IT IS A GREAT DAY!!!!!

[mildodiferousfunk]

Cal, I will leave the Christianity/religion thing alone. We seem to be mssing each other's point. In Islam, the basic foundation is the acceptance one God and the messengers (including Muhammad) as his prophet. Respect of fellow man is part oft he greater picture. For me to say Islam is unique unlike the other religions using this premise is the same path you are claiming for Christianity. In any case, I'd prefer to just drop the issue. In Islam, we have a passage from the Quran that says "I have my religion and you have yours". In other words, faith is matter of the heart and debating about the differences of faiths is a futile action. I wholeheartedly agee with this idea.

With regards, to Israel..I'd rather not delve into this too far either but would like to ask what common ground as "brothers" we have with Israel? Again, I will go back to my original suggestion..that is allowing a World body to control Jerusalem since it is sacred to so many faiths and is also sore point between religions as well. With regards to temples being built on temples, every temple is built upon the ruins of another temple. The Dome of the Rock was built centuries after the destruction (by the Romasn) of the original temple. Should I go to your church and claim it was built upon an ancient Indian holy ground and claim ownership centuries later? Both Israel and their neighbors are dirty, we should not claim we are protecting the poor, little, weak brother. With places that are common to many people, control should be given to a large party so that there are no ill feelings towards one group or another as a result of the perception of favoritism, etc. This appears to be the most logical solution, at least to me. As far as what happened historically in the region, this is not the place to delve into it. My suggestion for those that do not know much of the history of the region, do quite a bit of research as there are many different contradictory collections of what has happened in that region over the past century. All I can say is what is reported as "history" in that region of the world today not very accurate. I am just asking people do their own research and come to their own conclusions instead of being "spoon-fed" history.

With regards to Saddam, I do not disagree with the facet that Saddam is an evil man, but so are a large number of our so-called allies. Our motives had nothing to do "freeing Iraqis", rather it has more to do with working in the interests of some of our so-called allies in the region. I have seen what people like Saddam do first-hand, but we turn a blind eye. I would rather let people come to their own conclusions about our motives. Iraq is just the beginning, our current policy will keep our children and their children still fighting this colonialism, ahem, I mean "war".

Modern warfare is not necessarily any cleaner, this is just part of the marketing policy of warfare. Just think about it, dropping a 500 lb pound bomb from several thousand feet cause quite a bit of impact force not considering the force of the explosives. During WWII, we carpet bombed, that is why it was "messy". We chose to be messy. I am not equating people with Zarqawi with our military but it is a litlle naive for me to say that dropping large explosive devices in residential areas is not going to cause a wee-bit of damage and death of innocent civilians. Don't believe the warfare marketing hype? Tell me why we have nice-sounding terms like "smart" bombs, collateral damage, etc.? The answer is to mask the horrors of modern warfare and make it more appealing to the general public. As far as the tactics he terrorists use, they are adapting to the warfare environment. I do not condone their tactics but we used tactics that were deemed contrary to current warfare standards when we fought the British during the revolutionary war. The point is, warfare is ugly and fighting a war that is not for self-defense is ugly no matter how you look at it.

[Jay481985]

War is a messy business, but MODERN warfare is MUCH cleaner and

protects MANY more innocent people than in the past. Think of the air

raids on London and Berlin. Entire cities laid waste, the populations

decimated. The modern warfare we have now is much more precise at

targeting the enemy than it has ever been before.

The difference between the two sides in this war is that while we

may occasionally accidentally kill some innocent people, the other side

uses this tactic as its main strategy. The terrorists think nothing

about killing innocent people to make their point, in fact, that is

their preferred method. We on the other hand are trying very hard to

only target those who would harm us. Yes sometimes innocent people are

there also but it is the terrorists that hide in mosques, hospitals,

schools and anywhere innocent people are, to try to protect themselves

from being targeted. THEY are the ones that place innocent people in

harms way.

