Is America Stingy?

[vicente]

"The United States is not stingy," Secr of State Powell told CNN's "American Morning" program. On monday the United States was expected to contribute $15 million in Bibles to the heathen survivors of the apocalyptic destruction in the Indian Ocean area which has so far claimed more than 63,000 lives. Late tuesday however, Powell added $20 million (in credits) to the US's compassionate $15 million, after Japan freely gave $30 million. The question is though, is the United States stingy?

"The United Nations' Egeland complained on Monday that each of the richest nations gives less than 1 percent of its gross national product for foreign assistance, and many give 0.1 percent. "It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really," he told reporters".

Well, the US is surely not stingy when it comes to illegal crusades, like the invasion of Iraq, or tax cuts for the wealthy. But the fact is, "among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for assistance worldwide. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent. So the answer is yes,...the USA, contrary to popular beliefs, is a stingy Nation.

I had no idea America was this stingy. Suppose I merely believed the media when they say the USA is the worlds greatest benefactor.

[NeverMind]

Well dont listen to the media, dumbass. Has there ever been any doubt that the media LIES?
I'm sorry I called you a dumbass. I was out of line. Please forgive me.

[venom mama]

maybe.......




you.........





should.......




leave.........




:angry:

[NeverMind]

because its only a matter of time until the American empire covers the globe

[vicente]

Putting American stinginess in context:

"To put the 35 million dollars ($20 million of which is in credits) in context, consider this: To "help" the citizens of Iraq, our government is spending 5.8 BILLION dollars each MONTH. That translates to more than 8 million dollars an hour. Or put another way, the $35 million we have pledged in disaster aid for Southeast Asia is less than the amount the U.S. military spent during the six hours it took on Sunday for the tsunami to cross the Indian Ocean."

Or:
Every single day this year, the Zionists receive over $13,000,000 from us to fire tank shells and sniper shots into schools, rip up thousands of homes and farms, destroy power & water plants, fire at will upon resistance fighters and children alike, etc.. in lands they criminally occupy. Consider also the billions spent monthly in the same sort of operation in Iraq.

Yet, a little over twice that was expected to assist in the recovery of one of the worst disasters in modern memory, one spread across a dozen countries and destroying the lives of millions of people?! It is apparently not even "aid", but a line of credit! The contrast between these justifies any word of the kind.

Or:
1) B2 Long Range Stealth Bomber = $2,000,000,000.00

(1) Day war effort in Iraq = $ 143,000,000.00

(1) Disaster relief for Tsunami = $ 15,000,000.00 (+ $20,000,000.00 in loans).

[mer]

There are a few things at work here:

1. The underlying belief that countries should take care of neighbors - not only is it easier to get services there if you're close, but there's more cultural understanding. Whether it's flawed thinking or not, there is the idea that the U.S. should look out for the Americas, Europeans for Africa (they certainly have lots of responsibility after so many years of brutal colonization), and Japan and Singapore for Asia.

2. The U.S. was by far the largest contributor to Darfur relief efforts. European countries and agencies had to practically be cattle-prodded to even acknowledge there was a problem. We do contribute to U.N. and other relief agencies and expect them to respond to the problems - of course, they're always needing more money because the problems never cease. And yes, Norway is by far the highest per capita contributor to international refugee aid agencies ($16.33 per person) and the U.S. is below that at $1.96 per person. But we also spend more per capita than Belgium, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Italy, Germany, and New Zealand. We're 11th of the top 20 donor countries. (From USCR's 2004 World Refugee Survey.)

3. There are differing views of help. The millions of dollars going to Israel can be seen as helping a country surrounded by bullies or providing means to terrorize Palestinians. There are those who actually do believe that we are "helping" Iraq. If you add together all the "help" (whether you agree with it or not), America is a very, very generous country. If you disagree with the "help" then it's more a political issue than a stinginess one.

4. Americans also love the idea of loans (though not for big business, who just get flat-out subsidies) because we don't want to "encourage dependence." This idea can change - people need to contact their legislators, and funding for relief efforts can be found. But legislators must understand it is their constituents' desires. Do not look to the current white house - look to Congress for that kind of aid (as in Darfur).

5. Jan Egelund's comment that you quoted below - I don't know the full context, but I do know that many countires will not contribute more not completely out of stinginess, but also out of concern for how that money is spent. (I don't mind paying taxes, but I'm not thrilled in the least about it going to war purposes - it's much the same.) The UN is not at a crest of popularity right now.

[vicente]

Thanks for the info mer,..some excellent points. As for "The UN is not at a crest of popularity right now",...are you suggesting the in the US (land of Right-wing media-ation) or in the world-at-large?

:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Greetings, mer, and welcome to the board.

