OT: What are we doing in Najaf?

So utterly wrong (as if THAT were a surprise).

The -only- "morally repugnant" element here is the street gang holed up in the mosque in the first place.

They are the ones who have chosen to put the building, and city, at risk. They are the ones who knowingly, deliberately, and specifically chose the setting.

After all, they can count on the support of intellects of your caliber for moral support in the Western world, and the generally low levels of education in their own region.

"Ron" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@rcn.com...

Ron, I promise you can buy yourself a kewpie doll as soon as you will be seeing Super's BS propaganda for what it is. But as long as I keep catching you on parotting, no kewpie doll for you I'm afraid.

Actually I agree with you 100%, but I think that we should have stayed out of it. Hussein was a lunatic but much stronger than the Iranians, given the chaos that their country was in. I believe that we should have opted for the "Swiss Manouver" and maintained strict neutrality. All we did was piss off the whole hornets' nest. And I believe that a lot of it was done to sell weapons systems and see how well they worked, although I could be wrong (and really wish that I was).

Thank you for a voice of reason (and less politics), you make sense. I lost old friends in the WTC. All they wanted was to retired and go home to the fishing rod and grandkids. Those punks from the Middle East thought otherwise and they deserve to get whacked for their impudence to my friends and the other 3,000 innocent men women and children that were murdered that day. If we didn't need the oil, I'd say let's build a mile-high wall all around all of those idiots and let them play in their litter-box 'til Hell freezes over. Quit sending them weapons and quit sending them food. Let them live in the 13th Century like they want to. I'm going back to modeling. Take care!

-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger

Welcome to the year 2004. It's been a long time since there was a Palestine for anyone to "occupy". In fact, there never was an independent nation by that name... just what others called Israel after they stole it. Now it is back in the hands of its rightful owners, and hopefully will always be so. Anyone in Israel who doesn't like that can walk east until they are on Muslim soil, or west until the bubbles stop coming up.

It's astonishing how the American news media finds places in Israel to call "Israeli occupied territories" but never finds places in the former Confederacy to call "United States occupied territories".

WinBear

IIRC Hiter made it twice.

He also uses his turn signals at appropriate times, I know, I've seen him do it.

It is interesting you should say this, it appears that your sense of timescales is skewed. As far as I know, Israel was "out of the hands of its [socalled] rightful owners" from about 70 A.D. until 1948, a hell of a lot longer that it has been out of the hands of the palestinians. And even before that time, the jews (strongly fractioned themselves) were not the only inhabitants.

What is today known as the United States of America has been out of the hands of _its_ rightful owners for a _considerably_ shorter period of time. Perhaps you should give it back?

Mind you, although I think the state Israel is an anachronism that shouldn't have come into existence (being just about as meaningless as resurrecting the Roman Empire, or dare I say "3. Reich"), it is now a fact. However it is also a fact that there are a lot of people down there who want their own land which they want to call Palestina. If Israel were to move back to the borders of 1967 it would help a lot.

Finally, it is my standing hypothesis that all of religion sucks. So far it has stood up fine empirically. Social systems depending on upholding a certain religion therefore also suck. That goes for Israel just as much as for the Islamic world and the Christian world. (And the Hindu world and the Buddhist world, for that matter.)

"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally." -W. C. Fields

-Lasse

"WinBear (Bob Horton)" wrote

FYI, and without taking sides, please note that the US Government officially refers to the "occupied teritories". This is not an artifice of the media but official US policy.

"The territories occupied by Israel since the 1967 war are not included in the Israel country profile, unless otherwise noted." from the 2004 CIA World Factbook,

"As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end." from speech by President Bush, 3/14/2003, Nor is it an American invention:

"But we believe that the construction of this barrier on occupied territory. . ." from speech by UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw, 7/21/2004,

KL

Now -THAT- really is sick.

Ron wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@rcn.com:

Aw shucks Ron. A little civilization goes a long way.

Interesting! My Great Uncle was a real "old Salt" type Navy Man. He had run away from home and joined up in 1898, and he found a discipline and order there that was absent at home so he made a career of it. Worked his way "up through the hawsepipe" as they used to say, was commissioned in 1906 and was an officer on one of the battleships of Teddy Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet" that sailed around the world in 1907/08. His take on religion was that "Religion is what man invented so he would have something to fight about if he couldn't find anything material to fight over". I was a bit shocked the first time I heard him say that, but the older I get (66) and the more I see, the more I understand his point.

Bill Shuey

And the seventh seal was broken.....Kim M

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Man of the year, or Person of the Year, is not, necessarily, a popular person:

- From Times website:

"Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that."

See:

IOW, it isn't meant as an honor. I'm suprised Ben Ladin hasn't been nominated since he "affected the events of the year" in 2001.

You know, Vessticles, you truly must be just about the dumbest, most myopic person alive. I'm surprised you have enough sense to continue breathing in and out on a regular basis.

You don't know a thing about what's going on in Najaf (or most anywhere else as far as I can tell). Even the Democrats are saying Sadar is a bad guy and needs to be dealt with.

Sheesh!

My home page:

" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

Don't worry Vessie when John Kerry gets into office he's going to release Sadam with a full presidential pardon, pay restitution for our war crimes, turn over Kuwiat and throw his medals across the euphrates river. Then he's going to finish Clintons great work of dismantling the American war machine. There does that make you feel better? Sheess and you thought you were the only one who could write a load of crap.

great work of dismantling the American war machine.

What if he dismantles the Texas ANG? Where will the Bush family and their cronies go? Maybe their business partners the House of Saud and the Bin Laden family will open an air force base in Texas. Kim M

Say, this reminds me ... Wasn't there some brouhaha over some Saudi prince who on behalf of the Saudi royal family donated a big heap of cash to the Democratic National Committee in return for him being granted the honour of a sleepover at the White House back when Bill Clinton was president ... ?

I do remember one giving a chunk of money to the 9/11 Fund and getting it thrown back at him. What was one more overnight guest at the White House, more or less? We got a crowd there now I'll be happy to see gone. :)

Bill Banaszak, MFE

I hope you can endure the pain if that doesn't happen until

2009.... ;-p