Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

RobertDyck · 2006-11-19 10:34:43

Vaccination against malaria still doesn't exist ! You are scientifically wrong.
There are peoples with natural immunities as variants in a population genetic pool, with natural selection, they become the most numerous in the population.

My understanding is sickle cell anaemia is the only natural resistance. If you have one gene you have resistance to malaria, no genes and you're susceptible, two genes give you sickle cell anaemia. If both your parents have one gene each, then there's a 50% chance you will get one gene from each, which means you have a 25% chance of getting none, 50% of getting one, and 25% chance of getting two. Those with sickle cell anaemia have a slightly better resistance to malaria, but the anaemia is worse than malaria.

Why isn't there a vaccine by now? Modern anti-biotics can cure malaria, but prevention is better than a cure. Why isn't there a vaccine?

Hmm... Just looked it up. It's caused by a protozoan parasite, not a virus or bacterium. The Wikipedia article confirms there is no vaccine. However, you can take medication to prevent infection. The article states "Malaria infections are treated through the use of anti-malarial drugs, such as chloroquine or pyrimethamine, although drug resistance is increasingly common." Quinine was a common anti-malarial drug used in the 19th century. It's commonly known as tonic and was added to gin to make it palatable. That's why British colonists drank gin and tonic in tropical areas, not because they liked it.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-19 10:44:04

with DDT. If people are resistant to malaria, its also possible to vaccinate against it.
Vaccination against malaria still doesn't exist ! You are scientifically wrong.
There are peoples with natural immunities as variants in a population genetic pool, with natural selection, they become the most numerous in the population.

Maybe so, I don't claim to be a disease specialist, but viruses are acts of nature and soldiers must go where ever they are needed regardless of the natural environment. A soldier faces possible death when he goes to war, a virus is just one possible source of death alongside bullets and bombs. It doesn't matter how you end up dead. If the communists weren't trying to take over,then our soldiers wouldn't have had to have been their and wouldn't have died from malaria. if their was anyone at fault it was those northern communists for fighting and making it necessary for the United States to send troops.

Its not a theory, communism is an ideology that is designed to spread, and indeed here I see you are trying to perpetuate it.
I'm not trying to spread anything, as some kind of a non violent anarchist, communists would eliminate me among their first ennemies.
Im' just explaining that communist ideology can fit with some populations traditionnal way of life, ancient Inca empire was a communist type of society.

It also wasn't very democratic either. If you need to understand one thing about me, it is that I believe that people should choose their own governments. If government taxes, then government is spending your money as a fiduciary in your name, its obligation is to serve the people and to make sure that it serves the people, the people are to choose the government. I don't like the various forms of autocratic rule where the government keeps itself in power by force and steals the resources of the people. I feel communism is a fraud, it makes promises so that it can get in power, then it removes the people's ability to select a new government and of the people to hold the government resposible for fulfilling the promises it made to get into power in the first place. The people are the employer and those in power are the employees. The employer ought to be allowed to fire its employees if it feels that they are not doing a good job. Under communism the employee has taken away the employer's ability to fire it. The government is no longer accountable to the people under communism, and so it steals resources, money, property, and labor from the people however it sees fit, and I don't see that as just, no matter how many flowery promises it makes to the outside world while it doing this.

North Vietnam started the war, it invaded the South. the United States did not start the Vietnam War, we were only trying to defend the South from the North.
Nonsense !
The Vietcongs were nationalist and bouddhist south vietnameses which rebelled against the south vietnamese regime set first by the Frenches, then supported by the US, as Vietcong were reinforced by northern troops.
Vietnameses are home in all Vietnam, my sister was born in hanoi, i was born in Nhatrang, were aren't strangers at each other by some arbitrary fronteer, should France and USA had understood that fact, they wouldn't have supported any camp and let things go on.

Your Vietnamese? I didn't know that, I assumed you were French. I just curious, if you think the North were the good guys and they won, why did you immigrate to France? Wasn't it France whose yolk your people were supposedly trying to overthrow? So why would you go to France and be under French rule once again?
The United States wasn't trying to return Vietnam to French colonial rule, it was only trying to safeguard South Vietnamese freedoms against the North's aggression. If the price for Vietnamese reunification is living under a tyrant, that is a price not worth paying. Germany was reunited but under democratic terms where the East Germans gained the right to vote and to choose their own government. The South Vietnamese lost their right to vote ans choose their own government with the North conquered them. I think communism has been more oppressive for the South Vietnamese than French Rule ever has been, and the fact that your living in France and not Vietnam would seem to indicate your preference for which system is more just, so why do you disagree with me about the US aims in the vietnam war being just? Alot of you fellow country men who still live in vietnam do not get to choose their own government, as prosperous as they may be, it is still under one-party communist rule. Maybe the communists don't take their own ideology seriously, but they still maintain their monopoly on power, and I don't think that is right. If the people think the communists are doing a good job, then they should have an opportunity to reelect them back into power in a compedative election, if not, they should be allowed to choose another government. I don't think I am being racist when I say that the Vietnamese should be allowed the right to vote in compedative elections and choose who governs over them. That was all that America really wanted when it fought there.

Same with USA for which southern secession was a rebellion, is that too difficult to understand ?

Actually I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why the South would want to rebel in order to keep slaves. Alot of southerners died for their slaves, it makes no sense to me. The gig was up, in a democracy, majority rules and in the case of Lincoln's election, the majority decided that slavery was immoral and apparetly the South couldn't live with that, and so we had the bloodiest conflict the United States was ever to participate in. The amount of casualities we suffered in Vietnam pales in comparison to what we suffered in the 1860s. My Ancestor Sgt. Thomas B Kalbfus fought for the First Pennsyvania Regiment in 1861. I'm proud to say, he fought for the North and for abolishing slavery.