Some very good points. I was likewise surprised by the, ahem..., puniness of the figures initially mentioned. Two days after the waves hit, the European Union committed to an immediate relief fund of three million Euro. I just thought to myself, "Do they realize what's going on here? What are we going to do with that? Buy band-aids?" Apparently everybody underestimated the dimension of the catastrophe in the beginning. When the actual death toll became known, the EU increased the fund and several other countries joined in. Here in Thailand we have only one tenth of the damage that occurred in Indonesia and in Sir Lanka. Even that is a lot. As of today, there are about 7,800 confirmed deaths and more than 4,000 people missing in Thailand. The cost of the damage (not counting the human factor) in Thailand is about 4-5 billion USD, which comes up to 1% of the of the country's annual GDP. Unfortunately, the situation is worse in the other countries.

Meanwhile the international community has adjusted the figures accordingly. The US and the EU committed to roughly 350 million USD respectively, and the UN gave a total figure of 1.2 billion USD today. This is of course very much appreciated. In Thailand there are families who lost everything. They cannot even afford to buy coffins for the dead. It is important to help specifically these people and their communities. Still, Thailand is better off than most other nations that were affected by the tsunami. The chaos was just indescribable. Germany, America, Sweden, and Taiwan among others send in rescue workers on the third day. This effort was timely and very important. In the near future it is necessary to send in people who manage and monitor the distribution of financial emergency aid. Hopefully, the UN is wise enough to hand it over to the right people. And, no, in most cases these are NOT the official government agencies.

Greetings from Bangkok,
Thomas

[mer]

Vicente, I would suggest that the UN is not popular worldwide. Perhaps because of more regional alliances (new African Union, European Union), perhaps because of the silliness of the UN Human Rights Commission including North Korea, Sudan, Uganda, the United States (two words - Guantanamo Bay). UN Human Rights body (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/05/03/sudan135.htm)). The US is not the only country in the world who glares at the UN and says, "You're not the boss of me." It's an organization dependent upon member contributions, which are withheld when members are upset. Then leaders such as Kofi Annan try to please everybody, and in the end the charter is forgotten.

Thomas, thank you very much for the information on the scene. I think you're right - the lack of response is a lack of understanding of the severity. I haven't seen the images (have no TV), but friends who have say that it's hard to tell how really bad things are by the images shown on TV. This was already one of the worst years ever for the insurance industry due to hurricanes and tropical storms, so it's hard for people away from the area to understand the difference between Florida and Sri Lanka. I just received email from Save the Children, urgently seeking to hire experienced humanitarian workers. (I'm not, though wish I were.)

And thank you, Thomas, for this site. I stumbled here while thinking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (applications to education) and found your topics interesting.

[mer]

To send a generic letter to the President of the U.S. and leaders of congress calling for more disaster relief funds, go to:

MoveOn.org: Tsunami Relief (http://www.moveon.org/tsunamirelief/)

Also - Bush promised in the Washington Post on December 30th that "America Will Lead Global Relief Effort" - let's be sure to hold him to that.

[sonrisa]

thanx for filling us in on the situation over there Thomas. Glad you are alive & well. :)

[venom mama]

war, natural disasters......



population control.

the world is too overpopulated as it is.



everybody knows its real bad
so why complain about what is being done or who gave more money?

at least efforts are being made.

did ya'll personally give money?


i just think its kind of a sad topic as the one to come out of the tsunami catastrophe.


how about this? why is it that the countries have put a hold on adopting out the orphans because they have to worry about the slave trade?

who cares who gives more money?
it was given.

always wanting more are ya?

[Ronagon]

Is America stingy?

What says that we have to give anything AT ALL?

I mean, when you consider that so much of the Muslim community wants us D-E-A-D -- and the region of the world which was struck by the tsunami holds the largest Muslim population on the entire planet Earth -- shouldn't these folks be shamed and embarrassed that we're giving anything to them AT ALL?

[Thomas Knierim]

Ronagon,

I don't believe that the population of Indonesia -to which you must be referring- wants Americans dead. What on earth makes you think that?

Thomas

[jesupocaplypse]

I was thinking about buying me up a few of those slave kids for work here on my acreage.

..
...
.... i'm KIDDING! ooohh, got you all upset there didn't I? :lol:

Honestly though, why not? Buy them, and bring them here, to live a happy, nice life... far better than anything they'd likely be sold into... and in exchange for feeding clothing and sheltering them in comfort and warmth, they cook and clean, and help with the many various chores here...

[Ronagon]

Thomas,

Indonesia is Muslim. Islam wants all the world and its people who are non-Muslim, made Muslim, or punished and butchered horrifically until it and they have all converted to Islam. If not, they must be killed.

You honestly do not know this?

[Thomas Knierim]

You honestly do not know this?

You honestly believe this? :lol:

Thomas

[Ronagon]

Thomas,

It's well-known information. I can't believe that you don't know this.

[venom mama]

i don't think they all want us dead.




i know a few indonesians, serious ny yankee fans, they don't want us dead.
as a matter of fact, they love america.


they're muslim.
they're just not fanatics who manipulate their religion to justify hate.

[Thomas Knierim]

Ronagon: It's well-known information. I can't believe that you don't know this.

