Have We Lost The Rhetoric War?

Are there similarities in how we fight wars less effectively today and how we discuss them, similarities that might ultimately undermine the war effort itself?

If someone didn't whole-heartedly support America's cause in World War II, odds are they would have been called a traitor, a coward, or at least a weakling, etc. Today, just as we see collateral damage as an argument for not fighting a war, as opposed to an unfortunate by product of one, the conventional wisdom is that we shouldn't be too hard on war critics, less we run the risk of looking like unhinged war mongers.

Recently the term disproportion has been in the news as regards fighting a war. Think about proportionality as regards the current debate of the Iraq War. Young men and women, good young American men and women are off in a foreign land fighting for what America defined as her cause when she went to war. They are fighting, being severely and often permanently injured and even dying everyday.

Yet, as purveyors of what some might call pro-war rhetoric, how do we respond to the people we see daily undermining the very effort required to fight that war and adequately support our troops?

Isn't the tendency to go soft on them? To not actually say what we believe to be true in our hearts - that, ultimately, their short-sighted reasoning, or lack of resolve weakens America's prospects in what is an increasingly dangerous world as a result of the rise of radical Islam?

Isn't it disproportionate to give anti-war folks like that a pass when they sit safe and protected pumping out un-war-supportive prose, while better men and women than all of us fight and die?  I'm starting to think that it is.

What I do know is that, if we are to defeat Islamofascism, many more innocents will die. And even more innocents will die if we don't defeat it. With stakes that high, is it really such a crime to call certain individuals cowards, or traitors, or somehow un-American, or dangerously misguided Americans, at best?

If America and perhaps now Israel find themselves in a position where they can no longer effectively let slip the dogs of war for just cause, isn't it, at least in part, because the rhetoric of war has been ceded to those who will always oppose it, no matter how right the cause?

Q: What did you do in the war Daddy?

A: Well, I tried to be as polite and careful as I could be when arguing about it.

Given the consequences, does that sound so noble? Perhaps not.

Here's the latest war news: Pajamas Media, or read a few regional blogs. I like to check the JP headlines, as well.

Comments

[chrys]

It's a "cow towel" PC thing - and there's a good possibility that it's killing us all as we sit and blog to the choir. Everyone is so afraid to be involved in a fight of some kind that no one says anything at the right time to the right people. We've become so comfortable with the ability to ignore negativity (let everyone do their own "thing") that anything else seems too out of line.

[Phoenix]

"....it's killing us all...." and "...We've become so comfortable with the ability to ignore negativity..."

There is a book advertised on many blogs, "Therapy Nation", that I believe decries the tendency of people to depend on therapy to help them deal with the real world. I haven't read it, but based on the promos, it makes fun of people who 'need' therapy. Whatever the point is, people do need therapy because 'it' is killing us all, and I think it's because we are *not* comfortable with the ability of so many to ignore negativity.

Just flipping through CNN and FOX news is enough to make a person doubt their sanity. One channel is boo-hooing over civilian casualities in Lebanon, and the other is interviewing an Israeli who speaks in such clear, linear dialogue about events that after a while, you begin to wonder what's up and what's down. On both channels, replayed over and over again are scenes of Arabs running around burning things down, breaking into buildings, chanting "Death to America". The news people drone on and on describing the happenings like puppets programmed to point their fingers in whichever direction the producers at whichever news station wants the fingers pointed. No one dares say, "Hey, ever notice that no one but Arabs run around screaming for joy when an American or a Jew dies?" Or, "Don't Palestinians have jobs?"

Puny examples, but if just one person had had the nerve to say what Hezbollah did yesterday with the 'catastrophe' in Qana was utter brilliance and then explained exactly just how brilliant it was for the world stage, we might be able to muster some genuine outrage at this worldwide enemy we face. Instead, everyone overlooks the fact that Hezbollah manufactured that slaughter. They won. Everyone is so busy crying about Israel killing women and children that they can't see Hezbollah and Iran doing high-fives in the background.

Hezbollah might just as well have lined those people up and shot them. Is it any wonder that as we watch Kofi Annan whine when he is practically responsible for the whole mess, and watch Arabs dancing in the streets, and listen to other world leaders condemn Israel that our world starts looking pretty crazy? Therapy Nation is right. When truth takes a back seat to the new leit motiv of 'not-wanting-to-say-the-wrong-thing' or to condemn atrocities committed by people who want to eradicate an entire race of people off the planet, then it's no wonder even an intelligent, thinking mind gets lost in the rhetoric of PC.

[rwilymz]

"replayed over and over again are scenes of Arabs running around burning things down, breaking into buildings, chanting "Death to America". "

Hey, 'x', you paying attention?

Wasn't it just you declaring that these folks don't dislike the US, just the Israelis who pushed them out of their homes? [yes, it was]

Pan-islamists, or islamofascists, or whatever you want to call them, equate the US to Israel, and have since May 15th 1948. Israel may as well be the 51st state as far as they're concerned. [apologies to Puerto Rican statehoodists]

But don't go thinking you can begin the pan-islamist hatred of the US with that notorious event, because pan-islamists have taken the US on several times before, starting with the Barbary Wars, the first of which began becuase of incident a few minutes after our own official recognition in 1783.

Look up Ion Perdacaris just for grins. This is what Arabs have been doing to the US since the US started; it's what they've been doing to Europe since they discovered Islam and were taught that it was their destiny to rule the world.

"Or, "Don't Palestinians have jobs?" "

Jobs and the capacity to become wealthy is one of the surest ways of short-circuiting paramilitarism. People with assets and things to lose very rarely go on war-making binges.

[wjo]

Ever since Vietnam we have been unwilling to call traitors by their correct name. Relativism allows the sinecured coward to betray his country and be heralded a "hero" for his "dissent". His or her actions will elude any consequences in law and he will be "brave" for fighting the oppressor du jour. Meanwhile, the fighting man is deemed a coward because he lacks the intestinal fortitude to shirk fighting an "illegal" war.

The publication of the Pentagon Papers dealt a death blow to maintenance of state secrets.

One muses how to educate the "nothing worth fighting and dying for" crowd about the limits of international law. Apparently, no barbarity can stir them other than any deviation by civilzed societies from the alleged perfection they posit exists in international organizations, laws and institutions. Do they suppose that chants of "Death to America" impliedly except them? Submission is our enemy's war aim. Ours is to be left in peace.

