The Ricky, Joe and Sam Experience
joepo...@earthlink.net
leave our rooms or computer for all the studying we must do, Ricky, Sam
and I have decided to create a thread for random discussions and
debates on current and historical events. Our first topic of
discussion was proposed by Ricky Wat.
What are everyones feelings on the election of Hamas in Palestine?
They were democraticaly elected and now there is the issue of funding,
etc. etc. What should the U.S. do, what should other organizations and
countries do, what should Hamas do, what does this say about American
democracy, what should Israel do, is Hamas right... Any discussion!
Lets let out all our negative APUSH energy in here... all i can say is
peace in the middle east.
Ricky Wat
my stomach whenever I say that, wtf) Hamas is universially recognized a
BAD organization, so what the fck does Vladimir Putin (Russian
President) want to negociate and establish diplomatic ties with
terrorist organizations? Russian and the Soviet Union has historically
provided Arab nations would military hardware and technologies, and
today, Russia is still continue supplying Su-27 Flankers to Pakistan
and India and fueling a cold war there. I believe that Russia cannot be
trusted, and Poland should invade St. Petersburg and Vladivostok. I
cannot see how any religion can promote self-sacrifice for any cause.
The human body and soul is the perfect manifestation of God himself.
The human body is the God's most valueable creation, Why would God ever
command you to give up your own life like you were indispensable?
Man, What a horrible post.
- Ricky Wat
bsa...@gmail.com
have no social lives at least include the rest of the class in this
pursuit of some insight into the real world. (At least the non APUS
world). We unfortunately almost never discuss things going on in the
world that were impacting and shaping American history like the
Industrial Revolution. Global history/studies gives a much broader and
diverse sense of the numerous environmental and human factors shaping
world wide events.
In any case back to Hamas and Palestine. Let us first establish that
Palestine is one of the poorest places on earth where citizens enjoy
some of the fewest opportunities and possibilities in life. The PLO
party that effectively has governed Palestine for the last couple
decades was largerly corrupt, inefficient, and most importantly unable
to provide the most basic govermental services like providing
education, healthcare, and food supplies. Hamas aside from being a
terrorist organization that was launching suicide attacks against
Isreal also provided these govermental services the PLO goverment did
not offer. They created schools, clinics, and provided assistance to
impovershed Palestinians. In addition, the terrorist ideology and
attacks of Hamas appealed to people who were oppressed and persecuted
by the military of Isreal. If you were living without opportunities
would you not cheer the one organization seemingly standing up and
defending your interests?
Now I am not justifying the use of terrorism against the citizens of
Isreal. From a moral/ethical perspective what they did in the past was
wrong. I must also mention that the way Isreal has treated the
Palestinian people is from any moral perspective is wrong as well.
Building a wall to seperate people does not seem consistent with Judaic
or Christian tradition. Trying to weigh the relative morality of
systematic oppression and premeditated murder is foolish to attempt.
Therefore, our best tool as I assumed in previous paragraphs is to try
to understand why the people of Palestine would elect Hamas.
Let us return to the previous discussion...The people of Palestine have
some of the most limited opportunities and possobilities in the world.
Hamas the terrorist organization provided some of the opportunities
that the goverment failed to provide. In addition, they resisted the
oppression that was being imposed upon your people. If you were living
in this situation would you vote for a corrupt political party like the
PLO or Hamas. Not suprisingly the people of Palestine chose Hamas. The
question becomes will the world allow Hamas to provide its people with
the opportunities its people need. From this perspective I believe that
cutting off foreign aid could be disastorous. If you make it
immpossible for Hamas to pursue its agenda as a reform party offering
goverment services to its people you force them to play their other
card of terrorism. Remember Hamas has not commited a terrorist attack
for over a year but they have not renounced terrorism. In fact they
refuse to recognize Isreal as a nation state claiming that Isreal does
not exist becuase the land belongs to the Palestinians. All of this and
particularly the ongoing development of nuclear weapons in Iran
presents Isreal with a set of difficult choices.