This "information" seems to exist primarily in your phantasy. <_<

Despite certain boisterous passages of the Qur'an, which might implicate that sort of thing, most muslims do not go around to massacre disbelievers. Actually, very few of them are into the habit, since radical Islamists -believe it or not- are a minority. This might have to do with the fact that killing is regarded a sin in the islamic belief. After all, if muslims wanted me dead I would not be talking to you, since my muslim colleagues and friends would have done me in by now. :lol:

The world is not like what you see on Fox News, Ronagon.

Cheers, Thomas

[Ronagon]

Despite certain boisterous passages of the Qur'an, which might implicate that sort of thing, most muslims do not go around to massacre disbelievers. Actually, very few of them are into the habit, since radical Islamists -believe it or not- are a minority.

Then, if there isn't a silent consensus among the "peaceful" Muslims, please explain to me why pretty much the entire Muslim world has not had much to say in denunciation of the events of September 11th, or their "radical" fellow Muslims.

Fox News hasn't explained that to me... can you?

[Thomas Knierim]

The perception that peaceful Muslims do not speak out against the 9-11 event and other terror acts is simply wrong. Many high profile islamic leaders have publicly distanced themselves from these happenings. The majority of islamic leaders does not connive violence and terror, but there is indeed a small number of radicalised Islamists who are 100% responsible for this. I think few people would object that these groups need to be identified and cut off.

Unfortunately, however, the U.S. government's policy has been insensitive to the nature of the threat. Instead of conducting effective intelligence operations against those radical minorities, they have chosen to give unilateral military support to Israel, and to start two full blown wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, which did little to counter destabilization and violence in the region. Instead, it increased radicalisation in the muslim world. Future attacks on U.S. soil in 9-11 style (which will hopefully be thwarted) must be seen as a result of this policy.

The rationale behind the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions was to provide America with political leg to stand on in the Middle East and to deprive those countries of breeding ground for radical Islamists. I sincerely doubt that these goals have been reached. It is questionable whether they can be reached at all by means of military invasion. At best, there are some short term economic benefits in it for the US. It must be hoped that future governments will wake up to the real nature of the threat and fight it intelligently -in cooperation with islamic countries- and not against them. In my view, this can only be done under the leadership of the U.N., since the US has by now polarised the muslim world against them.

Thomas

[Common Sense]

Publicly distancing oneself and condemning these acts are two different things. And as far as condemning these acts, many Muslim leaders are on the wrong side of the ledger.

You're right, we do need to cut them off, and since Muslim nations or governments have been derilect in this, we're now taking new measures to assure this gets done. It's easy to carp about US policy when the threat isn't against your country, but we take threats against us very seriously and our policy has the public backing because of it. Yeah, the country is divided, but it's not so divided about the threat of terrorism or the policy to eradicate these fascist Muslims.

The US has indeed failed to conduct good intelligence, mainly because of the inadequate CIA and intelligence body we've had. We don't infiltrate like we used to, sad to say. But penetrating these groups is notoriously difficult, made more so by our oddball decision to stop infiltrating these groups long ago. And now we're left with trying to buy information from lying informers, who either make shit up or give misinformation more often than not. Okay, so we've failed to be well informed. How is that an argument against our policy? That's a might hefty premise to throw at America's feet: your poor intelligence implies you can't take the action you're now taking.

How is giving unilateral support for Israel even follow from any of this? Israel is the victim of Palestine=terrrorists. Notice who broke the cease-fire after a day? The Palestinians, that's who. Hamas has already said it won't abide by the cease-fire. Who walked out of the Oslo summit? That's right, the Palestinians after receiving all they could ask for. The Palestinians are terrorizing the Israelis. If you want a debate on who is terrorizing who and who is responding to terrorists acts, then let's have that debate. But certainly our decision to support Israel suffers from nothing you've brought up.

You don't think Afghanistan has turned out badly, do you? What could possibly make anyone think that? No more Taliban. No more governmental support for terrorists. Democracy, albeit not fullblown, in the Middle East. To say that going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq has escalated the terrorist activity or the terrorist numbers is ridiculous. They were growing. Nothing was being done to stop this growth. You already see the effect of Muslims in various European nations. Who cares if terrorist activity is rising now--that's expected. They know that Iraq will be a huge loss for them. This is why they're flooding into Iraq. To cite the increase in numbers is preposterous.

The goals of reducing terrorism isn't simply through military invasion. It's through military invasion and installing of democracies. It's through ridding the world of rogue governments who support terrorists. Iran is next. Then Saudi Arabia. Then N. Korea. Then France (in my dreams).

The UN? That's one pathetical inept entity. The UN has already turned its back to various nations that needed it. The UN is notoriously corrupt. The UN is the same entity that won't condemn Palestine, but gives more money to them than any other organization. The UN won't condemn Palestinian terrorists but finds the time to sanction and condemn Israel.