Those of this ilk sanctimoniously assert they are in the "reality based community". However, no amount of reality can ever seem to wipe out the illusions of the world they inhabit.

What should happen then if the mantle of prosecting this war be passed to them? Honor is a dead virtue. Pleasure a god. No sacrifice is expected. Slumber on.

[Enlighten-New Jersey]

Amen Dan, Amen!

[xxx]

THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN EDITED. PROFANITY LACED SCREEDS ARE PROHIBITED. ALL COMMENTS AND POINTS OF VIEW ARE WELCOME BUT PLEASE MAKE YOUR POINTS CIVILY, OR COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED AND COMMENTERS WHO REFUSE TO ABIDE BY THIS GUIDELINE WILL BE BANNED.

Yeah, who needs the concept of free speech.

Prosecute everyone as a traitor who disagrees with government policy, better yet, designate them a terrorist so you can throw them in jail forever, no lawyers, no evidence, no hearing. That will keep us policitcally correct, lefty liberal utopian quiet.

Who needs those pesky protections in the constitution to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority.

Freedom of association. Once we get rid of that one then all the peaceniks can be summarily rouned up and thrown in jail as traitors as well.

Open government. The government knows what's good for us, who are we to question anything. Documents? Who needs documents? That sounds pretty traitorous to me, questioning the government? Yep, definitely cowardly and traitorous.

Welcome to Nazi Germany you fools.

[Phoenix]

Freedom of speech is not a concept. It's a right. Guaranteed under the law.

xxx - perhaps a year living abroad, say in North Korea or China, might give you an appreciation of your homeland.

[xxx]

I do appreciate my homeland, that's why it is so disheartening to dialogue with a bunch of rabid conservatives who are so afraid of the truth or any disagreement with their whack job policies that they want to label anyone who disagrees with them as a traitor. So afraid to defend their own worldview that anyone who disagrees with them must be labeled an enemy. So pathetically afraid even of our real enemies that they can't stand the idea of giving them trials or humane treatment, lest they might argue a defensible position or, god forbid, be innocent of the crimes they are accused of. So patently insecure about the facts and truth of their own beliefs they don't even want access to documents, facts and figures that, presumably would prove them right, instead, they are happy to let the government stamp "secret" on anything they want to, claim "national security" and tell them that it's wrong to even ask these bad questions anyway.

See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

That's great, but it ain't democracy.

[Phoenix]

Not only are you off-topic in your desperate desire to carry on with your horse-blindered views, but you generalized.

I don't waste my time with anyone who generalizes. Generalizing is not allowed in the Articles XIICV of Rational Debate.

[rwilymz]

'x', there isn't a "rabid conservative" in the area who has called anyone a traitor "for disagreeing". And as for truth, anyone who continually works at 90-degrees to reality to castigate others as untruthful ... well, that's just psychotic.

Here's some peace-time tyrannies of the majority for you you to chew on while you change your panties for the third time this morning over the war-time tyrannies you continually blubber about:
mandatory seat-belts
no smoking in public places
can't slaughter horses
can't make pate d'foie gras
can't skateboard on the sidewalk
buy sudafed, get tracked
no drinking in public
"implied consent" appears nowhere in the Constitution yet it continually deprieves people of the 4thAm -- which does
property forfeiture for dropped charges

None of the things you claim to be happening are currently happening -- though they have in our past. Adams the Elder inspired the Alien and Sedition acts, which imprisoned people for criticizing the government, and kicked many out of the country.

Lincoln, Wilson and FDR arrested Americans and imprisoned them for no stated reason.

Neither of those are happening. And before you need to change your panties *again* ... foreigners do not get a presumption of US civil rights, even if they're here legally and following the rules. When they're caught in foreign lands shooting at US soldiers? chances are real good they won't be granted more than minimal anything.

The rules of civilized nations to not grant certain types of war-fighters humane treatment; our own guarantees of same apply to our citizens only. By what stretch of fantasy do you reasonably expect to demand what does NOT apply? Don't you know how to follow rules? Or are rules only good when it gets you what you desire?

"Humane" is what the collected nations agree on; and I have personally pointed you at the definitions of it. And now that's not good enough; you have a better answer.

...so who died and made you Emperor Ming? Take your self-pitying swill and your self-righteous screed, a whole bunch of antacid and throw in a prozac or three and actually learn to tell the difference between reality and your wishes.

[wjo]

"x", when state secrets exist they are protected by laws that Congress promulgates. If you have an issue with it take it up with Congress. The Constitution does not protect treason.

In times of war, the point of maintaining state secrets is to avoid having your enemy know what you know about him and have him change his methods, actions or practices to evade or foil you. For instance, the United States knew Japanese and German codes in WWII. That knowledge was of assistance. However, taking your position, the fact that we knew these codes ought to have been made public knowledge during the war so that "we" could keep tabs on the government. Likewise, the programs that have been recently divulged should have remained secret to prevent our enemies knowing of our knowledge of their activities. The people who passed this information on to the press are traitors for doing so, not dissenters. Use this test: does divulgence of this confidential information aid and assist an enemy in his efforts? If that is affirmatively answered, the person divulging it has committed an act of treason if they knowingly do so.

However, I expect that trying to reason with you is a fool's errand. By your sweeping generalizations you prove my points about the alleged dissenters having an inflated heroic sense of themselves. Did I propose that anyone disagreeing be prosecuted for treason? No. There is such a thing as honorable disagreement. However, I do propose that the law be enforced and those endangering the country be punished. I presume in your world that is an extremist position. If so, laws relating to acts of treason are then a dead letter. John Walker Lind must be freed for all the poor naif was doing was questioning authority.

I want you to provide any examples of when an American citizen has been treated in the manner you have outlined. When have any of the actions you outlined occurred?

As for your invocation of the Nazi line, please. Who here advocates anything like you propose? No one.

A conservative is generally someone who wants to conserve something. What is it that your fevered imagination believes I wish to conserve? Totalitarianism? Don't make me vomit.

I want to introduce you to a concept that you may not quite grasp: comity. It is the principle which underlies all treaties. It means that in favor of you doing "x" our nation shall also do "x". Thus, with regard to prisoners of war we will treat your prisoners as we expect you to treat ours. In essence, the "golden rule" enshrined in law.

