# Annapolis is Pointless



## Big Don (Nov 27, 2007)

_Note: This is a work of mine, I wrote every word.
_ 		The upcoming US brokered mid east peace conference in Annapolis is going to be nothing more than political theater. The Bush administration thought they had scored a coup by getting the Saudis to agree to participate. Yeah, not so much. The Saudis have preemptively refused to even shake hands with the Israelis.
 Sooner or later well have to face the fact that the Israeli/Palestinian problem wouldnt exist if the Arabs werent the leading exporters of terrorism in the world. When the stated goal of one group is the extinction of the other, expecting reasonable, honest discourse from them is a waste of time and energy. 
 The US expends far too much energy walking on egg shells to not offend our supposed allies the Saudis. May I remind you, that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis, and that Osama bin Laden just happens to be a Saudi his badself. Saudi funded madrassas teach hatred of the Jews and hatred of Western ideals, and you know, hatred of that GREAT SATAN, America.
 The US government keeps counseling Israel to not fight the terrorists that send suicide bombers and rockets exploding into Israeli neighborhoods. Would Americans demonstrate the same forbearance if people were exploding in Memphis or Boulder or Fresno? Of course not, wed be out to kick someones ***, and we would be right to do so. 
 So why is it that we counsel Israel to not fight? They are the only ally we have in the region, they are surrounded by enemies whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, and yet, we tell them NOT to fight?
 Lets try something new, because, weve done this for well over twenty years and it clearly isnt effective. Lets counsel *** kicking as foreign policy. When terrorists come and blow up busses, find out where they came from, and kick their asses. When rockets fly into suburban neighborhoods, bomb those who launched them back to the stone age. 
 Israel is used to being reviled and under the constant threat of terrorism, how friggin horrid is that?
 Israel has fought several wars with their neighboring countries, and they have won, decisively, in each engagement. So, lets not counsel the Israelis to bear this burden of terrorism any longer. In his speech September 20th, 2001 President Bush said:
*Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.* and: *Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.* I submit that Israel made its choice in this regard long ago, and we havent backed them up. The House of Saud has also made its choice, but, because of this insane need we have to be seen as Nice to everyone, and the fact that our environmentalists dont want us drilling our own oil, we coddle the Saudis and ignore the insane hatred of Jews, Christians and the west in general taught in the madrassas and mosques they fund. 
 Alcoholics Anonymous defines insanity as doing the same thing, over and over and expecting a different result. That is exactly what we demand from Israel, in forcing them to negotiate with those who fund and support the very terrorists we are supposed to be fighting.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 27, 2007)

I would tend to agree completely.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 27, 2007)

Well you can hardly say *every* government supports them can you when we have a list of the dead that says we don't.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2007)

I agree..what "amuses" me is how all the Arab countries are up in arms over the "Palestinian Problem" but none of them are willing to carve out a chunk of their country for them, or seem to be offering any significant ideas of their own. Its about eliminating the Jews and NOT about "liberating the Palestinians". Anybody who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.


----------



## Marginal (Nov 27, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The House of Saud has also made its choice, but, because of this insane need we have to be seen as Nice to everyone, and the fact that our environmentalists dont want us drilling our own oil, we coddle the Saudis and ignore the insane hatred of Jews, Christians and the west in general taught in the madrassas and mosques they fund.
> Alcoholics Anonymous defines insanity as doing the same thing, over and over and expecting a different result. That is exactly what we demand from Israel, in forcing them to negotiate with those who fund and support the very terrorists we are supposed to be fighting.


Drilling our own oil amounts to nothing relative to how much we use. That's why environmentalists, sportsmen etc don't see much merit in the "need" to drill in wildlife preserves etc. 

All this for what is in reality a disorganized rabble that has little interest in actually mounting an effective assault in the US makes such posturing in reality just as pointless as the peace talks.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 27, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I agree..what "amuses" me is how all the Arab countries are up in arms over the "Palestinian Problem" but none of them are willing to carve out a chunk of their country for them, or seem to be offering any significant ideas of their own. Its about eliminating the Jews and NOT about "liberating the Palestinians". Anybody who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.


 
Not wanting to get deep into this and not making a political statement just a historical one, I try to avoid the study if at all possible

But Palestine was a country prior to the reformation of Israel. Basically the Palestinians agree to let the Israelis live there not knowing the Israelis were told it would be their country and the Israelis not knowing the Palestinians had no idea that is what was going to happen.