The only difference is that the so-called rebels won, anyways, when emperor Bao Dai took exile to France, he was replaced by Diem which had not any legitimacy.
More fairly tales, we didn't win because the Democrats in Congress didn't want us to win,
Napalm over vietnamese villages isn't fairy tales, and when foreigners come to kill women and children, whatever their reasons are, they have yet morally lost the war, that's what you don't want to see, and then there is no more support for the warmongers in your own country.

And the North Vietnamese did not kill women and children? Come now, in modern warfare both sides are typically reduced to the level of "monsters" because the imprecise weapons and the inability to identify the right target often leads to civilian casualities. The North Soldiers hid behind the skirts of those women we killed because they were cowards and wouldn't come out in the open to fight us man to man. I am sure the US army would have no interest in killing women and children if the North Soldiers didn't use them as cover. Our goal was to defeat the communists. It maybe there was hardly any difference in the sides that were fighting, but in the end, when we left the field, the North took away Vietnam's freedoms, and that is the most important thing. If you can't tell the difference between the sides during the war, you can certainly tell afterwards. Vietnam is somewhat behind, after trying communism for a while and finding it lacking it went into market reforms and it is catching up with the rest of the world. I think Vietnam would be ahead of where it is now, if the United States won.

In a foreign country where you don't know who and where your ennemies are, you don't know if the smiling local guy is friendly or will shoot at you as soon as you turn back, killing innocent peoples is unavoidable, therefore soon or latter you are the bad guy even if you claim that your intentions are good.
You can win only by carnage, then the whole world points at you as the monster.
Same with Iraq.

DonPanic · 2006-11-20 05:10:51

Maybe so, I don't claim to be a disease specialist, but viruses are acts of nature and soldiers must go where ever they are needed regardless of the natural environment.

Malaria isn't virus decease, it's a parasit called Plasmodium falciparum

A soldier faces possible death when he goes to war, a virus is just one possible source of death alongside bullets and bombs. It doesn't matter how you end up dead.If the communists weren't trying to take over,then our soldiers wouldn't have had to have been their and wouldn't have died from malaria. if their was anyone at fault it was those northern communists for fighting and making it necessary for the United States to send troops.

You had a conscript army of kids wich did'nt choose to go at war, but were arbitrarily sent to oppose at Viet Nam unification and which weren't defending USA, but a puppet dictator called Diem which was hatred by majority of the South Vienameses which are bouddist, Diem being a so-called christian, a foreign seed,
same as if you had a muslim dictator ruling USA and favourising Islam. After Diem, all South Vietnamese leaders were choosen by the US among a military junta. Nothing "democratic".

If you need to understand one thing about me, it is that I believe that people should choose their own governments. If government taxes, then government is spending your money as a fiduciary in your name, its obligation is to serve the people and to make sure that it serves the people, the people are to choose the government.

That's ideologic, I'm not, what's important is people's welfare, better a soft and protective autocrat than a co-called democracy led by financial private interests like most of today's so called democracies. To my eyes, most of them are mainly ploutocracies where leaders can't rise and campaign unless they can collect money from lobbies, and where political staffs answer the interests of lobbies before answering the population's needs.
The only point of agreement with you is that communism leeds to an autocratic system, but just take notice that the communists succedded to devellop the vietnamese economy in spite of US economical sanctions.

Your Vietnamese? I didn't know that, I assumed you were French. I just curious, if you think the North were the good guys and they won, why did you immigrate to France?

I'm french, I didn't choose, my father was a french army high rank officer, he was choosen by the former VietNam emperor's as his personnal army commander because he was the only french high rank officer who spoke fluently vietnamese and felf himself as being an adoptive vietnamese, he dyed in France always hoping for a coming back to VietNam, whatever would have been the regime. Now, I think mainly in french, all my relatives and friends are french, and the communist regime has still too tough rules for the returning peoples. Maybe in the future, I'll return to motherland. Right now, I live in among the Paris nicest places. In fact, with Internet and my job, I could manage to live anywhere in the world.

The United States wasn't trying to return Vietnam to French colonial rule, it was only trying to safeguard South Vietnamese freedoms against the North's aggression. If the price for Vietnamese reunification is living under a tyrant, that is a price not worth paying.

USA supported tyrants as well in south Vietnam, more interested in growing their personnal fortune than taking care of the population, that's why so-called South VietNam leaders never had a moral superiority and full population agreement to fight North.

Germany was reunited but under democratic terms where the East Germans gained the right to vote and to choose their own government.

So many former East Germans have nostalgy of their former government...

The South Vietnamese lost their right to vote ans choose their own government with the North conquered them. I think communism has been more oppressive for the South Vietnamese than French Rule ever has been,

The south Vietnamese lost their right to be governed by US supported puppets.
Most of the French colonists called disdainfully the Vietnamese "gnakaes", an equivalent for "gooks", and fueled lot of vietnamese rally with the VietMinhs

I say that the Vietnamese should be allowed the right to vote in compedative elections and choose who governs over them. That was all that America really wanted when it fought there.

Fairy tale in your mind, as I said, USA supported a local dictator, and military intervention in Viet Nam responded to communism containment strategy, the US didn't came to Viet Nam for the Viets' freedom.

And the North Vietnamese did not kill women and children? Come now, in modern warfare both sides are typically reduced to the level of "monsters" because the imprecise weapons and the inability to identify the right target often leads to civilian casualities.

The North Vietnameses caused less accidental casualties in civilian population than the US, because local pro VC network helped the North Vietnamese troops to know who collaborated with the US or not.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-21 10:44:09

Maybe so, I don't claim to be a disease specialist, but viruses are acts of nature and soldiers must go where ever they are needed regardless of the natural environment.
Malaria isn't virus decease, it's a parasit called Plasmodium falciparum

Don't really care what you call it, it is still an act of nature.

