should be nothing more than a near anarchy of victims to evil? Of course not.
Methinks you are mixing the concepts of forgiveness and absolution of responsibilities. They are two very, very different concepts.
That was my point. You must kill a plant in order to eat it.
There's also no perfect 1:1 relationship between languages, especially a modern language and one that is a few thousand years old.
No canard, it's right there. Jesus was the blood sacrifice which meets the sin debt of the OT. That's what the OT prophecies point to.
You are cherry picking. Turn the other cheek doesn't mean allow yourself to be killed, stolen from, etc.
The Jesus of the NT was a very buff guy, as would be anyone who was a "carpenter" in an age of only hand tools who was able to throw merchants out of the temple given all trade was done with coin, not electronic credit, and there would have been a lot of hired bodyguards.
Reading a translated few sentences from thousands of pages for five minutes will obviously give a very incorrect impression. Aramaic doesn't include temporal tenses and the overwhelming majority of people alive today would read ancient writings with their current philosophical viewpoints. Microwave mentality never leads to wisdom or insight other than it's stupid to stick your nose in the opening of the popcorn bag when you open it.
You don't have to agree with what is there. It's intellectually disingenuous to claim anyone can grasp intertwined prophecies and history of thousands of pages with 5 minutes of reading, be it the Bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Bhagadvadgita or cave drawings.