You let me know what the UN would be without the US. You then let me know when the UN finds time to define 'terrorism,' such that it may condemn terrorists. You let me know when it stops biasly siding against Israel, the victim of the Palestinians. You let me know when the UN decides to take "serious measures" after it announces it will.

How about that ridiculous ruling against Israel for building its wall? That was an illegal ruling. Israel, by law, had to be a willing participant, but they weren't. That didn't stop that ruling from being handed down, though, did it?

I smell anti-Semitism here,

Common Sense

[Thomas Knierim]

C.S.: Okay, so we've failed to be well informed. How is that an argument against our policy?

This should be pretty self-explanatory. If the government is not well informed and if it lacks vital intelligence, as you admitted was the case, then any policy decision made from that disposition runs a risk of being flawed. I don’t think this was the case in Iraq, but it was certainly the case in Afghanistan. Little was known about Afghanistan and the Taliban, except the location of their camps.

C.S.: How is giving unilateral support for Israel even follow from any of this?

Unilateral support for Israel is an important pillar of America’s Middle East policy. It’s almost a classic. It is obvious that unconditional unilateral support of Israel is threatening the peace process in the region. It should be self-evident that you cannot have a diplomatic dialogue at all if you give one party a free ticket. Unfortunately, the situation has worsened considerably under Sharon and Bush.

C.S.: You don't think Afghanistan has turned out badly, do you?

The primary mission of the intervention was to take out Al Quaida. That mission has largely failed, and Al Quaida has simply relocated. Bin Laden has mysteriously evaded the mighty US military. However, the secondary mission, to overthrow the Taliban government, was successful. So yes, it did not turn out quite as bad. It wasn’t exactly a military showpiece, but it got rid of the Taliban, and I’d agree this alone is a blessing. Let’s just hope there won’t be another Taliban in ten years from now.

C.S.: To say that going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq has escalated the terrorist activity or the terrorist numbers is ridiculous.

You see, this is what Bush doesn’t seem to understand. At least he pretends not to understand it and a large part of the American public is naïve enough to believe him. Terrorists operate independently of large scale political entities, such as nations. It is of no use to strike at a nation to wipe out terrorism. Terrorism cannot be wiped out that way. The culprits will simply move on to greener pastures, and there will always be greener pastures. Terrorism can only be stopped by not giving people a reason to become terrorists. That includes –primarily– abstaining from pre-emptive strikes against Muslim nations and not supplying weaponry to Israel.

In Iraq, people knew that there were no WOMs. The diplomats knew it, the inspectors knew it, the president knew it. With a minimum understanding of surveillance technology everyone can see why. The country was teeming with inspectors for years, and Iraq is basically a large sandbox, which means that any terrestrial facility able to produce WOM technology would have showed up on the satellites. It became increasingly clear that the Bush government used a pretext to dupe the diplomats, the UN, as well as the public at home. The whole thing was a mockery.

C.S.: The UN? That's one pathetical inept entity. The UN has already turned its back to various nations that needed it. The UN is notoriously corrupt.

The UN has its flaws, like any organisation of that scale, but it is THE ONLY organisation that has the power to solve international conflicts and it solves these conflicts preferably by diplomatic measures and only in exceptional cases by military force. The UN deployed troops in the Balkan war, which were instrumental in ending the conflict. Forgotten already? Of course, the UN has been weakened by actions such as that of president Bush going unilateral and forming external “alliances”. But if you look around in Europe now, I’d reckon the so-called alliance has pretty much evaporated, whereas Blair may be the last straw. - In future, there will be the UN and only the UN.

The US is a military superpower, but that does not mean it is invincible. There is no military solution to the terrorism problem. It is important to understand that. Terrorism can only be fought with the help of local intelligence. It requires the cooperation of Muslim nations. The Bush government has manoeuvred itself into a situation where such a cooperation becomes exceedingly difficult. Besides, it should be obvious that even the US military is not mighty enough to take on the entire Muslim world. It would be a fatal error to invade further so-called “rogue” nations and it would have very dire consequences, both for the US and the world community.

Thomas

[vicente]

There is no military solution to the terrorism problem. It is important to understand that.

America should listen to real hero's, not War Mongers:

"The US will never start a war," the president said. "We do not want a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall do our part to build a world of peace..." - John F Kennedy June1963

"You can eliminate people but you cannot eliminate human thought...If we could love even those who have attacked us, and seek to understand why they have done so, what then would be our response? Yet if we meet negativity with negativity, rage with rage, attack with attack, what then will be the outcome? These are the questions that are placed before the human race today. They are questions that we have failed to answer for thousands of years. Failure to answer them now could eliminate the need to answer them at all. If you truely wish to heal your own sadness or anger, seek to heal the sadness or anger of another". - HH Dalai Lama

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that". - Martin Luther King, Jr.

:)

[Ronagon]

Unilateral support for Israel is an important pillar of America’s Middle East policy. It’s almost a classic. It is obvious that unconditional unilateral support of Israel is threatening the peace process in the region. It should be self-evident that you cannot have a diplomatic dialogue at all if you give one party a free ticket. Unfortunately, the situation has worsened considerably under Sharon and Bush.