A soldier faces possible death when he goes to war, a virus is just one possible source of death alongside bullets and bombs. It doesn't matter how you end up dead.If the communists weren't trying to take over,then our soldiers wouldn't have had to have been their and wouldn't have died from malaria. if their was anyone at fault it was those northern communists for fighting and making it necessary for the United States to send troops.
You had a conscript army of kids wich did'nt choose to go at war, but were arbitrarily sent to oppose at Viet Nam unification and which weren't defending USA, but a puppet dictator called Diem which was hatred by majority of the South Vienameses which are bouddist, Diem being a so-called christian, a foreign seed,
same as if you had a muslim dictator ruling USA and favourising Islam. After Diem, all South Vietnamese leaders were choosen by the US among a military junta. Nothing "democratic".

Come on, I don't see the difference between one autocrat and another. If as you say, the Vietnamese are happy to live under one dictator and have no say in choosing their government,then why shouldn't they be happy to live under another? If they want to choose their government, then they want a democracy; the communists weren't offering them a democracy.

If you need to understand one thing about me, it is that I believe that people should choose their own governments. If government taxes, then government is spending your money as a fiduciary in your name, its obligation is to serve the people and to make sure that it serves the people, the people are to choose the government.
That's ideologic, I'm not, what's important is people's welfare, better a soft and protective autocrat than a co-called democracy led by financial private interests like most of today's so called democracies. To my eyes, most of them are mainly ploutocracies where leaders can't rise and campaign unless they can collect money from lobbies, and where political staffs answer the interests of lobbies before answering the population's needs.
You sound ideologic, but slanted against US interests where ever their is a choice, and here you are in this paragraph advocating a "soft and protective autocrat" whereas previously you were complaining about "puppet dictator" Diem. I don't see the differnce, in neigther case, does the people get a say in choosing their government, accepting your argument that Diem was a dictator for the moment. If they are content to live under a dictator, then I see no point in them rising up and dying by the millions trying to fight US soldiers so that they get yet another dictator who won't let them choose their government. Each dictator has his own ideas, and he implements them without regard for the will of the people. If the Vietnamese were not ready to govern themselves, then they should not have fought, there is no point in dying if it is not for a cause worth fighting for.
The only point of agreement with you is that communism leeds to an autocratic system, but just take notice that the communists succedded to devellop the vietnamese economy in spite of US economical sanctions. Diem was developing the Vietnamese economy too, in spite of communist attacks and the war. Had the US had its way, Vietnam would be a working democracy by now, much like South Korea, it would probably be manufacturing and exporting Vietnamese cars, and electronics by now, instead of playing catch up after all that time wasted fighting and trying to implement the communist system after millions died trying to fight democracy and freedom.
Your Vietnamese? I didn't know that, I assumed you were French. I just curious, if you think the North were the good guys and they won, why did you immigrate to France?
I'm french, I didn't choose, my father was a french army high rank officer, he was choosen by the former VietNam emperor's as his personnal army commander because he was the only french high rank officer who spoke fluently vietnamese and felf himself as being an adoptive vietnamese, he dyed in France always hoping for a coming back to VietNam, whatever would have been the regime. Now, I think mainly in french, all my relatives and friends are french, and the communist regime has still too tough rules for the returning peoples. Maybe in the future, I'll return to motherland. Right now, I live in among the Paris nicest places. In fact, with Internet and my job, I could manage to live anywhere in the world.
Well France is a democracy, I'm surprised you choose to live there. Do you make a conscious effort not to vote, since you don't believe in democracy?
I believe the right to choose one's government is innate, and that was the cause we fought for in Vietnam, that the Democrats did not sustain it, was their fault, not the fault of the soldiers who fought there.
The United States wasn't trying to return Vietnam to French colonial rule, it was only trying to safeguard South Vietnamese freedoms against the North's aggression. If the price for Vietnamese reunification is living under a tyrant, that is a price not worth paying.
USA supported tyrants as well in south Vietnam, more interested in growing their personnal fortune than taking care of the population, that's why so-called South VietNam leaders never had a moral superiority and full population agreement to fight North.
Well, if your truly talking about tyrants, then the support of the people does not matter as they are not consulted. The communists weren't democrats, they offered the people nothing, so why should people fight and die for them, seems like all they're doing is placing someone else in power and getting nothing in return, I don't think that's worth dying for.
Germany was reunited but under democratic terms where the East Germans gained the right to vote and to choose their own government.
So many former East Germans have nostalgy of their former government...
Like the admirers of Hitler perhaps? A German Communist and a German Nazi are basically the same to me, they both shoot at Americans, and they are both "Krauts" or enemy Germans with a gun that want to kill you. These Germans that want Communism are just as much a threat to democracy and people's rights to vote as were the Hitlerites that took over power in 1933, it was of no comfort to the people that died in the gas chambers that some Germans wanted this form of government. People who pine for dictatorships are those people who want to deprive their fellow citizens of the right to vote, and in the case of the Nazis, deprive the Jews of their lives.
The South Vietnamese lost their right to vote ans choose their own government with the North conquered them. I think communism has been more oppressive for the South Vietnamese than French Rule ever has been,
The south Vietnamese lost their right to be governed by US supported puppets.
Most of the French colonists called disdainfully the Vietnamese "gnakaes", an equivalent for "gooks", and fueled lot of vietnamese rally with the VietMinhs
"Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." I really don't know what the North Vietnamese were fighting for, because the French have called them names? The French call alot of people names, including us Americans.
I say that the Vietnamese should be allowed the right to vote in compedative elections and choose who governs over them. That was all that America really wanted when it fought there.
Fairy tale in your mind, as I said, USA supported a local dictator, and military intervention in Viet Nam responded to communism containment strategy, the US didn't came to Viet Nam for the Viets' freedom.