However, the corollory to this is that deviation from that agreement may nullify our abiding by it. Comity only works if both parties act in good faith. In the real world, it only works with nation states who respect the rule of law. It does not work when your enemy is outside of this compact and has not the slightest intention of acting in good faith, i.e. terrorists. In fact, rules of civilization are a weakness exploited by them. It puzzles me how this escapes those holding your worldview.

Those claiming a protection must offer it themselves. If not, they can expect nothing in return and be treated as the outlaws they are. When state actors act outside of accepted norms, they are war criminals.

During WWII Germany sent saboteurs to New York. They were captured by the FBI. They were acting outside the Rules of War. They were not treated as Prisoners of War and incarcerated for the duration. They were summarily executed. Likewise, during the Battle of the Bulge, Wehrmacht soldiers were sent behind Allied lines in Allied uniforms. Once captured, they were summarily executed for breaching the Rules of War. Tell me "x", how were these actions wrong? Should FDR and Eisenhower have been indicted as war criminals?

Last questions "x": Do you believe we are at war? If so, how do you propose we fight our enemies to defeat them?

[xxx]

Do you believe we are at war?

At war with a 'terror,' a noun?

No.

Wars with nouns like 'poverty' and 'drugs' and 'terror' are doomed to failure.

You go to war against something tangible and quantifiable, like Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Al Quada, the Red Brigade even the cold war was in truth a war against the USSR and its proxy states.

[xxx]

A war on terror can never be won, it is war without end, perpetual war, wtih an unending need for the sacrifices that have come to be expected in war, sacrifices of due process, civil liberty and other freedoms.

We can never seek to kill or neutralize every terrorist out there, every state that is an enemy of the U.S., every islamic facist who shouts death the the U.S. unless we engage in some kind of wholesale slaughter on a scale that would make WWII look like a family cookout.

The war on terror is a piece of propaganda and rhetoric that falsely claims the need for the same actions that are needed in a real war, with a real and quantifiable enemy.

Are we going to be at war for a hundred years until, hopefully, maybe, presumably the Arab world wakes up and makes some changes on its own, Israel is able to maybe, hopefully presumably come to some compromise with its neighbors on the Palestinian issue? Are we going to be at war for a thousand years if they don't wake up?

[rwilymz]

"We can never seek to kill or neutralize every terrorist out there"

"Terrorism" is nothing more than a modern rendition of extra-national paramilitarism of the impoverished, led my the charismatic, and funded by wealthy patrons. These have always existed, and are frankly no different than any band of mercinaries.

The current explanation for the creation of "terrorism" is the excesses of legitimate nations -- particularly Western, first-world nations -- which piss off the locals. Because Israel defended itself against Pal-Arab wars, it forced the Pal-Arabs to take up "terrorism" because what other choice do they have now that they lost all their wars against Israel and have no prospects?

Bullshit. You don't want to lose your land, don't start wars against militarily superior forces. Pretty simple.

It takes three components to create a "terrorist" paramilitary force:
1] oodles and scads of dispossessed people with nothing to lose by fighting long-odds wars;
2] a charismatic hothead to fill their heads with grand visions of What Could Be If Only; and
3] somebody with a bunch of money to buy you the guns and bullets and grenades and rocket launchers

The world will always have oodles and scads of self-pitying twits with no prospects. That's not going to change; the only thing ever devised that reduces the volume of poor and dispossessed is capitalism under democracy. People with wealth and stuff to lose don't like having wars. Tends to make them poor, or dead and unable to spend their money on cool stuff.

The world will always have charismatic scam-artists. But in free societies, they're usually just the grumpy people who write endless letters to the editor. Very rarely do they lead suburban revolutions.

Unfortunately, the world will always have rich people or nations willing to pay others to fight wars for them. But there are a lot fewer people or nations with the money to actually arm a paramilitary outfit than there are to lead them or to fight in them.

So the most immediate cause of "terrorism" is not that Israel is rude to Pal-Arabs, or that the US is an economic empire hegemonying the known universe; the most immediate cause of "terrorism" is the people who are willing to pay poor, uneducated, dispossessed people to wage surreptitious war against Israel and The West.

Want to stop "terrorism"? stop those financiers. There aren't that many. Especially now. Libya and Iraq dropped out.

[wjo]

"x" what commonality do these incidents have: (1) murder of 241 US Marines in 1983 in Beirut; (2) the murder of a sailor aboard a TWA flight in 1985; (3) attack on the Achille Lauro and murder of a wheelchair bound American by throwing him overboard; (4) the attack on Khobar Towers, murdering American service personnel; (5) the World Trade Center bombing; (6) the attack on the USS Cole, murdering American sailors;and, (7) the murder of Americans on September 11, 2001. Answer: all are acts of war perpetrated by an identifiable enemy. None was an abstraction. None of these was just a "noun" terror. None was a piece of propaganda or rhetoric conjured by the present administration. Each was planned and executed by adherents to a murderous and barbaric ideology which should be repugnant to civilized people.

Answer me this:

What due process has been denied to any American citizen? (If we are to understand due process to mean the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and all rights of substantial due process established by interpretation of the Constitution.)

What civil liberty of yours has been trampled upon?

What other freedoms of yours has been abridged?

The answer to all of the above is none. No knocks are coming for you in the middle of the night. There is no Gulag in your future. You may spout nonsense as much as you like. But do not bother me with your conceit that you are standing against some oppressor, that you are stifled. You risk nothing by speaking out other than to be confirmed foolish (see Dixie Chicks). I can and do exercise my right of free speech to not buy crappy thinking. The marketplace of ideas thing is wonderful.

As for the "Arab world" "waking up" what, pray tell, will do this? What strategy do you have in mind? Certainly you hint at it with your comment that we would have to slaughter multitudes to prevail. Other than obliteration, what do you have in mind? What happens if your enemy won't give up and decides to continue to murder your fellow citizens? What if he raises his children to believe you are evil and unworthy of life and that your murder is necessary and beneficial?

The Islamofascist creed is the antithesis of modernity and the ideals of liberty and equality. It is not much different than National Socialism in that regard. However, what do you propose be done to stop its spread? We know how the Nazis were stopped. How are you going to stop Islamofascism?

[xxx]

I can give you the same list of innocent Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers, the 13 year old girl shot and then mutilated by an Israeli soldier, 5 year old girl shot through a window, and on and on. Of course the Israelis' say these were ALL ACCIDENTS, just like they accidentally bombed the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, they accidentally ran over that girl in the occupied territories with a tank a couple years back. What do all of these actions have in common.