There is a lot of history with this and much of the trouble that is there now is due to the old British Empire.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2007)

True, but Im referring to the outrage of the "Arab World". Not the Palestinians. To suggest that the Israelis should just up and move at the best or be "wiped out" at the worst...they didnt invade, they were placed there.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 27, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> True, but Im referring to the outrage of the "Arab World". Not the Palestinians. To suggest that the Israelis should just up and move at the best or be "wiped out" at the worst...they didnt invade, they were placed there.


 
True they didn't invade and there is apparently no compromise to be had.

There is a whole lot of history to this conflict and to be honest neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs were the first to start using terror tactics there. But regardless, it is sad that there is likely not ever going to be a lasting peace there


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> True they didn't invade and there is apparently no compromise to be had.
> 
> There is a whole lot of history to this conflict and to be honest neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs were the first to start using terror tactics there. But regardless, it is sad that there is likely not ever going to be a lasting peace there


 
I dont know about that. Violence seemed to kick off in the 1930's during the Arab Revolts.



> Jewish immigration and land purchases met with increasing resistance from the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, who started several violent insurrections against the Jews and against British rule in the 1920s and 1930s. During the Great Revolt of 1936-1939 the followers of the radical Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini (a Nazi collaborator who later fled the Nurnberg Tribunal) not only killed hundreds of Jews, but an even larger number of Palestinian Arabs from competing groups. The Zionists in Palestine (called the _Yishuv_) established self-defense organizations like the Haganah and the (more radical) Irgun. The latter carried out reprisal attacks on Arabs from 1936 on. Under Arab pressure the British severely limited Jewish immigration to Palestine, after proposals to divide the area had been rejected by the Palestinian Arabs in 1937. Jewish refugees from countries controlled by Nazi Germany now had no place to flee to, since nearly all other countries refused to let them in. In response Jewish organizations organized illegal immigration (_Aliya Beth_), the Zionist leadership in 1942 demanded an independent state in Palestine to gain control of immigration (the Biltmore conference), and the Irgun committed assaults on British institutions in Palestine.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2007)

At the root of the current problem is the debate over the Right of Palestinian return. 



> In the years and decades after the founding of Israel the Jewish minorities in all Arab countries fled or were expelled (approximately 900,000), most of whom went to Israel, the US and France. These Jewish refugees all were relocated in their new home countries. *In contrast, the Arab countries refused to permanently house the Palestinian Arab refugees*, because they - as well as most of the refugees themselves - maintained that they had the right to return to Israel. About a million Palestinian refugees still live in refugee camps in miserable circumstances. Israel rejected the Palestinian 'right of return' as it would lead to an Arab majority in Israel, and said that the Arab states were responsible for the Palestinian refugees. *Many Palestinian groups, including Fatah, have admitted that granting the right of return would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state*. The question of the Palestinian right of return is the first mayor obstacle for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 27, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I dont know about that. Violence seemed to kick off in the 1930's during the Arab Revolts.


 
I am already WAY too far into this discussion in the study for me and I do not have the book with me that is about the history of terrorism that talks about the region. And I did say "terrorism" meaning the use of terrorism by commiting an act of terrorism not "violent act" or "violence"

If you like as soon as I get the chance I will see if I can scan the chapter in that talks about the history of the region and terrorism and PM it to you. If that does not work I would be happy to send you the title. 

Basically my point was that there was an existing country there, Palestine prior to the reformation of Israel and the people that were there were not told by the ones in control of that region at the time (British Empire) that there was going to be a new country that was going to require they give up most of their country. That is all


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2007)

True, but if you go farther back the Israelites were there before the Romans kicked them out. Like the Indians were here (in the US) before the settlers displaced them. I think there comes a point where you have to deal with what you have on the ground NOW. Right now we have a founded nation in place. Expecting them to leave, wipe them out or allow Palestinian return (which would wipe them out in a different fashion) isnt reasonable. What is the solution? Im no statesman, but dealing with the refuge camps is a start. I do find it hypocritical that the Arab nations are all twisted about the camps but wont allow them into their own countries to provide them with relief. The only solution they seem to want is to let them back into Israel, thereby eliminating Israel. Which looks to be the REAL goal here.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 27, 2007)

This is the song that never ends...