Here is to peace in the middle east and that May and the exam fly by
bsa...@gmail.com
joepo...@earthlink.net
to be a bad joke. ricky sam and i were just thinking about having a
thread for random discussion which the entire class could post to, so i
thought up a wak title and posted it. again, i feel really bad now
because when i look at the title it does seem like its for us three and
that would be an asshole thing to do. if you want to delete it and
make a new one that would be cool. my fault, dont get mad at ricky or
sam.
on the current topic
hamas is recognized as a legitimate terrorist organization that has
caused severe pain and suffering. i understand it provides
oppurtunitties for the palestinian people, and i realize that cutting
off foreign aid could be real bad. I think it would be good to give
some cash to help get palestine going and support the sharing of
israel. if hamas still cant control its homeys and stop them from
attacking israelis, aid should be cut off. if hamas continues its
little mission statement of driving israel into the sea, not only
shoudl aid be cut off, but a major peacekeeping operation should begin.
the one thing i can say about israel and palestine is that none of them
have had it easy, and its amazing that they cant just get along. i see
them both as a bunch of babies with seriously stubborn leaders on both
sides. if they were representing the interests of their people
seriously, they would realize that a compromise is in everyones best
interests. (not only that region, but the rest of the world) I
seriously cannot believe that they have not learned the kindergarten
lesson of sharing.
in response to ricky: whhhhhaaaaaaat???? invade russia?
whit...@gmail.com
my morning newspaper reading time...
I agree with ben, I can see why the hamas was elected. I think that
America should not become involved in the palestinean government, this
sends a message that America takes over any government it does not
agree with (not very democratic...). Just because America has a
powerful military does not mean it can control the world in the name of
democracy. If anything, America can maybe provide protection for
Israel. Basically, America should wait, the Hamas could turn out to be
a fine government.
becca
become involved in politics, the terrorism could subside. The PLO,
with Yassar Arafat, were much more involved in terrorism before Arafat
started peace negotiations with Israel. The tensions between Palestine
and Israel involve all these religious problems too--the Israeli
government is dominated by orthodox officials, and long-standing
religious conflicts are going to take a while to resolve. I don't
think American can really do anything to help all of this
Middle-Eastern tension right now--the Hamas, because they have popular
support in Palestine, might be the only option for peace (even though
their terrorist past doesn't give Israelis a lot of hope...) Israel
will have problems now that Hamas is in power, but the previous
Palestinian gov't did make some peaceful efforts..maybe that will start
up again with this new government.
saml...@yahoo.com
issue. This conflict is arguably one of the oldest, most complex and
troublesome conflicts in history. To call them all stubborn and babyish
would offend most people involved. By stating that "it is amazing that
they cant all get along" very much dwarfs the complexity and the
importance of the issue. In order to understand the situation better
you must put yourself in the shoes of both the israelis and the
palestinians.
Imagine that you are an israeli whose anscestors have been persecuted
for thousands of years, gone through numerous genocides and havent
found a welcoming home since they lived in israel (or palestine) 2000
years ago. Now that you live back on your homeland and the land which
you believe was promised to you by god, you are constantly under duress
from a surrounding of hostile muslim countries. You also cannot take a
public bus in fear that you may be blown up by hamas terrorists.
At the same time, try to imagine that you are a palestinian. You used
to live peacefully in the land of palestine which is also your
religious holy land. The British gave your country to the Jews in 1947.
Ever since then your people have been pushed by the israeli government
into small, barron, destitute ghettos where your people live in
conditions as bad as anyone else in the world.
Joe, from where you live in Cambridge mass as a secular
french-canadian, there is no way that you can even come close to
feeling the pain and suffering that has come out of this extremely
complex issue. It is the same for the rest of us. Because of our
unfortunate ignorance and lack of empathy, we must do our best to put
our selves in the shoes of israelis and palestinians so that we can
better understand why this conflict is so difficult to solve.
-Sam Lawrence
happykit...@yahoo.com
don't you guys find the whole paragraph about the Lowell System in
Chapter 10 so unreal? i have visited Lowell mills before and the young
women were not treated as fairly as Brinkley describes. Their bosses
were not generous and the living condition was horrible! i dont'
understand why Brinkley is presenting such sugar coated "facts"~!
maxte...@yahoo.com
it the donut, b/c it has more sugar than a choclate chip muffin.
Basically, Brinkley portrays the negetive events that occured in
American Society in a much more positivie light than we think is fair.