Those fighting for communism weren't fighting for democracy either, I don't see what's the point your trying to make? I would understand a rebellion by people who truly wanted to be free, but a rebellion of communists who wanted to live under another dictator? I think whatever puppet dictatorship your talking about, would have done a good job, if they didn't have to fight a Soviet supported Communist insurgency. Wars are a drain on the economy, if the Vietnamese who were fighting the government wanted a better life for themselves, they should have stopped fighting. Putting another dictator in power that they have no control over at their live's expense makes no sense.

And the North Vietnamese did not kill women and children? Come now, in modern warfare both sides are typically reduced to the level of "monsters" because the imprecise weapons and the inability to identify the right target often leads to civilian casualities.
The North Vietnameses caused less accidental casualties in civilian population than the US, because local pro VC network helped the North Vietnamese troops to know who collaborated with the US or not.

That's the point they fought in towns and villages and used human shields. The American Soldiers did not have human shields, so when the VC shot at them, their were alot fewer civilian casualities. When you shoot from a crowd of innocent civilians against soldiers that do not use the tactic of hiding in crowds, you are in part responsible for the casualities suffered in the return fire you get from those soldiers you are shooting at. You are giving the enemy soldier a choice, either fight back and harm innocent civilians or stand their and die while you shoot at them from crowds and villages. Most people if given a choice would probably choose to live and make someone else die, rather than die themselves. If the VC were truly worried about civilian casualities, they would fight US troops out in the open, away from civilians so that civilians would not be hurt!

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-22 01:43:30

I think I have won this argument on most points. I doubt there is anything I could say that could convince DonPanic, so I'll let what I wrote stand for itself. I find myself stressing the same points over and over again. Its obvious that what the world expects of Israel is vastly different from what it expects of the Palestinians.

RobertDyck · 2006-11-22 10:02:00

No, you haven't won. You just have demonstrated the attitude of the idiot. You've refused to listen, you refused to learn. You hang onto the myth of "we good, they bad". That's the attitude the creates and perpetuates war. To quote a famous person in history "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword." This is a test, who said that? I doubt you'll understand. Here's another quote from the same person, one often repeated by people who don't have a clue what it means: "The meek shall inherit the Earth." Here's a clue to it's real meaning, when does someone inherit something? Why would the meek be alive to inherit, and those who aren't meek no longer here?

Tom, you hang onto the attitude that your country must be good, therefore your country's politicians must be good, therefore any ally those politicians have formed an alliance with must be good. Well, bull shit! That's just stupid. Just because some American politician said Israel is a country and Palestine is not, does not make it so. The Jews that I've talked to always say "They aren't like you and me, they're animals." The Palestinians say "They aren't like you and me, they're animals." Sound familiar? That sort of name calling is what perpetuates conflict. The accusation that Palestine does not deserve a country because some politician said so but Israel does will only result in armed conflict. You're attitude is the problem. You are the problem. People are dying because of you. You! YOU!

One American once said to me, when talking about Washington's attempt to dominate Canada, "Would you prefer Britain dominated Canada?" That statement shows the fundamental bias and illustrates the problem. What the hell makes you think anyone in another country will let anyone dominate them? As long as America attempts to dominate, America is the problem. The mantra within America is "Freedom", why don't you understand that everyone else wants freedom too? The friction between Canada and the US is caused by the belief that Canada is a vassal state, subservient to America, rather than a partner and equal to America.

In my travels through America, I found many Americans do actually understand the concept of freedom. Unfortunately there's also a lot of people like you who do not. You keep thinking that America has a God given right to rule and anyone to challenges that must be defeated. That can only result in armed conflict. Perpetuating that belief will encourage politicians who abuse their authority and treat American citizens as stupid cattle who have to be told what to think. Those same power hungry war mongers are offending the rest of the world. I said for years that eventually one of those third world countries that suffer military covert operations, or even overt invasion, will attack American soil. I said that since I was an adult. I have been afraid such an attack would kill many Americans, and that the response would be more bloodshed, resulting in a stronger response against Americans, resulting in a long duration wide-spread conflict in which many thousand of people die. It couldn't escalate to all-out world war 3 because the third world doesn't have the military resources, so it would be a Vietnam style campaign where the American military would win victories in organized battles, but America could not hold what it occupied. It would be a continuous guerrilla war between the people of the countries America occupies and the American military. There will always be allies to align themselves with the strongest bully, so America will always have allies, but that doesn't make invading another country right. And it won't win an occupation. I also expected continuing terrorist attacks on American soil. I said this since the early 1980s, not it has happened. Further attacks on American soil haven't happened, but that has nothing to do with "Homeland Defence" or "Homeland Security". The reason is the terrorists weren't Central or South America, they weren't Vietnamese, they were Islamic. And leaders of al-Qaeda want the entire Arab world to become fundamental Islam. Iraq was the only secular government left in the Arab world, and America has tied its military down there. As long as America doesn't attack any other Islamic country, and mounts ineffective campaigns in Afghanistan, they won't attack American soil. Instead they attack America's allies, such as Britain.