If I wait until I am taken away to the gulag to protest the erosion of due process it is too late.

1. Force Israel to negotiate a fair peace with the Palestinians.
2. Force Israel to negotiate a fair peace with the Palestinians.
3. Force Israel to negotiate a fair peace with the Palestinians.

It is from this that all else flows, once you lance this boil, the rage and violence will fall away and we can be begin to address the other issues at work in the ME and in Islamic fundamentalism

[Rick]

Hey 'X' What do Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have in common??????? Everyone of them got concessions from the Israelis for the "Palestinians". Admit that what you think proper and fair is the destruction of Israel as the "Palestinians" think is the ONLY solution do.

[xxx]

What concessions? Last I checked the Palestinians were living in poverty and squallor, now being walled in, having their land confiscated by Israel, having their homes demolished their olive groves torn up as illegal collective punishment for allegedly harboring terrorists, having to go through Israeli checkpoints every day to get to work if they even have a job, being denied medical care by Israeli blockades.

Unless I am really behind the times there is no Palestinian state, until there is, the bloodshed will continue.

Either the Israelis will eventually go totally berserk and commit mass genocide against the Palestinians by bombing gaza and the west bank out of existance, they will negotiate a fair settlement or the bloodshed and violence will continue with the Palestinian people's plight being the first, last and best advertisement for every arab and islamic fundamentalist terror group that exists.

Take away the Palestinian plight and you take away their best and only real and legitimate piece of propaganda, if this issue is settled they have NOTHING, nothing but a bunch of beligerant religious extremist crap that nobody really wants to hear or adhere to.

[wjo]

"X", your dodges of my inquiries indicates to me that you have no response other than regurgitated Kos crap. I have no knowledge of nor context for your Israel incidents so can offer no opinion. However, I do note that being among persons who pride themselves on being so smart so to understand "nuance" and "compexity" you generalize a lot.

Show me a single solitary example of where your due process rights have been eroded? One. There are none.

As for the Isreali situation, the Palestinian people in Gaza have shown by their actions that no peace will be fair to them unless the Zionist Entity is obliterated. With such hatred and hardness, there is no ability to negotiate.

"X" have you ever negotiated anything? If one or both parties do not act in good faith, the deal is useless. If you know that the other party is a damned liar, you won't even negotiate. What do the Palestinians come to offer at the table? What good faith have they shown? The current "government" in Gaza can't even allow that the other party is legitimate and has a right to exist. Until the Palestinians realize they have been the mugs and dupes of others in the Arab world for generations (to their own ruin) and that Israel is going nowhere, there will be no prospect for peace. When the Palestinians stop being the wards of the United Nations, then there is also a prospect for peace.

[Rick]

First of all, Israel has 25% of the land you refer to as "Palestine"...yeah ONE FOURTH of the land. They have pulled out of conquered territories time and again. Clinton had them agreeing to give up even MORE land when Arrafat walked out of negotiations. The mean, old terrible wall you refer to was put up to stop "palestinians" from walking into coffee shops with bombs strapped to them. Again, this is all a matter of history and easily found online. I suggest you stop going to moveon.org for your "news" and disinformation and do real research. You're going to be sooo shocked when you find out that Jews were already in "palestine" when the world said "you can have this little 1/4 of OUR conquered territory for your own." Then take off the "IHATEBUSHNOMATTERWHAT" beer goggles and look into what every president back to at least Johnson did to broker peace. How about looking up Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman for me. Then I'll go all the way to my own birth date. One more secret.....not all Israelis are Jews...some are even muslims, some are Chritians and many are non-believers. Israel is a very secular society.

[Rick]

'X' I'm real curious about your age....how old are you?

[rwilymz]

"...just like they accidentally bombed the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon..."

We bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and a Kosov refugee caravan.

But that was Clinton, and during a *good* war [for regime change], so that changes everything.

"Unless I am really behind the times there is no Palestinian state, until there is, the bloodshed will continue."

They had the opportunity in 1948, at the same time as Israel, to create one. Not to mention having approximately 80% of the land of "Palestine" to do it on. What'd they do? They spent their resources making warS -- plural -- and not on self-determination.

Seems like their choice in 1948 [and '67 and '73 and, and, and] and the consequences for their choice today.

Do the Pal-Arabs get a do-over? the first in the history of civilization? Why them and not, say, the East Prussians?

Or the Scots? I'm Scottish and, dammit, I want my ancestral homeland back that the English took from me. Can I get a do-over? Mine is more ancient, so I have precedence.

"It is from this that all else flows, once you lance this boil, the rage and violence will fall away"

Then explain the rage and violence that perpetrated 500 years of simmering intifada that was called "Barbary Piracy". If the cause and source of it was that Israel refused to negotiate a "fair" deal with the Palestinians in 2006, why have pan-islamists never been willing to peacefully sit in their corner of the world and leave well-enough alone?

Are they the only ones with a Wayback Machine?

[Rick]

I'm just glad the "native americans" aren't murdering school children in the US to get their land back. I'm married to a Cherokee and already sleep with one eye open.

[xxx]

I'm just glad the "native americans" aren't murdering school children in the US to get their land back. I'm married to a Cherokee and already sleep with one eye open.
------------------------------------

They used to, though, didn't they? Attacked wagon trains, carried off children and women all to keep their land, and we did just what the Israelis are trying to do to the Palestinians, break their will, brutalize them into submission to a point that they will gratefully accept any 'deal' that they are offered. How many times did the US renige on the deals we offered the Native Americans? Every time we found out there was something "we" wanted on the reservations. Please.

Israeli Arabs are Palestinians, ask them yourself and they will tell you so.

The problem with the way you people look at 1948 is that you forget that the part of "palestine" that made up Israel was taken away from the Palestinians, which is why, instead of rolling over like good little third worlders and accepting their new state, they got mad, they said, screw you, who are you to create a new state out of my olive grove? and so, they didn't accept the idea of Israel as told to them by the United Nations and the fighting started.

If you want to blame someone for the Israeli/Palestinian debacle the real blame goes to the United Nations and the crap and pathetic way they went about attempting to create a new Israeli state.

And unless you are willing to look back before 1948 and the creation of Israel and the circumstances under which it was created then you aren't going to undertand the problem.