However, Brinkley has the right to do that because if they over
dramatized theze situations, you would have complaining 11 graders with
no lives saying that the book is unpariotic.
-MAX
slugge...@yahoo.com
Did you know that students even at RINDGE have been posting BURNING
ISRAELI FLAGS on online sites. As a jew I can't help but feel
offended. However some reason that ...burning an "israeli" flag is
representing the end of an illegal brutal occupation not hatin on Jews.
No matter what it may represent...to me it's a sign of hate. When
people see a burning flag...the first thought that will pop into their
heads is HATE..and HATE BREEDS MORE HATE. Regardless of the very
complex situation for the Isreal and Palestine, I believe there is
never justification for the burning of flags. So when people say to
"just get over it", I'm not. There is already enough hate in the world,
we don't need more of it... especially CAMBRIDGEEEE (represeeeennnt)
:) Hannah!
joepo...@earthlink.net
response this weekend when i have time.
joepo...@earthlink.net
comes a little later in the book? becuase the climax could be when
pemberton mills collapsed with all those people inside and then caught
on fire. that was in 1860?
joepo...@earthlink.net
On Joe's behalf, I agree with his argument over the Israeli/Palestinian
fued. In my opinion, the constant anger and violence in Israel, is as
Joe writes, directly linked to the fact that Israelis and Palestinians
simply cannot share. If you look at the violence and the roots of the
violence the disagreements clearly stem from the basis that they cannot
and will not discuss how to live peacefully and share a small, holy
piece of land. These two parties need to come together, with a clear
objective in mind, and finally discuss in a peaceful setting how to end
the guerilla violence, and learn how to share Israel. Peace in the
middle East.
-Benji
Joe writes--benji is right, listen up to his right self. also, sam
thanks for associating my french canadianess with ignorace. much
appreciated!
Marielle Ramsay
sides of the Israeli/Palestianian conflict share. For instance, on
both sides, people share the common value of human dignity - one deeply
rooted in their religious traditions and historical memories. While,
their national desires are different, their need for preserving human
diginity, which is not a mutually exclusive principle, will allow
tolerance.
ps personally, i liked the title of the email.
saml...@yahoo.com
believe that everyone on the earth is ignorant no matter what ethnicity
because it is impossible to know how others feel. I was making the
point that you as well as most of the rest of us live very different
lives than the people living in israel/palestine. We can't ever come
close to understanding the types of things that they go through on an
everyday basis. Similarly to how they cannot feel the types of things
we go through. Everyone is ignorant of the situations of others because
he/she is not them.
-Sam LAwrence
joepo...@earthlink.net
Ricky Wat
Israel should NOT bow to to dissentience. I see perfect justification
for Israel to invade Gaza Strip, West Bank, and resassert
administrative control over the Golan Heights. Just as militant Hamas
members are willing to disrupt the fragile balance of peace in Mid.
East, Israel retains full authoritian rights under interntational law
to kick their ass. IDF should sent 1,000 of their tanks into Palestine
and suppress Hamas and Hezbollash terrorist organization in bloodly
street-street urban combat. No country in the world is more synonymous
with armored warfare than Israel. And with good reason: no country is
more dependent for its very survival on the quality of its armored
formations. Thus armed with the experience of almost 30 years of tank
warfare, and with full knowledge of its needs, the Israeli Defense
Force (IDF) has come up with a marvel of tank engineering that boasts
firsts in a number of categories. Israel's Merkava MK4 MTB tanks would
massacre America's M1A2 Abrams, and would blow Soviet T-64s and
recycled T-72 tanks back to China. Israel is such a powerful military
force in the Middle East, Israel can rain thousands ultra-agile Phoenix
missiles over Iran's Ayataollash in a heartbeat. Israel's Jericho
nuclear missiles (de facto) could blow Tethran out of the sky for its
anti-Holocaust comments. Why should Israel withstand such gruesome
attacks when it retains the power to fck the terrorist a million times
over? Its not like they do not have the military logistical ability to
eliminate Hamas and their terrorist allies, Why are they hesitant on
using force to suppress the enemy? The safety and existence of the
State of Israel depends on their immediate retailiation against
thundering foes like Hamas before they attain somuch political power
and influence that there would be full-scale war and conflict.
Israel's Merkava MK 4 <---World's Best Tank.