Cal any innocent death is not acceptable. Just like anyone who died in the WTO was unacceptable. Any accidental death is unwarranted and should be dealth with. Personalize it, what if that was your family in the house that a smart bomb happened to hit because of bad intelligence or hasty bombing. What if your child was missing a leg due to shrapnel for a foreign army?

Also Smart bombs do have a deviance of plus or minus 200 feet, it can stray so if they use it in heavily residential area expect innocent lives to be lost as that is a must. The 200 feet deviance is not really a problem though as they usually drop two or the blast is close enough.

As with dropping a bomb with AlZarqwari, why did they not enter the house with soldiers to minimize the death of the woman and child? They did it cause it was the easy and less death to the american side. How about our local police everytime they find a criminal, have them burn the house down instead of going inside risking their lives? The soliders were right there as they had medical teams and such. Also most people do not know it but smart bombs are no so smart until special forces go behind enemy lines to "mark and laser" the targets for the pilot to hit. They have to drop a homing beacon for the airplane to know where to drop. Hence special forces were right there and they could have gone in.

[Cal Blacksmith]

I think this thread has run long enough from my point of

view, if anyone wishes to continue, go ahead but this will be my last post

here.

Mild, I have indeed not been spoon fed with information in

the ME. I have done my research and indeed have come to my own conclusions. The

common linage we have with Israel

is partially the same as the Muslims, namely we can both trace our roots to Judaism.

We also have common forms of governments. So there is much indeed that we have

in common and are indeed brothers.

It is unfortunately sad that some cant see the larger

picture. Innocent people always get killed in war. Yes this is a sad fact but

it is true none the less. I wonder how many of the loudest critics of the war

have ever served in a military unit? I have and though I was never in combat, I

do know the feeling of standing by and waiting to go into combat. If you have

not been in the military, you are missing a piece of the puzzle, information

wise to understand events.

Lets personalize the killing of 30 to 50 Iraqi citizens who

get killed EVERY DAY by car bombs, IEDs and the occasional suicide bomber.

These were TARGETS of the radicals, not innocent victims. There is a HUGE

difference in the accidental killing of someone who was in the wrong place at

the wrong time versus INTENTIONALLY TARGETING INSOENT WOMEN AND CHILDERN AS

PAWNS IN A BATTLE FOR THE MEDIA MACHINE IN A PROPAGANDA WAR AND A BATTLE OF

SIMBOLS.

Yes warfare today IS

much more accurate than ever before. To say otherwise is true ignorance. The

carpet bombings in WWII were done because the ability to select only the target

was not an option. The ability was not there.

Jay it seems that you would have felt better if two or three

dozen of our solders were killed in a raid style frontal assault. This is

indeed sad. The object in war is to kill the enemy without getting killed

yourself. To needlessly enter a fortress manually when you can take it out

without risk to yourself is indeed foolish.

You cant apply war situations to domestic ones so to try to

do so shows a lack of understanding. To compare the two, worlds apart situations

of war and law enforcement, and say that they are equal is as I said, to not

have a grasp of the whole situation.

It still was indeed a GREAT day!

[Jay481985]

Some of the war critics include:

Colin Powell (he was the joint chiefs of staff director)

General Norman Schwarzkpf (Led the first Gulf War)

Scott Ritter (A former Marine Captain that served in the gulf war and was UN weapon inspector)

The 30-50 people that die everyday is caused due to infighting. The Sunni and the Shites do not really get along to well.

Carpet bombing on civilian targets was on purpose during WWII. That is a fact. It was meant to demeanor the other side to giving up. Heck they used napalm on the city of Tokyo that kill over 100000 people in one night alone while they slept. Even if the Americans would have pick and chose the targets they still would have carpet bombed civilian targets of Germany and Japan.

I doubt dozens of people would have died since there was only himself, his spiritual advisor, a woman and child. Foolish, I think not as taking your captive alive sounds less foolish as you can get much needed infomation about the enemy.