Israel has only ever been attacked from the very beginning, because their very existence and eclipsing success in the region, wounded the pride of the surrounding Arab nations. Israel did nothing to deserve being attacked from the beginning... All of this boils down to the supreme and secret human motivating force: ENVY.

Israel's "unprovoked attacks" have always really been examples of its having to defend itself from unprovoked onslaught, and then the Arab oil-controlled media deliberately turning around and editing their acts of defense completely out of context, and presenting them as "unprovoked atrocities".

The surrounding Arab nations were never particularly hostile toward Israel, until Israel started flourishing beyond what the Arab nations had been able to achieve, and that is when the attacks started.

This is all about wounded pride, and using savage violence as a way of "avenging" that wounded pride, instead of a culture doing the more truly honorable thing, and changing the way it thinks and conducts itself, in order to produce a better quality of life, so that resentment and envy no longer rear their ugly heads.

And since Israel has conducted itself in this way throughout, of COURSE the United States should give it a "free ticket"... This is the right and honorable thing to do; however, if Israel shows that it has truly behaved unfairly, that "free ticket" should be withdrawn. Thus far, Israel has earned its "free ticket", and should retain it, so long as it continues to behave fairly.

Again, this entire "grand struggle" boils down to nothing more than that which motivated the story of Cain and Abel: profound, unreasoning ENVY as an unacknowledged and unadmitted motivating force.

Childish ENVY is what I see as really being at work here, driving all the seemingly impressive grown-up rhetoric, posturing, and behaviors. But nobody wants to admit this, because it's a deeply shameful truth to admit.

[vicente]

Israel did nothing to deserve being attacked from the beginning...

Whoa! Sounds like Fox News revisionism.

Didn't the British allow armed illegal aliens into PALESTINE following WW2? Wasn't it those same armed illegal aliens who stole home and land from PALESTINIANS and forced them into refugee camps? Why did you think there are refugee camps?

Jews been trying to steal the land of Palestine ever since Sarah duped Ishmael out of his inheritence.


Israel Is The Problem, Not Iraq
By James J. David Retired Brigadier General
Note - James J. David is a retired Brigadier General and a graduate of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defense University, Washington, DC. He served as a Company Commander with the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970 and also served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in and around the Middle East from 1967-1969.

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons? Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non- proliferation treaty and bars international inspections? Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions? Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire? Answer: Israel.

Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)? Answer: Israel.

Q: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed? Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war? Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses? Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated? Answer: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated? Answer: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister? Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors? Answer: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union? Answer: Israel.

Q: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon? Answer: Israel.

Q. What Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody? Answer: Israel

Q. What Middle East country preaches against hate yet builds a shrine and a memorial for a murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they prayed in their Mosque. Answer: Israel

Q: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders? Answer: Israel.

Q. Which country in the Middle East deliberately targeted a U.N. Refugee Camp in Qana, Lebanon and killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children? Answer: Israel

Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes? Answer: Israel.

Q. Which country in the Middle East receives more than one-third of all U.S. aid yet is the 16th richest country in the world? Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East receives U.S. weapons for free and then sells the technology to the Republic of China even at the objections of the U.S.? Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East routinely insults the American people by having its Prime Minister address the United States Congress and lecturing them like children on why they have no right to reduce foreign aid? Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because "We control America?" Answer: Israel

Q. What country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing? Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing 15 civilians including 9 children? Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehicles, bulldozers, or tanks? Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing? Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children? Answer: Israel

Q. Which country in the Middle East regularly violates the Geneva Convention by imposing collective punishment on entire towns, villages, and camps, for the acts of a few, and even goes as far as demolishing entire villages while people are still in their homes? Answer: Israel

Q: What country in the Middle East is the United States threatening to attack because of fear that it may be a threat to us and to our allies? Answer: Iraq

[Common Sense]

Wow, Vicente, what you don't know about Israel, the Arab nations, terrorists, and the Middle East could fill volumes.

Try reading Arafat's War by Efraim Karsh. Then move on to books by Dore Gold. Stop reading Benny Morris.

It's always the revionist scoundrels that accuse others of rewriting history.

Israel is responsible for the Palestinian refugees problem? Keep living that myth. It has been understood by anyone with any historical understanding that the Arab nations created the 'Palestinian refugee problem.'

It's hard to steal what was always yours, so your whole Israel is trying to steal the land scenario is laughable.

What nation continues to be bordered by enemies? What nation continues to live in the heartland of the greatest plague that this earth knows, Islam? What nation has been attacked twice now on a major scale by Arab nations? Of course they beat back these backwards people, which is how they've legally expanded their terrorities. Which nations continues to be the greatest target of terrorists, while the UN continues to pass anti-Semitic anti-Israel resolution after anti-Israel resolution? The Arabs want to eradicate which nation? Which people do they hate more than anyone? Oh well, maybe, just maybe, Israel has good reason not to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

To view the Israelis as anything but victims retaliating justly for crimes against them is simply to have a warped sense of reality. You, Vicente, are the most politically warped invididual I've seen here. You can't even get American history right, so why would anyone expect that you'd understand anything about the Middle East is beyond me.