- Ricky Wat
alan.i...@gmail.com
will be an all out war with every Middle Eastern country going against
Israel. However, Israel would probably hold up very well because 1)
countries in the Middle East do not have powerful armies compared to
that of Israel 2) Israel gets weapons, vehicles, planes, NUKES.... etc
+ MONEY from the US because Israel is America's bitch 3) the US would
sent troops to fight for them. Now what happens when Israel wins?
Disaster for the Middle Eastern countries and increasing resentment
against America... = more terrorists. Then those terrorists would want
to destroy America. So overall its just bad for us.
joepo...@earthlink.net
the worlds "best tank". thats what people said about the tiger tank.
it had an 88mm gun, and 120mm of armor? what could beat that? how
about 1 million decent tanks, the shreman? or kabillions of shitty
tanks-the t-34? Ricky, the U.S. tanks would crush the israeli tanks in
a minute. they are too complicated to repair, and there are not as
many. our abrams would decimate their merkavasha whatevers.
On the other hand. Why does Israel have the right to invade any part
of palestine? since when do they have the right to even be there?
just because the british supported dumping them there after the
holocaust? the palestinians were there. israel has no right to be
there, the palestinians, on the other hand, are a bunch of herbs for
not being nicer to the most genocided people in the world. both
countries are in the wrong, and both are in the right, thats why its so
hard for them to share.
and to add to what alan said, israel is hesitant to to blow everyone up
because they are not willing to level massive civilian populations and
get to insurgents like the germans did at leningrad. secondly, the
entire middle east would absolutely destroy them, i dont think they
would have a chance in hell at holding out. the only thing that could
save them would be massive armies from europe and america, which would
lead to another world war. israel has no right to use their superior
military force to attack the palestinians, because, in the first place,
they have no right to even feel justified in being there. what if
there was a war in outer space between martians and uranans, and the
loser martians got dumped on earth. would we feel salted? would we
want to get those jerks off of north america? absolutely. but would
it be rude of us to want to move them after their planet just got blown
up? absolutey. okay so that was a bad analogy but whatever.
Ricky Wat
Your argument is flawed, because the only nations that support Hamas
politcally and financially are the Islamic Republic of Iran, Syrian
Arab Republic, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Yemen, and the Lebanese
Republic. Jordan has historically banned Hamas and Saudia Arabia and
Egypt has renounced all political ties to Hamas terrorist-affiliated
groups. Pakistan would not intervene because they are America's allies
and they are in contention with India and China over Jammu, Kashmir,
and Aksai Chin regions to fight a land war with Israel. Iraq and
Afghanistan cannot wage war with Israel because they are obviously
subdued by the American lead coalition force. Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait,
Oman, and other former Soviet states (Armenia, Georgia, Tajikistan,
Kazahstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgzstan) are insignificant military powers
that would not dare to jepeordize international relations with United
States and do not care much about the conflict in Israel to dedicate
themselvse to war. You see, only half of the Middle East nations
support Hamas, so you cannot say that if Israel lay seige on Hamas
strongholds in West Bank and Gaza strip that there will be "all out
war with every Middle Eastern country" Plus, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon,
Turkey, and Syria DO not have any treaties, accords, or military
alliances with Hamas organization, So they would definitely not
dedicate their armies and risk the welfare of their nation in support
of a organization in which they do not have an military alilance with.
The Middle Eastern Countries are not obligated to protect Hamas, even
though their political and social influences are far reaching, there
has not been any formal military alliances established between Hamas
and other Middle Eastern nations to force nations to dedicate
themselves in protecting Hamas. The only nation that I can see
intervening militarily is Syria. Syria would most certainly protest
Israel and use their violation of the Armistice line of 1949 and 1950
to justify their invasion and annexation of Golan Heights (in which
Israel occupied after Yom Kippur War of 1967) Syria would desperate try
to reassert administrative control over the Golan Heights and try to
drive the Israeli occupation force out. Every other Middle Eastern
nation would not dedicate their national armies over this foolish and
unneccessary conflict over Hamas. Arab people are sympathetic to the
Palestinian cause and express full desire in reestablishing Jerusalem
as Palestine's capital. If Isrealis invaded, violent uproar of
Palestiniain supporters would be exposed throughout the MIddle East,
but the governments would certainly not declare War over such a small
ordeal involving Hamas. Risking war for protecting Hamas means that
they put the nation's welfare and economy in jepeordy, and Hamas is not
worth the trouble for most Middle Eastern nations. Yes, Nations in the
middle east do not have powerful armies capable of overthrowing Israel,
however, Iran and Syria both have considerable militaries that pose a
potential threat to IDF.