Good article, Don.  Annapolis is pointless, just as every attempt that has gone before was pointless.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 27, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> The only solution they seem to want is to let them back into Israel, thereby eliminating Israel. Which looks to be the REAL goal here.


 
Ding! Ding! Ding!  Give that man a prize!


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 27, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I do find it hypocritical that the Arab nations are all twisted about the camps but wont allow them into their own countries to provide them with relief. The only solution they seem to want is to let them back into Israel, thereby eliminating Israel. Which looks to be the REAL goal here.



Its really no more complicated that this.  This is the essence of the problem.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 27, 2007)

What Israel should do is offer the Arabs a deal:  for each percentage of the disputed land Israel hands over to the "Palestinians", Syria and Jordan must both provide the same measurement of contiguous land.  Let the world see just how dedicated to the plight of their Palestinians brothers and sisters they really are.  I'm guessing "not at all".


----------



## Big Don (Nov 27, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> This is the song that never ends...
> 
> Good article, Don.  Annapolis is pointless, just as every attempt that has gone before was pointless.


Thank you, Cory.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 27, 2007)

There are more Jews in the US than there are in Israel. Israel is a democracy in which live a lot of Jews, however, calling it a Jewish state, is innacurate. While, yes, there are a lot of Jews in Israel there are also Muslims and Christians and people from other faiths as well. Israel is not ruled by Jewish law, but, rather by Israeli law. There are and have been Arab members of the Knesset. Were Israel solely a Jewish state, that would not have been allowed...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 27, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> True, but if you go farther back the Israelites were there before the Romans kicked them out. Like the Indians were here (in the US) before the settlers displaced them. I think there comes a point where you have to deal with what you have on the ground NOW. Right now we have a founded nation in place. Expecting them to leave, wipe them out or allow Palestinian return (which would wipe them out in a different fashion) isnt reasonable. What is the solution? Im no statesman, but dealing with the refuge camps is a start. I do find it hypocritical that the Arab nations are all twisted about the camps but wont allow them into their own countries to provide them with relief. The only solution they seem to want is to let them back into Israel, thereby eliminating Israel. Which looks to be the REAL goal here.


 
In this thread, I am going to try to limit the topic to the Israeli / Palestinian Conflict, not that of the wider Arab World, if possible.

Your argument has some merit.  We could go back to the origin of the world and find out who was there first, but it does nothing to solve the problem in the here and now.

However, one should understand that for the displaced Palistinians, their war of only 50-60 years ago never ended.  In their eyes, it could be seen that they lost the major military campaign, and began their underground movement.  Although not to the same extent, one could say that the French Underground during WW2 should have given up because Germany overcame and occupied the legitimate government, so they should just let Germany win.  The things that they did to help secure their freedom were violence and terrorism.  

Its also like saying that since African-Americans were enslaved, that they should never fight for their freedom, becuase that was the there and then.

Now, typically I am on the side of Israel.  I think they have been getting the shaft for years.  They were not the ones who decided to settle themselves in that area.  They were placed there.  But one should have a bit of sympathy for the Palestinians, as they were simply thrown out of their country, and some that were thrown out are still alive and suffering because of it.

P.S.: Not that that excuses violence against civilians.


----------



## renee (Nov 27, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> True, but Im referring to the outrage of the "Arab World". Not the Palestinians. To suggest that the Israelis should just up and move at the best or be "wiped out" at the worst...they didnt invade, they were placed there.



Umm they most certainly did invade.  They expanded there borders into the West Bank and parts of Syria.  They also continuously break law and also take no regard for innocent life.  Unless you figure if your Palestinian you're not innocent.


I'm no fan of terrorists or any extremists but Israel is not without blame, and most definitely Britain is not without blame either.

And we don't play hardball with Saudi not because we don't want to drill at home but because our President and his family have for decades done private dealings with them in the oil business.  The Prince and the aristocrats in Americans society repeatedly rub each other's backs.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 27, 2007)

renee said:


> Umm they most certainly did invade.  They expanded there borders into the West Bank and parts of Syria.  They also continuously break law and also take no regard for innocent life.  Unless you figure if your Palestinian you're not innocent.


 They did indeed expand their borders into the West bank and parts of Syria, however, what you fail to state is they didn't invade, they took that land AFTER being invaded by (numerically) superior forces. 