I made the prediction of all these events two decades before they happened. And I predicted the attack against the WTO six months before it happened. I didn't know when, but thought it would happen. When George W. announced the ballistic missile defence system I said it was useless, a system with only 10 interceptor missiles in Alaska that only hit their target 1/3rd of the time won't defend against Russia that has 8,000 nuclear warheads. Not all are on missiles, but most are. They're dismantling warheads so I don't have the current numbers, but they still have thousands. George W. said it would protect against terrorists and rouge states, but they won't use an ICBM. It's too easy to trace back to its point of launch. After some discussion with a friend we concluded that the most likely terrorist attack would be against the twin towers of the World Trade Center because someone already attempted a truck bomb there. The most likely culprit would be al-Qaeda because they attacked multiple US embassies, and the USS Cole. The guys who took credit for the TWO truck bomb were the Serbian Liberation something or other, but there was no evidence they did it and they were associated with al-Qaeda. We said they would hi-jack an airliner such as a 757 and run it into the towers, one per tower. Once in 1996 I accidentally carried a box cutter knife on an airplane. I installed computers at work and needed the knife to open cardboard boxes; it was on my key chain. I realized when it was in a tray on the conveyor belt going through the X-ray machine at security. The guards looked right at it and didn't realize what it was. I thought it wasn't wise to say anything at the time, I just stood there calmly. I took it off my key chain when I got to my destination. I still have a similar little box cutter knife in my jacket pocket, but make a point of leaving it at home when flying. But this demonstrated how easily a hi-jacker could carry such a knife on the plane. So in March of 2001, I was worried al-Qaeda would use a box cutter knife to hi-jack a 757. Is that detailed enough? I had no idea when it would happen, and didn't believe it when another friend called me the morning of September 11, 2001, to tell me the attack happened. I stood with my jaw hanging open in front of the TV as I watched the first building burn. I was afraid of all the consequences, I saw exactly what would happen. Most importantly, I was worried about all the people in that building, and all the people who would be killed in the war that would follow. I was late to work that day, but so was everyone else. Is that detailed enough for you?

The company I worked for at the time sold mostly to American companies, and had reduced business since February 2001 due to the American economy flagging. After the attack of 9/11, my boss concluded the American economy was not going to recover any time soon so I was laid-off 3 days later: September 14, 2001. I lost my job over the attack.

I made all these prediction but no one would listen to me. After the attack I logged on to another message board with an anonymous ID and expressed the worry that the invasion of Afghanistan would result in another attack on American soil. I was worried they would storm a nuclear power plant and deliberately cause a melt-down, if not like Chernobyl at least like Three Mile Island. I noticed the news announced increased security at nuclear plants right after that. It appears someone did finally listen. Unfortunately after that an American sent anthrax through the mail to a US congressman. That I didn't see coming; I didn't expect an American would do such a thing.

But you Tom keep thinking that you can "win". You can't. As long as you think might makes right, the armed conflict will continue. As long as voters like you support aggression, politicians will continue to do stupid things to piss off foreign countries. The "War on Terror", as George W. likes to call it, will continue as long as you try to win. Terror is a tactic, not an opponent; you can't win. And as long as you use military force to attempt to occupy and oppress other countries, they will fight back. They can't defeat you, and you can't defeat them. Military force is useless for this issue. Diplomacy is the only way to "win", the only way that can win.

This thread was started with question about Israel. Prior to 1947/48 the Middle East was controlled by Britain. Israelis were just a bunch of indigenous people who organized 3 terrorist organizations to attack their neighbours and British rulers. Neither Israel nor Palestine has more of a claim than the other. Neither group has a moral claim, they both use terrorism to attempt to build their country. As long as Palestine is treated as a bunch of "terrorists" who no rights, the conflict in the Middle East will continue.

Get it Tom? You're wrong, and your attitude is encouraging American politicians to do really stupid things. Those stupid things are causing people to die by the thousands. Knock it off!

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-22 10:25:00

No, you haven't won. You just have demonstrated the attitude of the idiot. You've refused to listen, you refused to learn. You hang onto the myth of "we good, they bad". That's the attitude the creates and perpetuates war. To quote a famous person in history "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword." This is a test, who said that? I doubt you'll understand. Here's another quote from the same person, one often repeated by people who don't have a clue what it means: "The meek shall inherit the Earth." Here's a clue to it's real meaning, when does someone inherit something? Why would the meek be alive to inherit, and those who aren't meek no longer here?

It is the terrorists that live by the sword, we use it only when we have too. Liberals on the other hand seem to want us to just give up and surrender.

Stormrage · 2006-11-22 11:29:54

"Would you prefer Britain dominated Canada?"

I don't see anything wrong with this. LOL. I doubt the French-Canadians would accept UK back seeing how they fought for so many years to leave Canada it's self.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-22 13:37:59

Tom, you hang onto the attitude that your country must be good, therefore your country's politicians must be good, therefore any ally those politicians have formed an alliance with must be good. Well, bull shit! That's just stupid. Just because some American politician said Israel is a country and Palestine is not, does not make it so. The Jews that I've talked to always say "They aren't like you and me, they're animals." The Palestinians say "They aren't like you and me, they're animals." Sound familiar? That sort of name calling is what perpetuates conflict. The accusation that Palestine does not deserve a country because some politician said so but Israel does will only result in armed conflict. You're attitude is the problem. You are the problem. People are dying because of you. You! YOU!

You over estimate my importance. The World does not hang on every word I say, and that being the case, I can give my honest opinion on what I think, and I think the Palestinians engage in terrorism. Just the other day, they were congregating around some terrorist mastermind to prevent an Israeli airstrike against him, and it worked! If a bunch of Jews congregated in one place, a Palestinian terrorist would not be deterred, he would say, the more casualities the better, they look for crowds to blow up? Also consider the motives of people who want to protect terrorists that kill Jews, are these innocent civilians were talking about here, or are they just terrorists out of uniform? You are just biased against Jews and Americans so trying to reason with you is just a wasted effort.

One American once said to me, when talking about Washington's attempt to dominate Canada, "Would you prefer Britain dominated Canada?" That statement shows the fundamental bias and illustrates the problem. What the hell makes you think anyone in another country will let anyone dominate them? As long as America attempts to dominate, America is the problem. The mantra within America is "Freedom", why don't you understand that everyone else wants freedom too? The friction between Canada and the US is caused by the belief that Canada is a vassal state, subservient to America, rather than a partner and equal to America.

It is a belief propagated by Canadians in Canada looking for someone safe to defy. They want to rattle their sabers at America rather than contribute in any useful way in the War on terrorism, because the former is a cheap stunt they can pull. They want to create divisions between the US and Canada so they can exploit them to gain power. If you want Canada to eventually go to War with the United States and lose, then you just go down that path, reap the short term rewards from it, and then get the hell out before the war you started breaks out. People who sow divisions between otherwise peaceful countries are parasites. This is little better than the Jew-baiting Hitler used to gain power in Germany.