The UN passes at least 6 resolutions yearly condemning Israel specifically by name, but nothing against Arab states that house and abet terrorist activities. This is the UN that you and Thomas think will solve our problems. How malicious of you both.

Q: How many reliable sources do you provide for you anti-Semitic diatribe?
A: NONE.

Q: How credible is Vicente?
A: NOT AT ALL

Q: Who can phrase ridiculous questions and answers without giving the context of actions?
A: Vicente.

Q: What purpose does this serve him?
A: It seperates a country's actions with the circumstances for doing them, thereby allowing mental midgets like Vicente to make claims about the country disingenuously.

SAMPLE:
Q: Country 'A' bombed Country 'B'
A: Country is bad.

CONCLUSION:

Vicente is a manipulative, deceiving little boy without any understanding of history, just his anti-Semitic revisionist slant on things.

If penises were brains, you'd be hung like a hobby horse.

[vicente]

the Arab nations created the 'Palestinian refugee problem.'


So,...they were really illegal armed "Arab" aliens who the British let in,...and they stole Palestine from the Palestinians (Palestine been around for thousands of years, according to 1st Century Roman texts I've seen), then these illegal Arab gunmen gave Palestine to the Jews and blamed the Jews for stealing their land and kicking out of their homes. OK,..that makes sense.

It's hard to steal what was always yours

When was Palestine ever the Jews to begin with? When Moses said this is our promise land, all we have to do is go steal it?

You can't even get American history right, so why would anyone expect that you'd understand anything about the Middle East is beyond me.


Can you name a single instance that I did not get American history right?

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion". June 10, 1797

On February 10, 1814 Thomas Jefferson wrote that common law "is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England…about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.…We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." Christian values are not American values.

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book." Thomas Paine

:)

[Common Sense]

Ha! So when it comes to your lofty reputation one needs to provide citations for his claims?

If only you could find it in your hypocritical body to do the same with your half-truths and your dense Q & A miasma, this forum wouldn't be the claptrap collection it currently is.

[venom mama]

israel


palestine




so much blood shed over such a tiny section of land










:(

[vicente]

If only you could find it in your hypocritical body to do the same with your half-truths and your dense Q & A miasma, this forum wouldn't be the claptrap collection it currently is.

If you're looking for a David Barton Christian revisionist type forum I'm certain there are many available,...the real question is why are you here. Do you have any interests in Quantum physics, Philosophy, Buddhism or Current Events? Besides attacking it?

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misqidx.htm
http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/beyond/beyond08.htm

:)

[Common Sense]

If you're looking for a David Barton Christian revisionist type forum I'm certain there are many available,...

If I were looking for a David Barton Christian revisionist type forum, then I'd take your word that there are many available and off I'd go to find one. As I am not, I can only thank you for speculating on my interests.

As for the real question, let me say that I'd like to know more about Quantum physics than I currently do, less about Buddhism than I currently do, always more about Current Events, and just enough philosophy to impress Wittgenstein's ghost.

Besides attacking it? I don't know, perhaps I'm waiting for the next submission to kill this lingering hope that someone will start an interesting topic in the philosophy forum. I would start one myself, but I haven't seen a reason to think that it would garner much interest or interesting replies. I'm cynical perhaps. So, if it's okay, I'll just visit every then and again to see if something catches my interest. If not, then I'll probably forget about this place and you all can then forget about me. I think that's fair.

As for American history, I'm not an eager participant in debates about it. I think people should avail themselves of the most reliable and scholarly sources and then, hopefully, make objective conclusions about it. I find most people do not and cannot do as much. God forbid that someone come to believe something you or I say without checking our sources or doing careful study for themselves. So I will only supply occasional sources for anyone who cares to read them, but I'll not debate much of anything on the topic.

I will though clash swords with those espousing preposterous claims about more urgent matters. E.g., the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, president Bush, the ongoing Middle East crisis, France, Chirac, the UN and thugs, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chomsky, etc. Opinions on such matters have more immediate consequences, as our enemies greatest strategem is to win the hearts and minds of the stupid. And since it's propaganda that's being put forth here, I'll do my best to expose it as such. I fear no substantive argument by anyone here, as I think the facts are on my side. But I hardly need a substantive argument to expose rhetoric as rhetoric.

Philosophy, you say? Sure, I love it. Although what I love doesn't seem to be getting fair representation here, so when I see something worthy of being called a 'philosophical topic,' I just might jump in. Until then, I'll let Asheera and you hog the podium.

regards,

Common Sense

[sahyo]

so much blood shed over such a tiny section of land




not the land

[Common Sense]

I think I've got it! I'm to post anything at all just so it will be the last post, right? I must be right. I'll wait and see.