> I'm no fan of terrorists or any extremists but Israel is not without blame, and most definitely Britain is not without blame either.
> 
> And we don't play hardball with Saudi not because we don't want to drill at home but because our President and his family have for decades done private dealings with them in the oil business.  The Prince and the aristocrats in Americans society repeatedly rub each other's backs.


So, it is Bush's fault we don't play hardball with the Saudis? OK then, what was Clinton's excuse, he said he would fight terrorism too... 
Or Reagan's? Reagan wasn't an oilman, he was an actor...
You blame Bush because you don't look for real answers, only convenient  scapegoats.
The number of times Israel has initiated hostilities with  anyone are few in the extreme. The last instance in fact was the bombing of Saddam's nuclear plant in 1981, that is twenty-six years ago...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2007)

renee said:


> Umm they most certainly did invade. They expanded there borders into the West Bank and parts of Syria.


 
That was the price of their misguided 6-Day war. If our neighbors used geographic features to launch an invasion/attacks on us, Id take it after we kicked their asses too.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 27, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> That was the price of their misguided 6-Day war. If our neighbors used geographic features to launch an invasion/attacks on us, Id take it after we kicked their asses too.


Totally understandable.


----------



## jim777 (Nov 28, 2007)

A great article here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11272007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/no_lasting_peace_314090.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 28, 2007)

One of the premises of the War in Iraq, was that it was going to remake the Middle East; a democratically elected government in Iraq was going to be a beacon to other countries in the region, leading to a domino theory of democracy. 

At least, that is what I think the President told us ... you know, 'Freedom is God's gift to mankind'.

Well, we are now in a Post-Democratic-Iraq timetable. Iraqi's have held several national elections. 

Maybe the point of Annapolis is to measure the changes in attitudes, and changes in lattitudes among the Middle East players vis-a-vis the removal of "The Tyrrant". 

Or, maybe, there is no diplomatic dividend for the illegal invasion and occupation of a Middle East country.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 28, 2007)

Thanks for that article, Jim.  Always good insight from Col. Peters.



> If you want a sober perspective on the Annapolis dog-and-pony show, just ask yourself this: Who will leave disappointed, if nothing much results?
> 
> The Arabs won't care. They came because we got on our knees and begged.
> 
> ...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 28, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Or, maybe, there is no diplomatic dividend for the illegal invasion and occupation of a Middle East country.


 
Is there such a thing as a _legal_ war...??


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 28, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Is there such a thing as a _legal_ war...??


Yes.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 29, 2007)

Big Don, a well expressed article with some wisdom to it.  The situation is unacceptable and nobody's been able to fix it yet.  Asskicking seems at least as likely to work as anything that's been tried so far.

On the other hand, "you're either with us or agin' us" is a slippery road.  Especially when you're dealing with entire nations.  There are Saudis, and Americans and Canadians who'd like nothing better than to eat Cheerios out of our childrens' skulls.  And for every one of them there are literally millions of innocent folks who do their best every day and come home to families they love.  They're in their country of birth by nothing but dumb luck, just like you and me.

Let's not go painting with that wide a brush just yet.  It's that sort of attitude that creates suicide bombers in the first place.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 29, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Big Don, a well expressed article with some wisdom to it.  The situation is unacceptable and nobody's been able to fix it yet.  Asskicking seems at least as likely to work as anything that's been tried so far.
> 
> On the other hand, "you're either with us or agin' us" is a slippery road.  Especially when you're dealing with entire nations.  There are Saudis, and Americans and Canadians who'd like nothing better than to eat Cheerios out of our childrens' skulls.  And for every one of them there are literally millions of innocent folks who do their best every day and come home to families they love.  They're in their country of birth by nothing but dumb luck, just like you and me.
> 
> Let's not go painting with that wide a brush just yet.  It's that sort of attitude that creates suicide bombers in the first place.


The West Wing was an unabashedly leftist show, in spite of that, and because of the awesome writing, I loved it. There was an episode in which a favorite doctor of the president's was killed by terrorists and the president was counseled to ensure the response was in proportion to the terrorist act. Sheen was awesome as he ranted, nearly screaming the question"What is the virtue of a proportional response?" 
Even the unashamedly liberal staff of that show KNEW that proportional responses do NOTHING to stem terrorism, not a thing. 
To quote Cool Hand Luke, "Some men, you just can't reach..." Terrorists are not rational people, treating them as if they are is not only foolish, it is dangerous. To stop terrorism we need to drop the hammer so hard and so severely on terrorists that  the  mere  memory of how we deal with terrorists  strikes fear into the hearts of everyone. Terrorism will only cease when we choose to make it unmistakably clear that anyone who chooses that path will suffer extreme, and wholly disproportionate consequences.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 29, 2007)

Absolutely agreed. Anybody who would intentionally harm (or through inaction deliberately allow to be harmed) an innocent is no longer human  -- view them as a potential source of soap and lampshades.  Kill them and expunge their names from every written record.