It is a valid point that the Arabs went to war and lost so Israel has no need to give back territory it gained in a war from those who attacked it...but while that may be a valid and defensible position on many fronts, it hasn't resulted in peace, it has resulted in ongoing guerilla warfare and dead Israelis and dead Arabs, thus, I would say, that while Israel has every right to keep the territory they won in a war, so do those who lost the territory in a war have every right to want it back and keep fighting for it. But both of those 'wants' lead to bloodshed not sustainable peace so both must give something to get something.

[Rick]

"Israeli Arabs are Palestinians, ask them yourself and they will tell you so."

I used to work for one and know his family as well. His explaination of what works and what does not would astound you. But X, you're totally unwilling to research beyond, wherever you're getting your opinion from, and there is no convincing you to dig deeper. It's a pity too, because I'm certain you would change your mind.

[rwilymz]

"How many times did the US renige on the deals we offered the Native Americans?"

Most.

The difference between any dispossessed peoples -- such as Amerinds, Pal-Arabs, Burgundians, Scots, Britons, Celts, Saxons, Picts, the list is literally endless -- is that almost none of them have some puppeteer sitting behind them, funneling money at them, funneling weapons at them, patting them on their fanny and saying "...and now we want you to kill *those* people for us..."

"forget that the part of "palestine" that made up Israel was taken away from the Palestinians"

That's incorrent. It was "taken away" in 1949 when Pal-Arabs used their land as collateral on the 1948 war.

In 1948, Jews were only given that amount of land which they held, which they **actually**owned** in the UN deal. Jews, who have lived in Palestine non-stop for 4,000 years already owned quite a bit, and they bought more. But they owned it.

You cannot claim they "took it away" unless you wish to be factually inaccurate.

"they didn't accept the idea of Israel as told to them by the United Nations and the fighting started"

The reason they didn't accept the state of Israel is because in order to be good little muslim, theyare not necessarily averse to other faiths "of the book", but those other faiths must be subservient to islam. A separate nation is not subservient, and it is therefore an abomination. It wasn't any Pal-Arab olive grove that Israel in '48 was built upon; it was that Israel was built at all.

Again: pan-islamists are not the cute, cuddly human pets that you believe them to be. "Oh, they'd act just like us, all full of gratitude and peace and brotherhood, if only they could have their rightful land." No, they wouldn't. There's almost 1,400 years of history on my side; whuchoo got on yours? Platitudes?

"unless you are willing to look back before 1948 and the creation of Israel and the circumstances under which it was created then you aren't going to undertand the problem."

***DO*** tell.

Explain to me how persistent warring and piracy and Arab/Turk/muslim imperial expansion into and through Europe makes Europe, or any part thereof, the bad guy for da-a-a-a-aring to resist.

"while that may be a valid and defensible position on many fronts, it hasn't resulted in peace"

Jordan has signed a peace treaty with Israel; Egypt has signed a peace treaty with Israel. In 1948, those were two of the 6 Arab *nations* which attacked Israel. And '67. And '73.

The guerilla war is being fought by THE poorest people on the planet in terms of GNP. They literally do not have the income to buy food, clothing or shelter, let alone pay for educatin or other social infrastructure items. Yet they have enough money to buy modern weapons, and ammunition for those modern weapons, ...

...and that means, to people who are paying attention to the man behind the curtain rather than the big, scary face of The Wizard of Oppression on the wall, that somebody is paying these poor, uneducated dimbulbs to be a proxy army for some misdirectional war.

Scots were rolled over by the English but they stopped their insurrection soon after France stopped funding it. Why? Because they couldn't afford it on their own and, darn the luck, they were left to assimilate.

Burgundians were rolled over by the Franks [remember Joan of Arc?] and stopped their insurrection soon after the English stopped funding it. Why? Because they couldn't afford it on their own and, double darn the luck, were left to assimilate. And make a decent if pedestrian wine.

Israel/Palestine is the quintessence of Nothing New Under The Sun. This has happened over and over and over and over and over again. Crack a history book.

What will bring peace to the Middle East, prevent the Pal-Arabs from running their little "guerilla war for self-determination", is for their patrons to stop funding the Pal-Arab insurrection. They'll need to settle down and get a job. At which point they'll make money, discover that it's a lot easier on their nerves to deal with a grumpy customer than the grumpy and better-armed IDF, and not have time for wars.

You have to remember that "Palestine" is the latin rendition of "Philistine"; the Philistines have been the shlamazles of the Arab world for 5,000 years. They were used as third-class pawns by the Arab-Assyrians, they were used as third-class pawns by the Arab-Egyptians; they were used as third-class pawns by the Arab-Hittites; they were used as third-class pawns by the Arab-Babylonians; they were considered ditto by invading empires of Greeks, Romans, Persians and Turks. And they are being used as third-class pawns by their Arab [and now Persian] patrons, fro mSyria and Iran today. They *were* being used as third-class pawns by their previous Arab patrons of Jordan [who decimated them in 1970, remember?], Egypt and Iraq.

...until Jordan and Egypt formally agreed, through peace treaty, to not wage war on Israel -- even through pawns.

The problem with the Pal-Arabs is not Israel; it is their "Arab brothers" who are continuing the 5,000 year tradition of using them as the red-headed step-child of the Arab world.

[xxx]

Do ya really want to go back to the roots of the zionist movement, the unflux of illegal jewish immigrants to the palestinian territories which Britain turned a blind eye to, the percentage of jews living in these territories before and after the zionist movement got started and got some serious money to back it? the methods used by these immigrants to acquire Arab lands?

Why is it impossible to admit that the Palestinians got a raw deal and maybe, like the jews after WWII, they deserve some largess from the international community? Why must ALL the blame go to the Palestinians?

That doesn't mean you approve of blowing up deli's in Tel Aviv, but it would at least show some kind of rationality to your argument instead of simply continuing to say/believe that its all about Islam and that's the real real reason for all of this, their religion is just bloodthirsty and hellbent on world domination???? and the jews and muslims have been at each other's throats for centuries, which of course you know in reality is a bold faced lie.

You know as well as I do that jews living in Palestine NON STOP FOR 4,000 years were a tiny minority, Israel is made up not of jews living in the holy hand for generations but of European jews who came to the territories in the decades preceeding WWI.

[Rick]

rwilymz we are wasting our time trying to convince xxx to see this conflict in it's proper historical light and that, alas is a common view. 'X' never did say his/her age but I will bet no older than 30 and never been out of the country, not a friend of libraries or a serious student of history. A reactionary who does not feel the need to dig deeper into cause and effect issues..."Wolf Blitzer said it, Bill Maher agrees and that's all I need." And rw.........he/she gets to vote.