As with applying war situations with domestic situations, everyday the generals reiterate a more "police" style military. The generals are having a tough time retraining soldiers from killing everyone to policing Iraqi people. To say Iraqi is a battlefield is a wrong assertion as to saying it is not one is not either. Since neither solider not police quite fit the bill, they must find a middle ground. That is where a soldier must become a bit less soldier and a bit more police. Going around shooting innocent people will certainly not change the hearts of a already shattered Iraq, Abu Graib was not helping either. There is saying that police hear all the time, "The worst enemy is yourself." That is the saying that the police hear from their superiors when they get aligations of police mischief and brutality, it only hurts the police further alienating the community to the police. By condoning brutality and not preventing "war" accidents you further alienate the soliders from the Iraqi people/

[ZAKO]

You can Pontificate all you want......Zarqawi is dead.... The leaders of wwII are dead. If the so called citizens of those evil leaders could not get out of the way & supported them they deserve the justice of colateral injury. The Russions were ordered to inflict as mutch suffering on those who supported the political backing of Hitler. And they did to any body that got in there way. Raping and destroying on there way to Berlin. (Instant justice) We,v been a little nicer, but I dont know why. ....You have not learned any thing ...Germany did learn correctly...And so did Japan

[mildodiferousfunk]

Cal, you said:

"Mild, I have indeed not been spoon fed with information in

the ME. I have done my research and indeed have come to my own conclusions. The

common linage we have with Israel

is partially the same as the Muslims, namely we can both trace our roots to Judaism.

We also have common forms of governments. So there is much indeed that we have

in common and are indeed brothers."

I understand that Christians, Jews, and Muslims trace their religious roots back to Abraham. What I was asking is what common grounds with Israel we have as a nation (not the Christian religion). A large population of the US has roots to Germany, Mexico, etc., etc. Does this mean we should indiscriminately support these countries? The support of Israel has religious roots masked by so-called political roots (supposedly only democracy in ME, etc. - there are other democracies in the ME, we just choose to ignore them because ankowledging them does not meet the interests of supporting Israel unconditionally). I do not like having the "wool pulled over my eyes" and I am sure a large number of the people in the US feel the same way. Therefore, no, Israel is not OUR brother, it is YOURS (as an individual and others that believe the same). A nation like ours should only have "brothers" based on the interests of the entire nation, not one religious group.

Our stance in the ME has been one of hypocrisy and, at least to me, hypocrisy is one of the gravest things on can commit. This is exactly what is happening with our foreign policy. In this case, we work for the interests of a particular religion, which I do not believe is the basis of America nor did the founding fathers. It has only been in the last century or so that our foreign policy has shifted in this direction and, as I said before, allowing religion to dictate our foreign policy is an extremely dangerous scenario. Our soldiers are losing their lives because of the religious beliefs of one group here in the US. I do not believe these were the principles this nation was founded upon. I have seen what happens when the interests of an individual religious group steer the direction of foreign policy. Mark my words, if our foreign policy does not change, we will be fighting this "war" for generations to come. Is this what you want to leave for your children? That is not what I want to leave for mine.

Cal, one last note, you wrote "I wonder how many of the loudest critics of the war have ever served in a military unit?" On the the other end, how many of the loudest proponents of the war have served? Also, what does this have to do with addressing the logic behind the war? A logical argument should stand on its own two legs.

[Fish]

Nice try Cal,it was a GREAT DAY.I had no illusion all would agree,even on a blood thirsty killer that went after the easy innocent targets with the intent to kill the innocent,kids or anyone else just to make headlines.

[SilverSport]

I think part of our support for Israel is because of what the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis (and others) during WWII and the things we may have ignored prior to going to war then...

We (along with Great Britain and others) helped set up the Jewish State of Israel and we committed ourselves to their protection indefinitly...

I think there are MANY reasons we are in the Middle East...some worthy and some not so worthy and some surely self centered but...I truly believe the United States of America does FAR more good globally than ANY other nation on the planet...it is unfortunate that some use this to their own ends.

Just my .02.