In my travels through America, I found many Americans do actually understand the concept of freedom. Unfortunately there's also a lot of people like you who do not. You keep thinking that America has a God given right to rule and anyone to challenges that must be defeated.

I never said that. All I basically said, is that assuming people don't want freedom, then its better that they are under the thumb of someone who's friendly to us rather than someone who's hostile. Take the Shah of Iran for instance, he was friendly to the United States, then came the revolution which overthrew him and he was replaced with a much more tyranical leader who wasn't friendly to us. I say the Iranains were better off under the Shah and we certainly were better off with the Iranians under the Shah. The Revolution wasn't a democratic one, so why should we respect would be tyrants trying to overthrow other tyrants if the result is a more hostile state toward us? If it was an expression of people chaffing under the yolk of oppression, then that's one thing, but the Iranian revolution wasn't one of those that brought freedom.

RobertDyck · 2006-11-22 18:34:47

You over estimate my importance. The World does not hang on every word I say, and that being the case, I can give my honest opinion on what I think

I used to believe that too, that this message board is for us members of the Mars Society only. Then I started to hear things outside the Mars Society. This morning I heard the radio personalities touting how much they like America, one of them sounded scared and desperate to show solidarity with America. The other two expressed they like America but couldn't understand why the first guy was so obsessive about it. This is right after I wrote that post, and it's the radio station I have listened to every morning since I was a teenager. I swear someone is reading this.

That said perhaps I should get more diplomatic myself. I shouldn't use cuss words. But there is one more point I have to make bluntly. I found most Americans are nice people, but in every group there is one who is best described as the self-appointed asshole. When you get a group of Americans together with some foreigners, there's just one who is loud-mouthed, arrogant, condescending, domineering, and a warmonger. I didn't find that while travelling within the US, just when a group of 20 or more Americans encounters a group of non-Americans. It appears it's part of American culture to encourage that. Most Americans aren't like that at home, but they are when they encounter foreigners. Why? One thing is American media doesn't provide an accurate view of what goes on outside the States. When I lived in a suburb of Richmond in 1996 I felt isolated; when I lived in Miami I accessed internet news websites to get a view of what's going on. A lot of it's just ignorance; for some reason the media establishment fails to give information outside the States so Americans don't have a clue what's really going on. Those reading this will probably be familiar with internet news, so more informed than the average.

One reason I said "you, You, YOU" is that America is at least supposed to be a Democracy. That means politicians are accountable to voters. There's always the question how much they listen, but that's at least how it's supposed to work. If voters want America to behave ethically, then politicians will be forced to do so. But I shouldn't get too upset. America elected a Democrat legislature so we can hope much of the damage done during the last 6 years will be undone.

If you want Canada to eventually go to War with the United States and lose, then you just go down that path, reap the short term rewards from it, and then get the hell out before the war you started breaks out.

Uh huh. If anyone scolds you then threaten war. This is the nature of the problem. If you don't want to be scolded, then stop screwing up.

consider the motives of people who want to protect terrorists that kill Jews, are these innocent civilians were talking about here, or are they just terrorists out of uniform? You are just biased against Jews and Americans so trying to reason with you is just a wasted effort.

The point I've made several times is that both sides are bad. Considering you have been trying to paint me as biased in favour of Arabs, I had to cringe when I saw another terrorist bombing on the news. But there are a lot of Arab terrorists there, and their actions cannot be justified. However, that does not justify terrorist activity by Israel. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Take the Shah of Iran for instance, he was friendly to the United States, then came the revolution which overthrew him and he was replaced with a much more tyranical leader who wasn't friendly to us. I say the Iranains were better off under the Shah and we certainly were better off with the Iranians under the Shah.

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter what anyone outside Iran thinks. The government of Iran (or any nation) is up to the people who live there. Whether America or Canada is better off just doesn't matter.

Perhaps I'm just wasting my time with one guy. Again, America voted in Democrats and the CNN poll showed 4 issues, one of which was war. The poll asked voters what issues caused them to vote the way they did, and the result was almost equal support for the 4 issues. Ok, so most Americans agree that war is a problem. One point I've been trying to make is that America shouldn't have invaded Iraq. The Persian Gulf War of 1991 was justified, but when General Norman Schwarzkopf said it was over, time to go home, that meant it was over, time to go home. I think most Americans understand that now. Another worry is that America is Canada's ally so Canada gets dragged in to everything. We can't afford to get dragged in to conflicts like Iraq. Canada is deeply involved in Afghanistan and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is running that as a copy of what America did in Iraq. I'm really worried Afghanistan will become Canada's Iraq. Stephen Harper appears to be copying everything the Republicans do; some in Canada have said to see what Stephen Harper's policy is this week just look at George W.'s policy last week. Despite all that, Stephen Harper is the one who stood before the Economic Club of New York and made a pronouncement about sovereignty in the arctic that sounded like he's threatening to declare war. What the hell is he trying to do!? So you see my criticism isn't just for American right-wing warmongers, we have a few rednecks up here too. I still don't understand how we managed to elect the most radical right-wing redneck politician in Canada as our Prime Minister.

dicktice · 2006-11-22 21:53:19

Fortunately Harper is Prime Minister of a parlimentary democracy, and can be toppled anytime ... unlike Bush who is President of a republic for a fixed term of four years. There's hope for Canada yet.

DonPanic · 2006-11-23 07:36:22

I think I have won this argument on most points.

As does a guy self blinded by its own certaincies and does never want to see others points of view.

I say the Iranains were better off under the Shah and we certainly were better off with the Iranians under the Shah.