Only thing I'm objecting to is a growing sense of jingoism about Islam, Muslims and the Middle East.  A nation harbors or supports terrorism?  Glass the capital.  Embargo them so the poorest starve while the leaders (who made the decision) maintain their lifestyle by squeezing more from their subjects.  

We're at war with _Terrorists_, and rightly so.  Trouble is, a lot of folks seem to think that means we're at war with all Fundamental Muslims.  Or even all Muslims.  That's as wrongheaded as the guys who think killing an American gets you into heaven.

Sure, there are Yanks who the killing of is sure to get you on the right side of the Lord.  But most of us are pretty okay.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 29, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Absolutely agreed. Anybody who would intentionally harm (or through inaction deliberately allow to be harmed) an innocent is no longer human  -- view them as a potential source of soap and lampshades.  Kill them and expunge their names from every written record.
> 
> Only thing I'm objecting to is a growing sense of jingoism about Islam, Muslims and the Middle East.  A nation harbors or supports terrorism?  Glass the capital.  Embargo them so the poorest starve while the leaders (who made the decision) maintain their lifestyle by squeezing more from their subjects.
> 
> ...


Muslims are increasingly associated with terrorism for two reasons: 
1 The only people committing terrorism in the name of religion right now happen to claim to be Muslim.
2 The majority of Muslims who we are repeatedly told are peaceful and fun loving, are more afraid of the terrorist in the next pew than they are of the Americans 8900 miles away, so they don't speak out at all. Which is as sad as it is understandable.
I have no idea if mosques have pews, but, you get my point.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 29, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I agree..what "amuses" me is how all the Arab countries are up in arms over the "Palestinian Problem" but none of them are willing to carve out a chunk of their country for them, or seem to be offering any significant ideas of their own. Its about eliminating the Jews and NOT about "liberating the Palestinians". Anybody who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.


 

Let's not forget that between 1948 and 1967, Gaza was under Egyptian, and the West Bank under Jordanian control. They both did a bang up job of helping the 'Palestinians'.

Points: Prior to 1948 the term Palestinian refered to the Jews living in the British Mandate of Palestine. The Arabs aligned themselves with Syria. The term Palestinian in reference to the Arab population did not come into play until 1964 when the Egyptian Arafat started to use it as an excuse for his terrorism.


Look at the original partition plan. It created 2 states, one Jewish, the other Arab. Neither were contigious. Both carved up the land mass according to the majotity population. 

There as never been a Palestinian nation When the Romans invaded, they called the region Philistinia, basically to piss off the Jews. Since the Roman invasion, and until 1948, that region has always been under some foreign power, the British being the latest one, having won it from the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 30, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Muslims are increasingly associated with terrorism for two reasons:
> 1 The only people committing terrorism in the name of religion right now happen to claim to be Muslim.
> 2 The majority of Muslims who we are repeatedly told are peaceful and fun loving, are more afraid of the terrorist in the next pew than they are of the Americans 8900 miles away, so they don't speak out at all. Which is as sad as it is understandable.
> I have no idea if mosques have pews, but, you get my point.



That's sort of my point...

1.  The IRA is a political group, but gets much of its support by manipulating religious sentiment.  Also, abortion clinic bombings (a couple still happen most years) are absolutely Christian terrorism.

2.  In truth, the majority of 'peaceful and funloving' (I'd argue fun loving based on what I know of the Quran's view on sex) have never met or seen a terrorist.  If there's fear in a country, it's of the overly restrictive laws -- something about Islam seems to support dictatorships.