Bill

[mildodiferousfunk]

Silver,

What the Jews suffered in WWII is common to many groups, some of which suffered at the same hands of the Naziz. On this, I do not disagree with you. In the same whim should we create a state for all of the descendants of the slaves here in the US and unconditionally support them as well? Many people have suffered, this does not justify what has happened in the last several generations in the ME.

Silver, you said "We (along with Great Britain and others) helped set up the Jewish State of Israel and we committed ourselves to their protection indefinitly..." Do you not see the flaw in this statement? "Indefinitely", even at our own expense and at the expense of others? Our allegience should be to the interests of the US (and Justice to all). Should we support external interests at our own expense?

On your statement, "the US of A does far more good globally than any other nation on the plant", I wholeheartedly agree with you. In general, the American people (not just the nation) are far more generous and helpful than any other people on this planet. Unfortunately, we also seem to be one the most out of touch with balanced world history as well. It is interesting to watch news broadcasts of other nations to compare their perspective to that of our own news agencies. It just makes you wonder...

[SilverSport]

doesn't really matter if we should, could or would...we DID set one up for Israel and we DID set them up...that is just the fact...we could argue the merits of should, could or would but that is pretty much moot...

I do see the flaw with indefinitly...I just stated the fact that we DID (again)...and again we could argue should, would or could in whatever order...this IS what we did...

I would STRONGLY disagree with being "the most out of touch with balanced world history"...we may not have it perfect but I bet we are as close as ANYONE else...this is not to say we may have our facts wrong on things but as for world history...(at LEAST the last couple of hundred years or so...) I think we do as well as anyone...please give any sources for someone who really views world history BETTER than we do???

I don't intend to start any fights only constructive arguement...I believe it stirs the soul and is good to talk when we can talk and not "tell" each other...thanks for the info...but I agree that this has run out of steam...

Bill

[mildodiferousfunk]

Silver,

I'll leave the indefinite support topic alone. This is what we DID is not valid in my eyes. It does not work in our best interests. We DID many things historically, but changed the course once deemed it no longer best served our interests. Perhaps that is why we have groups such as AIPAC and NPAC. I believe I proved my point.

I am not saying anyone has a better view of world history, but our view is quite slanted. What I mean is what makes it to the news and what does not and how it is reported. Just watch BBC for a few days for example and see how much of world events are explained. It is quite a different view. I was not critcizing, but merely stating an observation.

I have not run out of steam...I am just building pressure[]

[Fish]

The BBC? I'd suggest gettin' your news from a more "middle of the road"news organization,maybe Aljazeera.

[mildodiferousfunk]

Fish,

Perhaps you should try AJ for a few days as well and compare. Have you ever done so? Probably not, unless you speak Arabic or you are just regurgitating what our government tells us. If you have not watched it, then what basis do you have to make your statement? I have watched it and I will admit, some of things they cover do have a slant to them, but overall they are actually not too bad. There are other news agencies in that region that are quite biased. I guess their office getting bombed by our forces was just mere coincidence? Compared to Fox News, they are actually quite balanced. In essence, any news organization will have slight bias. I used the BBC as an example, take your pick of the multitude of news agencies throughout the wrold. I am not attempting to provoke but am simply asking people to open their eyes to the notion there are other very valid points of view throughout the world. Perhaps we should try to understand this.

[Fish]

mild,you started out pretty good,really,you had my respect,now its startin' to look like propaganda,soon I suppose I'll be the "terrorist".Don't have time to play today,I'll try to catch up after we're declared to be the Great Satan,lol.Have a GREAT DAY.

[mildodiferousfunk]

Fish, gaining your respect is not my goal. My goal is to state the obvious. You may call it propaganda if you like, only since my opinion is different than yours. Nonetheless, I can support my opinions with a logic, which perhaps can be off at times, and am not discrediting your statement. I was only asking you to to support yours as well. Back to my question, have you watched AJ to come to the grand conclusion you made in your previous post or are you merely avoiding logic? If so, explain your conclusion. Propaganda is a statement made that has no logical foothold in the hopes that it will change opinion. It is quite convenient to discredit my previous statement as propaganda, but you are merely avoiding an uncomfortable question.