You know that America only give Israel approximately $2 billion a year
for military assistance. Israel themselves spend $10 billion dollars on
the military. The financial aid alone that Israel receives from the US
allows it to purchase tanks, helicopter gunships, F-16 war planes,
machine guns and bullets - all of which it uses to commit human
rights violations against the Palestinian people on a daily basis. When
it is not possible for the Israeli government to use the funds directly
on military expenditure, their use elsewhere frees up other Israeli
government funds to pay for military salaries, services and facilities.
Military power is required for Israel to maintain its occupation of the
Palestinian territories, implemented through a system of expanding
settlements, checkpoints and closure. It is therefore no exaggeration
to say that the US is funding and supplying the Israeli government's
occupation of the Palestinian territories, as without financial
subsidies from the US, the Israeli government would have found it
considerably more difficult to sustain its military occupation of the
Palestinian territories for the past thirty-four years.
Joe:
First of all, You Americans are nutts to pick your own tank. banaza!
Yes, It was true that the Panzer tanks of the Third Reichs were
technologically superior compared to the American Sherman tanks and the
Soviet T-34. The Revolutionary design of the Soviet T-34 made it
superior in many ways than the American Sherman tank. T-34 was
definitely not shitty. The 'big three' of tank design have always been
armour, firepower, and mobility. The T-34 was an outstanding balance of
all three throughout its World War Two. Its thick, sloped armour could
defeat all German anti-armour weapons. T-34's wide track, good
suspension and large engine gave it unparalleled cross-country
performance. First-generation German tanks could not begin to keep up.
In terms of firepower, the T-34's 76mm gun could penetrate any 1941
German tank with ease, however, later German tanks such as the King
Tiger tank that you mentioned was a beast in it own rights. It would
have blasted T-34's and Sherman M4's away like it was a tissue paper. I
believe that the only reason why America and Soviet Union were able to
defeat German's Panzer and King Tiger BT's was because they built their
tanks is vast quantities. I believe it was around 57,000 M4's were
produced and 101,000 T-34's compared to 3,000 King Tiger tanks. The
number of tanks simply overwhelmed the Panzer tank divisions.
I was talking about a One-on-One tank comparision between Merkava Mark
4 and M1A2 Abram. How did you spin it into King Tiger versus a "million
and Kazillion" tanks? One King Tiger versus One Sherman M4, obvious
winner would be King Tiger. One Tiger versus One T-34, obvious winner
would be King Tiger. One Merkava vs. One Abram, same result. I can see
your reasoning that inferior tanks in VAST numbers could win over
superior tanks of insufficient numbers, but that was never my point.
The comparison of tanks that I was talking about was on a One versus
One basis. The Merkava Mk-4 includes innovations in all tank quality
components - protection and survivability, firepower and mobility.
Merkava was specially designed for Israel's needs, and being heavily
armoured and highly mobile, it is one of the most well protected tanks
in the world. It is often credited to be "The best protected tank in
the world" because it bolsters Explosive Reactive Armor or what you
guys might know it as (ERA) and a rear side infantry compartment that
can accomodate EIGHT soldiers. Merkava is optimized for urban combat
and has a far more accurate fire control systems. The Merkava has an
advanced fire control system with a new 120 mm smoothbore cannon and an
advanced targeting system, giving the tank the capacity to engage and
shoot down anti-tank helicopters. Most important is that Israeli MBT
crews are one of the most experienced and highly trained tankers in
modern warfare. Fighting in urban combat conditions against Syria, The
Merkava Mk 1 was proven in open combat against Syrian T-72s, and made
an absolute joke of them. Also, the Merkava has been proven in combat
EVERY SINGLE DAY since then. Israeli Tankers have WAR experience. The
only problem with it was that it was specifically designed for the
Israelis and combat in Israel. Germany's Leopard II's are noted also as
the World's best tank but has never been proven in battle like Merkavas
and Abram. Britain's Challenger II utilized Chobham armor technology
such as those on M1 Abram series tanks. French Leclerc and the Italian
Ariete are rapid and agile tin cans. If you size them up against each
other they are pretty much equal in fire control, ammo, crew training,
and mobility. I would say the Merkava is superior to the Abrams in all
around protection from attack, while the Abrams being equal or superior
over the front. Being one of the most heavily armored and protected
armored tank vechiles, and could easily absorb armor-penetrating rounds
of the M1A2 Abrams as well as withstand bombardment by American
Hellfire missiles and Maverick air-surface missiles with ease. Its my
personal opinion that German, American, and Israeli tanks are among the
top ones.