Despite this, a lot of very reasonable, intelligent, honorable men and women -- folks who don't say '******' in public and would boycott a shop they knew to discriminate against Asians -- seem to be viewing Muslims as a group and becoming very comfortable with punishing the lot of them for the behavior of a tiny, crazy minority.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 30, 2007)

The IRA never claimed their actions would lead to 72 virgins. Christians around the world were the FIRST and LOUDEST critics of the terrorist activities in Ireland, this is just not the case with Muslim terrorists. Abortion clinic bombings?http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp they (a biased pro-abortion site) only list 10 murders/attempted murders and 200ish arsons and bombings, that is a far cry from the toll taken by Muslim terrorists, and again, *Christians are the first people to say killing/bombing clinics is wrong.* You really cannot compare isolated incidents by Christians to the widespread Muslim terrorism. There is no promise of virgins for Christiam martyrs. The claim that Christian terrorism is the same as Muslim terrorism may have been true during the crusades, but, that was nearly a thousand years ago, and Christians have gotten over it. People who throw this particular red herring show their disdain for all religions, nothing more.

"You are known by the company you keep"  Is that unfair? Well, that depends, do you hang around criminals and thugs without speaking out against their actions? If so, than you deserve a level of suspicion and you share a portion of guilt for your de facto condoning of them. When a Christian commits a crime,other Christians loudly, publically and in no uncertain terms condemn the act, this cannot be said of Muslims. 
If the vast majority oppose terrorism, than why don't we hear from more of these moderate Muslims? For a majority they are pretty damn quiet in the face of horrific actions.
The only times we hear from the "moderate Muslims" is when a movie dares to portray the antagonists as being of Middle Eastern lineage. Casey Kassem was all aflutter over Aladin for pete's sake.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 30, 2007)

You make a fair point that there is substantially *more* terrorism committed in the name of Islam than of any other religion.  I do believe there are aspects of Islam that make one more susceptible to manipulation than many other religions.

Again, all I'm arguing is the lumping everybody together.  "The company you keep" is absolutely fair in some circumstances, but not when you're talking about one's country.  

You and I are American out of dumb luck.  Saudi citizens didn't get to choose their birth nation.  And most don't have the resources to emigrate.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 30, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Again, all I'm arguing is the lumping everybody together. "The company you keep" is absolutely fair in some circumstances, but not when you're talking about one's country.


 
It becomes a less cogent argument when the company to which you refer is by its very nature secretive and deceptive. 

One may believe they are involved with education of young children and health care for poor families, that the funding may come from Hamas makes it difficult to know if you are doing good, or ill.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Yes.


 
Then explain that.  Legal in what sense?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 1, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> You make a fair point that there is substantially *more* terrorism committed in the name of Islam than of any other religion.  I do believe there are aspects of Islam that make one more susceptible to manipulation than many other religions.
> 
> Again, all I'm arguing is the lumping everybody together.  "The company you keep" is absolutely fair in some circumstances, but not when you're talking about one's country.


 But we aren't talking about one's country, we are talking about one's religion. Even in Saudi Arabia, I would imagine there are differences in tone from one mosque to another. If a person believes that infidels (that's you and me, bub) should be killed they can go to one of those mosques, if they are part of the "vast majority" of Muslims we hear about they can go to a different mosque, but nothing, except cowardice stops any Muslim from speaking out against those who would murder in the name of Islam. If your friend killed people out of a misguided religion, you'd stop him or alert the authorities so he would be stopped, wouldn't you? Or would you be so craven as to let him continue? That is my problem with the supposed "peaceful" majority of Muslims. While they may not wish us harm and may indeed wish us well, they haven't yet taken a stand, en mass and spoken out against terrorism and the terrorists in their midst. 





> You and I are American out of dumb luck.  Saudi citizens didn't get to choose their birth nation.  And most don't have the resources to emigrate.


 They may not have the resources to emigrate, but they have mouths that can speak out against terrorism and terrorists. If terrorism is so abhorrent to the majority of Muslims, why aren't they speaking out against it? Why aren't they pointing out those among them who foster terrorism? Their deafening silence is interpreted by many as a de facto approval, or at the very least a tacit acceptance. Were there a lot of Muslims, here and abroad, speaking out against terrorism and terrorists, the  idea that Islam is the Religion of Peace would be a little easier to believe.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 1, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Then explain that.  Legal in what sense?


Congress voting to approve the use of force in Iraq wasn't legal? Damn...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Congress voting to approve the use of force in Iraq wasn't legal? Damn...



That's part of exactly what I'm getting at...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 2, 2007)

Actually, it wasn't Constitutional. 
_Article I - Section 8 _

_The Congress shall have the power ....._

_To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules cancerning captures on land and water. _
​The Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to give away its own responsibilities. An Authorization of Use for Military Force in Iraq is not a declaration of war. 