I do not call you a terrorist. You do not support the definition of one. Nor do I call the US the Great Satan. To do so, I would be a hypocrite as I am US citizen. Questioning the path we as a country follow is not wrong, it is part of being an American. You can call this a game, I call it constructive debate. However, debate requires one key element: LOGIC......

[Jay481985]

I like BBC, their not bad....

Fox News, sometimes their better but sometimes you can see bias

CBS meh, after dan rathers bah!

I liked ABC news until Peter Jennings died....

I've been reading more news from yahoo lately than any newspaper also....

[SilverSport]

Mild...I was with you too until these last couple of responses...hmmm...you are just stating the obvious...where I come from the OBVIOUS does not need stating therefore what you are stating is NOT obvious...just My point of view...I have seen Al Jezeera...the English translation of it, albeit what was presented on BBC America...you think that is fair?...well, maybe just TOO obvious for me...as to my statements about Israel...that's EXACTLY what COMMITTMENT is...when you commit to protecting someone, that is what you do...we helped set them up and promised to protect them...where I come from you keep your word...course what you accuse America of doing (whatever is in their best interest) is what you want us to do now, eh??? It is no longer in our best interest to stand by Israel so, cut and run, hmmm???

We made a promise to Israel and until they do something that keeps us from keeping our promise to them, we should do so...you are free to disagree but just because YOU say something is so doesn't make it so...I state things as my opinion gained from what I have observed, I gather you do as well...different opinions are fine in my book and we can agree to disagree but don't act like you have the corner on what's right...'cuz I don't believe you do.

Bill

[mildodiferousfunk]

Bill,

This is my opinion, if what I state is not obvious, you are free to disagree. I do not claim that I "have the corner on what is right". We are all humans and prone to mistakes in logic. If I have made one, you are free to bring it to light.

Have you watched a large portion of AJ programming, say for several hours, similar to CNN? You may have watched English-translated excerpts, but did you watch an actual several hour program? If I were to take excerpts from portions of Fox News programming and translate them to another language, I could verily show a very biased point of few. Do you have AJ at home? I am not saying AJ is not without its faults, however when someone states something not in the interests of our tilted ME policy, it is shot down without fair and unbiased assessment.

About Israel and committment; Bill this is comical. We committed to many people in the past but did not stay with them. To list a few examples, go look at what happened in Bosnia, Liberia, the Kurds in Iraq, the list goes on and on. So, please do not bring up the term committment. What is unique about Israel? Religious ties of a particular group in the country. I do not call that committment, I call that deceiving the public into believing our support is based on noble motives when in fact it is a "wolf in sheep's clothing". Where you come from you keep your word, but that obviously is not where our foreign policy is from. I wish it were.

With regards to keeping our promise to Israel "until they do something that keeps us from keeping our promise..." They have committed several events that were similar to the premises used to attack and/or label countries as enemies. Please do not fool the American public. Go speak to people in Europe and many other regions of the world about this same topic. They certainly do not share the same views as the general public we have. Perhaps due to the influence that is in our government and mass media. Again, perhaps this is why there are groups such as AIPAC and NPAC. Show us one other place in the world where similar groups exist. No? because the US has the mightiest Industrial Military complex in the world. Had, let's say, Uganda had the mightiest military complex, that is where you would find similar groups today. In summary, please do not state support of Israel is about committment or is in our best interests. It is in the interests of a religious group. In any case, what has happened has happened. At this point in history, the surrounding Arab states must accept Israel within defined boundaries with a Palestinian state alongside. As for Jerusalem, again, this should be cordoned off and controlled by a world body. I have stated this several times in my previous posts but everyone has ignored this suggestion, hopefully not on purpose. I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts.

Bill, no disrespect intended and I apologize if you misunderstood my post as being condescending. That was not my intention. I simply ask that one supports their ideas with logic, even if in the end you still disagree. That is the beauty of debate.