[xxx]

I've been to Israel, I've been to the West Bank, I've been to Europe, I've been to South America.

You are the ones who pick and choose which parts of history to pay attention to and which parts to ignore and when to start the clock on relationships between the West and the East and Christians and Jews and Muslims.

[Sarcastro]

"Recently the term disproportion has been in the news as regards fighting a war. Think about proportionality as regards the current debate of the Iraq War."

Yea, think about it. Think about why no one has used the word to describe Iraq but, rather, Isreal's assault on Lebanon.

"Disproportionate" is not the word used to describe the US war in Iraq. "Stupid" is the word used to describe it.

[ron]

hey loser, sign up or shut up you war mongering punk

[wjo]

"x" on your journey did you keep company with anyone who admired the USA? I expect it was visiting with the Amen chorus of your worldview.

What these other folks have said holds true here. Israel exists. What is past will not be undone. All those Palestinians holding onto keys to their "homes" in Israel are deluded if they believe that they will ever return. Such are the fortunes of war. If you doubt it, ask the East Prussians or Baltic Germans. The Palestinians gambled and played a losing hand.

However, the stupidity of encouraging "resistence" to the "occupiers" for multiple generations has been inculcated in them. No people on the face of this Earth have been so coddled by the international community. No people have been so artfully manipulated and ruined by their fellow ethnic community. No people have been so poorly led.

Suppose today that all Israelis picked-up and left their homes and relocated to Madagascar. They left all infrastructure intact. Do you believe that the Palestinans could make of Isreal what the Israelis have?

The answer is no, even with a head start.

The reason is that the Palestinians have been the wards of the world. They produce nothing of value. They have been subsidized to such an extent that they do not seem to recognize the folly that is their lot. They are perpetual children in an adult world. They are a society of dependants. That it is so, and that their religion informs them that they should be masters while these hateful Jooos should be their vassals does not aid the situation.

As in persons, things only change when one's illusions are made manifest. The Palestinians will know only disappointment as long as they cling to the belief that Israel will be destroyed.

Time to grow up.

[xxx]

What I have found is that actual Israelis living in Israel are filled with far less hate for the Palestinian people than either American jews or American convervatives. Why? Because they see them every day and they know they are not the dumb children/bloodthirsty animals/muslim fantacs that you think.

They want to live in peace, that's it. They want to go to a bar in Tel Aviv and not worry about getting bombed. They don't really care how its done, whether its done by land for peace or through military as the vacilations in Israeli polls and the massive difference of opinion on how to deal with the issue INSIDE ISRAEL among jews would show.

[Phoenix]

What I have found is that you are still generalizing despite being treated respectfully by 'rabid conservatives' who have patiently, with detailed, erudite commentary, tried to get you to moderate your narrow views. Amazing.......

What are 'actual Israelis'? ALL Israelis or just those who are not pseudo-Israelis?

[wjo]

"x" how easily you confuse disdain with hate. Just because one's heart does not bleed for all the world does not make one a hater.

I have written nothing of the intelligence level of Palestinian people. One assumes that the bell curve of intelligence applies there as well. However, there is a gulf between intelligence and wisdom.

What I have critiqued are actions and behavior. Recall this principle of sociology: association brings with it assimilation. If you hang out with losers, you tend to become one yourself.

What have the Palestinians accomplished in their "resistence"? How has it advanced them politically or economically? Are they better off for it? Has it improved anything?

I cannot think of any positive answers to these queries.

Presently, do they have a functioning civil society? A vibrant economy?

Don't you think that staring into an abyss of more penury, hardship and death by keeping on this track, it might give the majority pause?

Their "leaders" have constantly rolled the dice in warring on their better armed neighbor and come up craps. How is it that those failures never get corrected? Instead of vilification, fomentors of destruction are honored as martyrs. Thieves honored as statesmen.

Expertise in taking life and destruction is evident. Where is the expertise in building up and not tearing down?

[harry near indy]

unless any of you are willing to take into your personal custody anybody you know who opposes the war in iraq ...

and unless you are willing to take that person to the closest u.s. attorney's office and ask that they be tried for treason ...

then all your talk, written or spoken, is trash.

and if we're going to fight a war -- bring back higher taxes and the draft! but the current administration won't do it, because it wants a war on the cheap and easy.

[xxx]

I rest my case.

[Brian]

"Yet, as purveyors of what some might call pro-war rhetoric, how do we respond to the people we see daily undermining the very effort required to fight that war and adequately support our troops?"

---

Pfft...I dunno? Maybe by puttin' your effin' money where your mouth is? Maybe by signing up to fight or, barring that, at least advocating for (a) a decent battle plan, (b) sufficient manpower and materiel to accomplish the job, (c) respectable pay for putting lives on the line, and (d) generous benefits upon return as a measure of our thanks for same? Of course, I haven't seen any of the above forthcoming from the "purveyors of pro-war rhetoric."

Perhaps it's time you should be less concerned about rhetoric, and more concerned about facts. But don't let me rain on your little strawman bonfire by any means.

[rwilymz]

"Do ya really want to go back to the roots of the zionist movement"

I'm up for it.

"the unflux of illegal jewish immigrants..."

You can stop right there. If you're going to start using value-laden terms to equivocate, then you are advertising yourself as too dishonest to discuss the matter accurately.

No Jews "illegally immigrated".

The place was either the Palestinian Province of the Ottoman Empire [up to 1923] which had no immigration laws, or it was the British Protectorate of Palestine [1923-1948] which permitted [and even promoted] Jewish immigration. Y'see, Britain was steadfastly anti-semitic in those days ... which explains why Bagot-Glubb left His Majesty's Service in 1948 to join the Arab League when they decided to attack Israel. ...and why a large share of his officer corp joined him. And why, when he was governor general from the mid-30s until '48 why he offered the assistance of the British forces to gather intelligence for the favored Arabs on Jewish movements to the Jews could be ambushed.

And, golly, the Jews retaliated by blowing up King David. Whoda thunk it?

"the percentage of jews living in these territories before and after the zionist movement got started"

Relative proportions are meaningless. Of course there were more Jews there in 1947 than in 1887. That's sorta what happens when a whole lotta Jews move someplace: there's more of 'em there.

Ditto Mexicans in the US today. So what?

"and got some serious money to back it?"

Yes, and arguably most of it donated by American Jews.