Just because you don't even remember what SAVAK was and how much money was spent for the crown and little for the peoples.
You say, you say, I really don't know wether the average iranian citizen feels better under Shah's or mollahs' reign, therefore I don't say things I do ignore as you do.
The Iranians may have fake elections, but they had, and elected Ahmadinejad.
I don't like him, but at least, to the iranian eyes, he's not a tyran set up by GB and USA

DonPanic · 2006-11-23 13:23:07

Settlements 'violate Israeli law's

RobertDyck · 2006-11-23 23:42:17

This morning the other two radio personalities were bugging Tom Milroy about his obsession with America. It appears he panicked about something. Let's see, the timing was right after my "rant" message. Hi Tom, , which one are you?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-24 12:32:32

I think I have won this argument on most points.
As does a guy self blinded by its own certaincies and does never want to see others points of view.
I say the Iranains were better off under the Shah and we certainly were better off with the Iranians under the Shah.
Just because you don't even remember what SAVAK was and how much money was spent for the crown and little for the peoples.
You say, you say, I really don't know wether the average iranian citizen feels better under Shah's or mollahs' reign, therefore I don't say things I do ignore as you do.
The Iranians may have fake elections, but they had, and elected Ahmadinejad.
I don't like him, but at least, to the iranian eyes, he's not a tyran set up by GB and USA

There you go again.

You admit that the elections are fake, yet you say they are the express will of the people. Which is it, it is not both. If the elections are fake, then they do not express the will of the people, and anybody rubberstamped into office by them is no more valid than any tyrant put into office by an outside power such as the United States or Canada. A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant, it matters not what his origin is, whether he's a native or a foreigner, it is the fact that he's a tyrant and that he oppresses the people and does not allow them to choose a new government that matters.

If the Iranian government is so popular, then why doesn't it stand for free, fair and compedative elections and let the people decide? If they are so popular they have nothing to fear. On the other hand, we must still deal with threats outside our borders, whether they come from elected representatives or not.

I note that terrorism is very popular in some quarters. If you want war then you support the terrorists, its easy to escalate support for terrorism into a full scale conflict. If people want peace, they should not support terrorism.

DonPanic · 2006-11-27 09:17:31

If the Iranian government is so popular, then why doesn't it stand for free, fair and compedative elections and let the people decide? If they are so popular they have nothing to fear. On the other hand, we must still deal with threats outside our borders, whether they come from elected representatives or not.

Have some information before saying anything.
http://www.rferl.org/specials/iranelections/
Threats aren't at your borders, they rather are at european borders.
Stop accusing peoples which want another approach of Middle East problem of supporting terrorism.
Even the US administration asks Iran and Syria more collaboration on Iraq

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-28 08:48:16

If the Iranian government is so popular, then why doesn't it stand for free, fair and compedative elections and let the people decide? If they are so popular they have nothing to fear. On the other hand, we must still deal with threats outside our borders, whether they come from elected representatives or not.
Have some information before saying anything.
http://www.rferl.org/specials/iranelections/
Threats aren't at your borders, they rather are at european borders.
Stop accusing peoples which want another approach of Middle East problem of supporting terrorism.
Even the US administration asks Iran and Syria more collaboration on Iraq

The Iraq War Study group, or what I call the "Surrender Committee", not the Administration advocates talks with the enemy. if Iran was on another planet then I'd agree with you that they are not on our borders, but they aren't, it is a small world we live in these days, and unfortunately the ease of travel puts these fanatics right in our faces. The US needs a global presence in order to safegard our security, we need to be able to project our forces, because the World is such a small place. Simply massing troops at our border will not do, we need to prevent threats from arising at their points of origin, not at our borders. We don't have a solid missile defense. amd thanks to the Democratic victory, we may not have one for some time, as they are opposed to SDI. The Democrats want to roll out the "welcome mat" for any Iranian ICBMs that they may develop and watch them destroy our cities without lifting a finger to stop them. Its hard to believe that Jimmy Carter is such a Quisling, that he advocates talking with the enemy that gave him so much trouble during his Presidency and made him a one-term president, is he that stupid, or is he so fixated on defeating Bush that he's willing to let other things fall by the wayside? The problem with the Democrats is that they see only one enemy in this world, and that's George Bush, they have such a distorted viewpoint, that they endanger this country's security, all because of their monomania focused on defeating George Bush.

clark · 2006-12-04 12:31:52

Hey Tom,

If you believe as strongly as you do, why don't you enlist and be a part of the solution?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-05 01:15:40

Hey Tom,
If you believe as strongly as you do, why don't you enlist and be a part of the solution?

You mean become a Jew?
Nah, no thank you. My motivation is that the liberal community is treating Israel unfairly in its attempt to become evenhanded between Palestinians Terrorists and the Israelis. Whenever I accuse the Palestinians of supporting terrorism, then I get this right to have their stolen land returned. This side steps the issue as to whether murdering innocent civilians deliberately is wrong. I've seen the Palestinians all go crazy and support Hamas and their launching of rocket attacks, and kidnapping of Israeli citizens, that I wonder whether after all this behavior they actually deserve to get their land back. Maybe if they asked nicely and had a little bit of patience, rather than go on a killing spree, then people would be more inclined to support their getting some land back. The Initial Israeli borders covered only a think slice of land. Israel only got larger after it was attacked twice. At one point it occupied the Sinai pennusula after Egypt attacked, it later on gave it back, which was the majority of land Israel ever held. Egypt wouldn't take the Gaza strip though, they wanted a beachhead for the Palestinians to cause trouble and kill Jews, and they didn't want to be held responsible for attacking Israel again, so they had the proxy Palestinians do it instead and disavowed all responsibility for their actions. Much of arab military strategy has to do with evading resposibility for the actions of proxy groups that they support under the table. I'm not buying it. When I see wrong, I see wrong. If one group clearly wrongs another, I don't try to be even handed for the sake of peace. Murder is wrong, and is always wrong, and what the Palestinians have been doing is murder, they don't obey any of the rules of the battlefield, they don't try to avoid civilian casualities and only target the military, oh no, they seek out civilians to hit because they are an easy target. I'm not prepared to accept terrorism as part of the legitimate struggle and strategy of modern warfare, therefore I can't see any side which employs terrorism as right or as deserving of victory.

epocalypse · 2006-12-08 20:56:39

I'm not prepared to accept terrorism as part of the legitimate struggle and strategy of modern warfare, therefore I can't see any side which employs terrorism as right or as deserving of victory.