The Jews are capable of producing some quality military equipment,
Guess who invented the atomic bomb? Synonymous with quality.
Historically speaking, the Jews were the first true inhabitants of the
land that we are speaking of. The tribes of ISrael were united by King
Saul like about 3,000 plus years ago, and after King Solomon's death,
Israel was split apart into a northern and southern states, Judah and
Israel. (this is just the off the top of my head, it might be wrong -
verrification) I don't know if it was the Mesopetamians or the
Bablynians who invaded and conquered both Judah and Israel and expelled
the Jews off out because of they refused to submit as slaves to the
Baboylians and because of their different religious doctrines. Dispora
of the Jews, they were banished from their own land. What rights did
Babylonia have in kicking the Jews off their own land? What rights do
the Roman empire/ Byzatine have in occupying the Jew's land? What
rights do the Ottoman Empire and other Muslim empires in occupying the
Jew's Native homeland huh? What rights do the British empire have in
touching the Jew's God given land huh? They absolute have no right. The
Jews RIGHTFULLY deserve to get back their native homeland that they
lost millenias ago. They deserve to recieve their land promised by God.
Why do Palestine have any rights to invade and touch Israel at all?
- Ricky Wat
Ricky Wat
[palestinians] are a bunch of herbs for not being nicer to the most
genocided people in the world"
I am DEFINITELY sure that 6 million Jews dead is not the "most
genocided
people in the world", They are the most publicized and glamorized and
documented genocide but NEVER say it was they were the "most genocide
people in the world". Ethnic cleansing, Crimes against Humanity, State
Terrorism, Democide, Mass Murder........... These are all broader terms
directly linked genocide, and throughout history, there is evidence
that shows MUCH more people were genocidally massacred and murdered
than the Holocaust. Hell, the Japanese hated the Chinese and though
they were sub-human and inferior. (Exactly same as Jews) Although the
Japanese during World War 2 did not systematically eliminate Chinese,
they held "First to chop off head of 100 Chinese people" competitions
and routinely assault and kill Chinese people as SPORT. This culminated
in the death of 30 Million Chinese during World War 2 by the Japanese
Imperial army. Most significant event was the 3 month killing spree
period known as the "Nanking Massacre." How the fck can you invade
China's Capital of Nanking, rape 80,000 women, and killing 300,000
people?? Can you imagine Japan invading Washington D.C. and killing the
same proportion of people? And of course, 30 Million Chinese MUST be
the world's most genocide people right...... nope.
Of Course, Japan refuses to apologize to the massacring of 30 million
Chinese and conducting live scientific experiments, using live Chinese
humans as guinea pigs for biological and scientific testing. (The Nazis
did this too) Throughout history, there have been millions more killled
than the Jews, I see no reason why you would say the Jews were the
most genocided people in the world because they were obviously not.
Second of all, You said the British did left Israel because they felt
bad for the "world's most genocide race" OMG OMG Where did you ever get
that insane idea? The British could careless about the Jews, the
British left Isreal because of the rising tensions and conflicts
between Palestinians and the Jews! NOT because they were sympathetic
the Jewish suffering during WW2, Where did you ever make up such funny
stories? They enacted the Palestinain Mandate in 1927. Soon after World
War II, the British, under constant armed attack by Jews and Arabs,
decided to leave Palestine. They did NOT leave Israel because they felt
*bad* about the Jews and for their Holocaust sufferings.
Also, You said "israel has no right to use their superior military
force to attack the palestinians" Duh, I never said that Israel has
right to attack Palestinians, that would be terribly wrong. I said
Israel has right to attack HAMAS terrorist organization.