"the methods used by these immigrants to acquire Arab lands?"

Purchase. Doggone! Jews are much better at negotiating real estate contracts! Time to implement the pogram, obviously!

"Why is it impossible to admit that the Palestinians got a raw deal"

Because they didn't. They got 80% of the land, exactly as much lead-time, and the direct financial and military assistance of the British Empire. And they **BLEW** **IT**.

"and maybe, like the jews after WWII, they deserve some largess from the international community?"

Like Camp David? Like Oslo? Like the entire world pushing Israel into "land4peace, land4peace, land4peace" over and over and over again? Maybe?

Like that you mean?

Can't remember the international community's largess doing anything similar for, oh, the East Prussians, who are comPLETEly dispossessed of their lands.

Just the Palestinians. Who, by the way, have YET to form a government 58 years after being largessed into the territory and assets to do it with.

"Why must ALL the blame go to the Palestinians?"

Because they're the ones who caused it? Just a guess. When Jordan gave them squatters privileges in Jordan after the '67 war, what happened? Remember?

The PLO tried to do a coup in Jordan. Imagine that; for the first time in history, the Philistines' Arab Brothers do *not* leave the Philistines in the lurch, they take them in during their hour of need. "You can sleep here until you get back on your feet. Need a pillow? an extra blankie?" And how do the Philistine's repay the kindness? By trying to overthrow King Hussein.

Nice. There's someone you want to invite back.

1970. September. Look it up. And so the Palestinians, steamrolled by Israel in '67 and flattened by Jordan in September of '70, vow to get revenge [none of this soul-searching bullshit for the Philistines; all their problems are brought on by **others**]. In honor of being obliterated by the Jordanian Arabs in the black month of September, they form a group called Black September to retaliate.

Against Jordan, for doing it?

Nope, for nothing is that straightforward. Against Israel... naturally.

Munich, 1972.

"That doesn't mean you approve of blowing up deli's in Tel Aviv, but it would at least show some kind of rationality to your argument instead of simply continuing to say/believe that its all about Islam and that's the real real reason for all of this, their religion is just bloodthirsty and hellbent on world domination?"

Islam's stated goal is domination of the world; all peoples are to be under muslim control. It's part of their theology. That's not really debatable.

The majority of muslims say it and believe it themselves, and the al Jazeera broadcasts have very key phrases in Zawarhiri's and bin Laden's taped messages.

Now, it is also part of christian theology that Jesus will return and the world will be ruled by the kingdom of god, and all that. But the difference between muslims and christians in this regard is that christianity underwent a Reformation, in which the dogmatic interpretation of the scriptures was almost completely tossed aside in favor of figurative interpretations. The christian "kingdom of god" is no longer literal to any but a handful of zealots; it is merely the time of peace, brotherhood, harmony and a good 5-cent cigar.

Muslims haven't gotten there yet and they still talk -- and act, as "christendom" acted up until 600 years ago -- as if the kingdom of god was literal.

If you listen to them without endlessly rationalizing what they say, this is the conclusion you come up with. ...if you understand historical patterns.

"the jews and muslims have been at each other's throats for centuries, which of course you know in reality is a bold faced lie."

Or bald-faced, either one. But it's not really. As long as Jews were content to endure dhimi, they were fine. But being dhimi means that any muslim of any type or status can rape, rob, beat a dhimi at any time, and the rules by which reparation is made are minimal at best. And largely not made to the specific dhimi jew who was raped, robbed, whatever, but to his landlord, or the mayor of the town, or some other higher-ranking muslim who is deemed to have "control" over the dhimi in the area according to islamic law.

The main problem with the zionist jews of Palestine is that they were of European upbringing and didn't dhimi well. It's one thing to shunt the jews off into a ghetto like happened all over Europe, but it's another to rob them on the street and get away with it -- which is what happened to them in Palestine.

"You know as well as I do that jews living in Palestine NON STOP FOR 4,000 years were a tiny minority"

I know no such thing. And neither do you, unless that's a fact you just invented on the fly. The Roman diaspora only dispersed a small portion of the Jews in Judea, and mainly the trouble-makers. Now, the British Protectorate of Palestine was a lot bigger than Roman Judea, and includes what is now Jordan. So if you're going to count that, then, well, technically you're correct, but you're also equivocating -- setting two things to be rhetorically equivalent [modern Palestine and Roman Palestine nee Judea, where the jews have lived non-stop for 4,000 years] when they are not. Which is just like you. But disingenuous.

"Israel is made up not of jews living in the holy hand for generations but of European jews who came to the territories in the decades preceeding WWI."

And the Jews living in Judea for 4,000 years.

[judson]

Now, last I checked "disproportionate" was being applied to Israel invading Lebanon, slaughtering civilians and destroying Lebanon's infrastructure in order to retrieve some kidnapped soldiers. Whereas the word applied to America invading Iraq was "unnecessary" or maybe it was "quagmire"...no, no, it was "fake war created to pump up George Bush's election chances and deflect from his inability to find the one person who did attack America". Okay, that was more than one word, but you get the point, which is that, at least Israel was provoked into making their "disproportionate" response. We were just bored and distracted and lied to.

[xxx]

in which the dogmatic interpretation of the scriptures was almost completely tossed aside in favor of figurative interpretations. The christian "kingdom of god" is no longer literal to any but a handful of zealots;
---------------------------------------

Unfortunately the 'handful of zealots' happens to include the current occupant of the White House as well as numerous members of Congress, governors and state legislatures, attorney generals and school boards.

Wasn't there a recent poll that more than 60% of Americans believed the Bible was LITERALLY TRUE.

You and I may believe these things, but I think you are giving the evangelicals and christian conservatives much too much credit for rational thinking.

[gus]

For "Well, I tried to be as polite and careful as I could be when arguing about it." substitute "Well I cheerled from my blog." Now that's noble!

[rwilymz]

"Unfortunately the 'handful of zealots' happens to include the current occupant of the White House as well as numerous members of Congress, governors and state legislatures, attorney generals and school boards."

You are not merely incorrect, but a closed-minded, indifferentiating anti-religious religionist in so saying.

If "religion" is the belief in that which cannot be proven, then people who hold inflexible and dogmatic views while denouncing religion are just as religious as the people they are denouncing.

There is considerable difference, e.g., between the luddites in Kansas demanding the science they don't understand because they never bothered to study it being excised from the state's curriculum, and some ultra-Seventh Day Adventist group who is actively preparing for the Second Coming.