[Ronagon]

let me say that I'd like to know more about Quantum physics than I currently do

Common, if you've ever seen any science fiction at all, you already understand quantum mechanics:

In any moment, there are an infinite number of paths that reality can take, but that somehow it settles on just one. (Remember all those "parallel universe" episodes? Evil Spock and Captain Kirk?)

Quantum mechanics centers around the notion that this really does happen, and that all those potential realities "collapse" into one, that retroactively was suddenly there all along, as soon as you take a measurement of a particle, which forces it to "choose" what it's going to be.

In other words, quantum is a zen mind-**** that nobody really understands, except to say that it is a kind of loaded randomness...

The best way I can suggest for you to understand it better, is to rent a movie called "MindWalk"... quantum particles in that film are describe not as things that exist in our world with definite certainty in time and place, but rather "probablistic phantoms" that show "tendencies to exist"... and those tendencies behave according to mathematical wave equations in time and locations in space.

As these tendency waves interact with each other, they reinforce each other in places where the amplitudes are large, and diminish each other in places where the amplitudes are small or opposing, and the end result is a more resolved tendency, that approaches an actual certainty. This is why quantum particles are wishy-washy, and on our macro scale, objects and things are definite.

That's the best I can do... that's every book and course I ever had in quantum, distilled down into a few paragraphs. All for free.

[vicente]

perhaps I'm waiting for the next submission to kill this lingering hope that someone will start an interesting topic in the philosophy forum.

Well there's the problem Common Sense,...you have yet to let go enough to have a philosophical discussion.

Please allow me explain the perniciousness of hope, or "lingering hope".

hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation. 1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief. 3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an
expected payoff.

Is there a more dishonest word than hope?

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition,...an attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Heart? The belief of hope is a barrier which obscures the Heart's inherent unconditional preferencelessness. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack or need, nor see positive or negative as good or bad.

If our attention is on seeking hope, how are we to ever experience immediacy,...the Now? If we seek hope, our overall frequency pattern will be one of projecting a self-manifested incompleteness, and thus can only attract to itself, that incompleteness. It is no different than a mirror in ones bathroom; if you look into the mirror with a frown, it will not reflect back a smile. In other words, our hope will never be realized as long as we hope; just like joy is never actualized if we are looking for it.

Hope is a condition,...Love is Unconditional. Hope can never enter Love, because a condition cannot enter the Unconditional. Thus, if there is one action in the world which could precipitate a tremendum of Collective metanoic proportions, it would be the deletion of the word hope from our vocabulary.

:)

[Common Sense]

Those are all very pretty words, Vicente.

I wasn't aware that I was suffering from anything so profound as the hope you speak of. Being a simple man, I thought that since the title on the door included the words "Philosophy" and "Forum," that I'd find something that would satisfy that name.

Experience has shown me that behind the door labeled "Men," there are usually only men. And behind the door labeled "Women," there are usually only women, at least I gather this from those I see exiting.

So then my hope now seems like a rightful expectation. How could the dishonesty lie with my hope? I think we'd better attribute it to the sign on the door or on those I'll call 'philosophical transvestites' (non-philosophers in drag). Eventually, if we become intimate enough with their thoughts, we'll figure out the ruse.

But some will fail to fool us even on a superficial level.

Asheera, sir, you forgot to shave again,

Common Sense

[venom mama]

another thing i don't understand is common sense's need to insult others and put them down. people who have been posting here for years are now falling to the put downs of someone who just recently became a member. so common sense thinks the way to get others to read what he says is to mock them? complain about them? sure some of us here disagreed on things but we continue to respect what others say.

respect



my advice to common:


if you think no one here meets your intellectual standards,


go the hell someplace else.

[Thomas Knierim]

In the context of the Iraq war and the looming conflict with Iran, I would like to quote something from a great man named Erasmus Desiderius. It was written 500 years ago at the time when Europe was torn apart by the Reformation. This makes it not exactly a “current event”, but I find that it befits the present conflict between Islamic and Christian nations just as well, because this conflict contains the same pernicious concoction of fanatic religiousness and crazed power politics.

“Moreover, since the Christian Church was founded on blood, strengthened by blood, and increased by blood, they continue to manage its affairs by the sword as if Christ has perished and can no longer protect his own people in his own way. War is something so monstrous that it befits wild beasts rather than men, so crazy that the poets even imagine it is let loose by furies, so deadly that it sweeps like a plague through the world, so unjust that it is generally carried out by the worst type of bandit, so impious that it is quite alien to Christ, and yet they leave everything to devote themselves to war alone.”

Erasmus, Praise of Folly [59]

[vicente]

Experience has shown me that behind the door labeled "Men," there are usually only men.