Further, Iraq was no threat the United States of America. Our laws, and our Treaties ~ which are bound by the force of law ~ do not permit taking the first act of aggression.  And please, don't argue that Iraq was a threat. If you believe that, your living with Alice, in Wonderland; a war, a decade of sanctions, and daily bombardments from the no fly zone ensured they were no threat to anyone but themselves. And please don't tell me that the United Nations Sactions were being violated, while simultaneously arguing against it existance (the top 10 floors should be taken off)

The only arguement for 'it was legal' is that we have won. And that only works *if* we win. (Permanent Bases, who us?). Seems to me that is far from certain. World financial powers are looking more and more the the Euro.


I'll probably get spanked for answer your rhetorical questions. 

On topic. Annapolis is to be the Crowning Jewel in President George W. Bush's presidency. He launched a war to remake the Middle East. Now, he brings those in the Middle East together to establish that promise. From the summit, we have an agreement in principle to reach Final Status by the End of 2008. 

Yes ... Annapolis will be THE great achievement of this Administration. Those who so vigourously supported President Bush through his time and office can wear Annapolis as symbol of all of his achievements.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 2, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Actually, it wasn't Constitutional._Article I - Section 8 _​
> _The Congress shall have the power ....._​
> _To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules cancerning captures on land and water. _​The Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to give away its own responsibilities. An Authorization of Use for Military Force in Iraq is not a declaration of war.


 
Actually, the War Powers Resolution in 1973 states that the President can authorize the use of military forces for 60 days without a declaration of war. Granted, we are far beyond the 60 days, however, this shows a certain precedent. Also, Congress has authorized every use of military force since WWII, all without a declaration of war. This issue has never been contested in court, but again, sets precedent, at least until legally challenged.

Therefore one cannot say that the use of military forces in Iraq is illegal.



> Further, Iraq was no threat the United States of America. Our laws, and our Treaties ~ which are bound by the force of law ~ do not permit taking the first act of aggression. And please, don't argue that Iraq was a threat. If you believe that, your living with Alice, in Wonderland; a war, a decade of sanctions, and daily bombardments from the no fly zone ensured they were no threat to anyone but themselves. And please don't tell me that the United Nations Sactions were being violated, while simultaneously arguing against it existance (the top 10 floors should be taken off)


 
Article 51 of the U.N. Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. 

The U.N. does know about it, and is doing nothing, therefore we are legally correct.

And I do consider actions that were taken by Saddam Hussein and his regime to be threats to the U.S. you can certainly try to argue against that, but I suppose that is for a different thread.

And one can certainly state that the United States should not be a part of the U.N. and still make this argument, since, as you say, it is the law. Even if one does not agree with it.



> The only arguement for 'it was legal' is that we have won. And that only works *if* we win. (Permanent Bases, who us?). Seems to me that is far from certain. World financial powers are looking more and more the the Euro.


 
I do not understand what you are trying to say here.



> I'll probably get spanked for answer your rhetorical questions.


 
I do not give negative rep. A person is entitled to their opinion.



> On topic. Annapolis is to be the Crowning Jewel in President George W. Bush's presidency. He launched a war to remake the Middle East. Now, he brings those in the Middle East together to establish that promise. From the summit, we have an agreement in principle to reach Final Status by the End of 2008.
> 
> Yes ... Annapolis will be THE great achievement of this Administration. Those who so vigourously supported President Bush through his time and office can wear Annapolis as symbol of all of his achievements.


 
Every President has to have at least one.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 2, 2007)

Big Don said:


> That is my problem with the supposed "peaceful" majority of Muslims. While they may not wish us harm and may indeed wish us well, they haven't yet taken a stand, en mass and spoken out against terrorism and the terrorists in their midst.



That's because you are so bigoted against Muslims that you have deliberately not been paying attention.  More Muslims than you can shake a stick at have been demonstrating against and speaking against terrorism.  You don't want to see it.

If you want to quibble and prevaricate on your usage of "en mass", then I would point out to you that hundreds of millions of members of any religion are unable to all convey their message to you at once due to their lack of access to broadcast media.  There are around 200 million or so Christians in the US.  When was the last time you saw 100 million of them all speak up about, say, how Eric Rudolph was wrong to bomb abortion clinics?


----------