If you can't understand that, don't see that, or simply don't *want* to see that because you are too comfortable in your preferred biases, then you aren't capable of honest discussion.

But I seem to recall saying that to you before.

"Wasn't there a recent poll that more than 60% of Americans believed the Bible was LITERALLY TRUE."

I doubt it, and even if there was, it would likely be so filled with methodological problems that it would be worse than useless as a measuring tool of social norms.

I'm not religious. At all. But I believe the bible to be "literally true" -- as an historical document of a newly literate people and thus a viable artifact in archeological study. The same as Mayan Codices, the same as Celtic runes, the same as Egyptian heiroglyphs. As a statement of theology, though, it is no more and no less viable than the Kama Sutra and except for a few places in Solomon, quite a bit less interesting.

[wjo]

"x" you must of pulled some Kool-Aiders in with you recently. They too have your searing ability to generalize and espouse nonsense.

It has been manifest in this discourse that you cannot be reasoned with.

May I quote you some worldly wisdom:

"A fool's mind is like a broken jar---no knowledge at all can it hold."

"X" despite your fevered imagination, the dark night of fascism is not and has not descended. A jackboot perpetually stamping on a human face is not what is happening in this Republic.

Evangelicals and christian conservatives unable to think rationally? Show me the light Socrates. Your remarks just add evidence to the mounting pile that in your worldview, anyone who does not accept it is a sucker and rube who can be easily led and poses a danger to the Republic and themselves. Of course, you assume the self-styled romantic role of dissenter/revolutionary who knows all capital "T" truth while the boobs are being distracted by Elmer Gantry.

A distintion between liberals and conservatives is that while conservatives think that liberals are misguided, liberals think of conservatives as evil. I see nothing in your writings or mine to contradict this statement.

Maybe its time for you to travel the country and get to know the rubes in the flyover parts. It might remove the scales from your eyes.

[xxx]

What reality are you guys in?

I am in the reality where South Dakota outlawed abortion for any reason, no exceptions.

I am in the reality where OTC availability of a heavy dose of oral contraceptives after sex has been held up because....it might make young girls promiscuous.

I am in the reality where the DOJ guidelines for treatment of rape victims don't mandate that they be told about emergency contraceptives.

I am in the reality where the attorney general of Kansas has stated, for the record, that ALL sex occuring between underage teenagers, even two consenting 15 year olds is inherently dangerous and should be reported to authorities.

I am in the reality where the movement to treat Genesis as a scientific theory equal to evolution has been seriously discussed and debated in more than one state.

I am in the reality where the current administration vehemently argued that even though they weren't going to do it, they had the right to force a library to provide a list of books any citizen had checked out without a warrant.

I am in the reailty where its no problemo if the police fail to knock on my door when they come calling with a search warrant that says they have to knock.

I am in the reality where abortion causes breast cancer even though it doesn't and 'abstinance only' programs prevent teens from having sex even though they don't.

I am in the reality where a member of Congress diagnoses a braindead woman as being NOT braindead via videotape.

I am in the reality where the governor of Florida went to court to force a 13 year old runaway to have her baby instead of get the abortion she said she wanted.

WAKE UP.

[Flying Rodent]

What did you do in the war, daddy?

Well, son, I sat at my keyboard in my comfy suburban home, whipping up paranoia and hatred among my already hysterical readership.

I even appeared on TV to assure any Americans who had been traumatised by pictures of dead brown children that bombing kids was perfectly OK, and that, with only a few thousand more piles of dead brown children, the War on Terror would finally be won.

In fact, son, I kept on at it so long, I forgot why I'd even started, but by that point it didn't matter. There weren't any brown children left to bomb.

Stop it daddy, you're scaring me.

[Lesley]

Jackasses who support this abominable war in Iraq are always comparing it to the second world war, but WWII was fought by VOLUNTEERS, many of whom lied about their age to get in to the army. Fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year olds enlisting. Young kids.

And here's this suited up penis rattling on about his oral and keyboarding bravery, like others of his ilk behind their microphones and monitors. If this war is so important to you, why aren't you IN it? In a uniform, fighting.

Ok, so we know you're a coward wrapped in the flag, but I'd like you to explain the benefit of a war that has generated even more "islamofascists." I'd also like you to explain why American soldiers aren't provided the gear they need to have a snowball's chance in hell of staying alive with their limbs intact. And don't get me started on the lack of benefits and care when they're returned damaged to this country.

The cowards aren't the people who object to the war, the cowards are the people who rant on about how great this war is, behind monitors and microphones, men like you who don't have the guts to enlist in the army of lives they're all to eager to risk to save who? You apparently. Ugh. I am SO GLAD you're not my father, because I'd be ashamed...very ashamed.

[Rick]

"Jackasses who support this abominable war in Iraq are always comparing it to the second world war, but WWII was fought by VOLUNTEERS, many of whom lied about their age to get in to the army. Fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year olds enlisting. Young kids."

Jackasses who know nothing of history should shut the hell up and go find something else to do. There was definately a draft during WWII, the national guard was called up and the coast guard federalized...........and a boat load of anti war protestors to boot. Stick to reading marvel comics you aren'ty smart enough to be here.

[wjo]

Lesley:

Please reread your high school history textbook. WWII was not fought just by volunteers. A large number of the members of the armed forces were draftees. In contrast, there is not one single member of the military in Iraq now who was drafted. Every single one volunteered for duty.

What evidence do you have that this war has generated more islamofascists ? That trope is thrown out without any proof whatsoever by folks who preen their reasoning skills. I will warrant to you that they have been chanting "Death to America" at Friday prayers in Iran since at least l979. The haters and inherents of that ideology have been around a long time, and before BDS infected the left.

As for military personnel not having what they need or the medical care they deserve, I say let them have all they need. We must honor their service by caring for their needs.

As for Flying Rodent, man what a keen mind you possess and such sharp wit. You have it all figured out! This war is just about killing brown babies! What insight you possess. And of course, no one could support this war who was not a racist bigot Imperialist knuckle-dragging crusader theocon. Or am I being hysterical?

Hey Hondo, outside of singing Kumbiya what do you propose be done with people who think you are evil and want you dead?

[wjo]

"x" this may mystify you, but not everyone in America thinks it is okay to take innocent life. Not everyone in America believes that children should be having sex while they are children. People who think that way get to vote too, you know. It is a Republic with a federal system of government.