Once upon a time there was turkey who heard a man approaching the meadow it was scratching, and so it hid. The man poured out some grain onto the ground and left,...the turkey was thrilled with this gift from the man. Again, the following day, the man approached, the turkey hid, the man poured out some grain and left, and the turkey feasted. This went on and on, until one day, when the turkey heard the man coming (because experience had shown the turkey the man meant no harm, just grain) he did not hide. The man entered the meadow, shot the turkey, and had a wonderful dinner of fattened turkey.

Experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief.

Those are all very pretty words, Vicente.

Well thank you,...but they are also words that point to something very relevant for any one wishing to realize who they are,...that is, verses who they think they are.

Asheera, sir, you forgot to shave again

Asheera is a lovely woman whom I've been acquainted through postings for 5 years (Sherry's Sharings),...she could be called a strick 'non-dualist', who is a real pain in the butt to anyone who clings to duality for their identity.

How could the dishonesty lie with my hope?

Because hope, as I explained, is always dishonest.

those I'll call 'philosophical transvestites' (non-philosophers in drag).

Philosophy, the Love of Wisdom,...I personally see this forum more as an Ontosophy one, the Widom of Being. That is, instead of admiring art, we discuss how we can create our own,...how we can be artists.

Although my education was in Philosophy, it was actually the Religious Studies option. I only did maybe 4-5 classes in strictly philosophy, so I probably more of a non-philosopher-in-drag,...but then, I never professed to be a philosopher, nor would I.

Once I did a pinochle threesome with the philosophy chairs of MSU and Univ of Arkansas,...it took those two 35 minutes to philosophize on the rules before we began,...after seeming humorous for a few minutes, it quickly got as boring.

:)

[Common Sense]

The lesson I drew from the story about the turkey is that you people are mendacious and malicious. How fitting.

Experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief.
Are you intellectually dyslexic? I'm talking about 'belief born of experience, not vice versa.'

You're right, Asheera can be a pain in the butt, but, trust me, it has nothing to do with her philosophical leanings, it has everything to do with her "English."

In one sense you did explain how hope was dishonest, in the sense that you gave a story that had the moral that hope was dishonest. But in a more important sense, you explained no such thing, for the small fact that hope is neither honest nor dishonest. You've let your literary flare contaminate your thinking.

So the supposed meaning of 'philosophy' leads you to believe that what should be discussed in a philosophy forum is how to be artists? Pray tell, whatever would they talk about in an Artists Forum?

I find it futile to explain to you the etymology of 'philosophy' for at least two reasons. One, I'd have to explain to you what the Greeks meant by their word-'wisdom' and, two, I'd have to explain to you that etymology isn't synonymous with current meaning. But I think you should know the current meaning, which you show no sign of knowing, so I'll not take on the gargantuan task of explaining something so basic to you.

You studied philosophy of religion? I suppose you might have heard of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic, aesthetics, also? Only a charitable reading of your 'how to be artists' would place that topic under Aesthetics. So what you've done is delineate what one ought to study under the rubric of Philosophy to what one might study under the rubric of Aesthetics. Is there nothing you don't misunderstand or manipulate to suit your desires?

Thomas,

I want to thank you for showing me your card. I wasn't sure about the anti-Semitism before, but now you've put those doubts to rest. You're so pro-Islam that you've become anti-Semitic. Then again, being European, it would have been hard to escape that flaw even without Islam.

I was delighted by your characterization of Christianity, given that you had to go back 500 years. I'm also glad you've now made the topic brutality. We'll soon have plenty to compare. I wonder which religion, Islam or Christianity, will be shamed in that comparison? Hmm, I don't really wonder. And when I bring you up to the present, you too might not have any doubts. I'll not try to convince you that even the Crusades were a response to the bloody spread of Islam, but then I don't need to to prove that point in order to show that Islam is the most murderous, God-forsaken religion this world has known. It's neither a revealed religion nor a natural religion, it's at best idolatry of the Hebrew god. But this will have to wait, as I have little time today and my task spurs me to be thorough.

You stand on the side of Islam, against Jews and Israel, and with the UN. At least you're consistent, Thomas.

[venom mama]

Originally posted by asheera@Feb 12 2005, 10:46 AM

so much blood shed over such a tiny section of land




not the land





then what?

faith?




do they really even know?

do they really even have faith in what they think they know?

[venom mama]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Feb 12 2005, 11:13 PM

“Moreover, since the Christian Church was founded on blood, strengthened by blood, and increased by blood, they continue to manage its affairs by the sword as if Christ has perished and can no longer protect his own people in his own way. War is something so monstrous that it befits wild beasts rather than men, so crazy that the poets even imagine it is let loose by furies, so deadly that it sweeps like a plague through the world, so unjust that it is generally carried out by the worst type of bandit, so impious that it is quite alien to Christ, and yet they leave everything to devote themselves to war alone.”

Erasmus, Praise of Folly [59]
men are wild beasts.




we are all but a part of nature.

survival of the fittest.

war just goes to prove that we cannot escape what we are.





:peace:

[sahyo]

is a real pain in the butt to anyone who clings



hehehe

jelly :hug: bean


;)