Does this mean that you do not support Israel as a state founded on terrorism, ruled for the past 60 years by "statesmen" who were themselves at one point considered terrorists and who have continued their policies into the present as "self defense?"

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-09 01:29:14

I'm not prepared to accept terrorism as part of the legitimate struggle and strategy of modern warfare, therefore I can't see any side which employs terrorism as right or as deserving of victory.
Does this mean that you do not support Israel as a state founded on terrorism, ruled for the past 60 years by "statesmen" who were themselves at one point considered terrorists and who have continued their policies into the present as "self defense?"

You are living in your own reality aren't you. Think this through logically. If Israel was a terrorist state and it had the Palestinians completely under its control for so many years, don't you think they would have exterminated them all by now?

Terrorists by definition want to kill civilians and they want to kill as many as possible. Now think carefully now, how many Palestinians is it possible for the Israelis to kill?

Hint: All of them! There would be no one left in the West Bank and no one left in the Gaza strip. Consider what the Germans did during World War II and what they didn't do. The Germans didn't surround a Jewish town or village and send Gestapo officers in to blow themselves up in a crowded square to kill many Jews. You know what the Germans did do, and if you don't there is no point in explaining it to you, cause you are never going to get it.

epocalypse · 2006-12-09 03:56:53

THREE WORDS!!!

King David Hotel

91 dead the majority of which were civilians.

And before you try and say that it has nothing to do with Israel today just remember Israel CELEBRATED the 60th anniversary of this act of terror this year. Celebrations were led by Ben Netanyahu and drew official protests from Britain.

And to add to the insult they unveiled a plaque blaming Britain for the deaths for not evacuating the building on time. These are the same terrorists that machinegunned down an unarmed Army officer, an unarmed policeman and 3 hotel workers while planting the bomb. Claims that there had been an ignored warning are frankly ridiculous considering there was a firefight between security forces and terrorists ongoing before the bomb detonated, equivalent of giving a warning before planting a bomb.

I hold that such celebrations are the moral equivalent to installing a plaque at Ground Zero to the "Martyrs who Struck Against Satan" which blames the US administration for the crime.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-12-09 09:03:54

So if they are not all Saints they are all villians, is that what your saying? But think about it, only 91 people? Surely with the formost military in the Middle East they are capable of killing much more than 91 people in a bomb attack. The fact that the Palestinian population is growing so fast, indicates that they are not killing as many civilians as they could, you see Israelis control the Palestinian space and they don't maximise the slaughter, yet the Palestinians don't control the Israeli's space and they do their best to kill as many Jews as they can, that is what I mean by terrorism. If a few Jews murder a few arabs, you can't paint the whole of Israeli with a broad brush as that does not constitute Israeli policy, it wasn't Israelis that voted terrorists into their government, if they did, we'd know about it, believe me!

epocalypse · 2006-12-09 09:25:06

God, Tom pick up a history book or something. The King David bombing was in 1946 by Zionist terrorists led by Menachim Begin, a man who became Prime Minister of Israel. If you want me to reel off a list of modern IDF atrocities I will and as counterbalance I'll give a list of Palestinian ones too.

During the run up to the foundation of the state of Israel Jewish terrorists murdered, kidnapped and tortured hundreds of civilians and unarmed British soldiers. The leaders and many members of these terrorist organisations, Irgun, Lehi and to an extent Haganah became the leaders of the new state of Israel.

I will not condone Palestinian outrages but nor will I listen to your holier than thou bollocks. Fact is fact, the state of Israel was founded on terror by terrorists and your refusal to accept this shows you to be a hypocrite.

epocalypse · 2006-12-09 09:51:29

it wasn't Israelis that voted terrorists into their government, if they did, we'd know about it, believe me!

Just a short list of former Zionist terrorists voted into high office in Israel;

David Ben-Gurion, Haganah but did much to disband Zionist terrorist groups
Yigal Allon, Haganah
Yitzhak Rabin, Palmach
Menachem Begin, Irgun
Yitzhak Shamir, Stern Gang, Lehi (an acknowledged admirer of the IRA)

And out of interest the terrorism did not stop with the founding of Israel. Menachem Begin and Irgun attempted to assasinate Konrad Adenauer, German Chancellor, in 1952 to scupper reparation talks between Israel and Germany.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2006-11-19 10:34:43

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#202 2006-11-19 10:44:04

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#203 2006-11-20 05:10:51

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#204 2006-11-21 10:44:09

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#205 2006-11-22 01:43:30

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#206 2006-11-22 10:02:00

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#207 2006-11-22 10:25:00

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#208 2006-11-22 11:29:54

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#209 2006-11-22 13:37:59

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#210 2006-11-22 18:34:47

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#211 2006-11-22 21:53:19

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#212 2006-11-23 07:36:22

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#213 2006-11-23 13:23:07

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#214 2006-11-23 23:42:17

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#215 2006-11-24 12:32:32

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#216 2006-11-27 09:17:31

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#217 2006-11-28 08:48:16

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#218 2006-12-04 12:31:52

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#219 2006-12-05 01:15:40

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#220 2006-12-08 20:56:39

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#221 2006-12-09 01:29:14

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#222 2006-12-09 03:56:53

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#223 2006-12-09 09:03:54

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#224 2006-12-09 09:25:06

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

#225 2006-12-09 09:51:29

Re: Why does U.S.A. support Israel? - Finally, I'm Asking

Board footer