I agree with you what you said about how invading Hamas would probably
spark more terrorism activity, however, it is ironic that they goal of
eliminate the enemy, might spurr their prolific growth as a whole.
You said: "secondly, the
entire middle east would absolutely destroy them, i dont think they
would have a chance in hell at holding out. the only thing that could
save them would be massive armies from europe and america, which would
lead to another world war."
I have one answer: 6 Day War of 1976 - Israel defeated two nations in
Six day.
Like I said to Alan, the "entire middle east" would not help Hamas out.
Further
more, the IDF is ranked as having one of the most powerfullest
militaries on
Earth, if Israel were to easily lose against the "entire middle east"
then Egypt
and Syria, both having the largest and powerful militaries, and
constitutes a
vast majority of military might in Middle East, should have easily
wiped Israel
off the map during the Six Day War. Entire armies from Europe and
America?
Thats hilarious because if Israel could defeat Egypt and Syria in 6
days as a
infant nation, imagine 30 years later. Israel could defeat any Middle
East nation
today, and could easily replicate a Macedonian "Alexander the Great"
style of
penetrating deep into the MIddle East heartland with its strong
military might.
You claim that it would also provoke a World War? Thats impossible.
First off,
not European nation would send forces to help Israel, let alone send
"massive
armies." Why? No European nation has any military alliance with Israel.
Not
even America would intervene on behalf of Israel because it would look
to the
entire Arab world that America is against the muslim nations and Islam
itself
by supporting the Jews and invading Iraq and Afghanistan..
- Ricky Wat
joepo...@earthlink.net
italian tanks? ok, maybe an israeli tank could beat an american one.
I know a guy who works on abrams tanks however, and he says it could
probably defeat any tank one on one because it has ridiculous armor.
also, the t-34 was not a shitty tank, you are right, im sorry for
saying that. but they were horrendoussly utilizied in WWII, the crews
were terribly trained, and the german tanks were far superior. the
panzers and tigers were about 1 million times better. the tiger
averaged 12 T-34 kiklls before ir suffered a hit. the panzers shells
could abolutely pentrate tigers armor, i have no idea what youre
talking about.
and so the jews were there 3000 years ago. we know this. that was
three thousand years ago. my great great great ancestors were
originally from africa. does that give me a right to go back to africa
and claim the land mine. just 500 years ago, my ancestors were in
france. does that give all french canadians the right to go back to
france and carve out their own little country? hell no. 3000 years is
so long. no one remembers this. you cant say that you own land from
3000 years ago, no matter who pushed you out and how terrible it was.
would you want a native american (powerful) army entering boston with
the backing of the chinese military and money and taking over and
kicking us out? hell, they were only here 400 years ago, much less
than 3000. Do any of us remember killing natives and driving them out?
no, we had no part in it. the wrong was committed in the past, and
now we had no part in it. we dont deserve to have this land taken away
from us because of something that happened a long time ago. You might
come out of the cut and make a ridiculous argument like: I would move,
because thats the right thing to do. No you wouldnt, you wouldnt
voluntarily be put in refugee camps in medford while a bunch of native
americans took over your house, your ciry, and destroyed your economy.
i have to say something ricky. not to be critical. but your posts are
so filled with facts i hardly know where to begin. I get the feeling
sometimes that you are just looking things up and posting them
(especially about the tanks). But when it comes to the figure about
the money given to israel. Where did you get this number? How skewed
could it be? Our country is notorious for our corrupt and liar
leaders. our entire government bullshits us every single day.
democracts and republicans, liberals and conservatives. we dont know
anything. for all we know, we could be gibing 50000billion dollars to
israel. how would you know? theres no possible way. ill give you a
perfect example. You said 2 billion. Let me provide you witha
sources that says: For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997,
the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion. Ill give you the hyperlink!
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
ok now im gonna go look up a higher number, because i bet there is one!
Many years ago the late Undersecretary of State George Ball estimated
the true financial cost of Israel to the United States at $11 billion a
year. Woah! look at that internet fact!!!
http://www.alhewar.com/Curtiss.html
that just goes to show you internet facts are completely unreliable.
In fact, all facts concerning the U.S. budget are most likely
ridiculous. Even if we were lying about them, the bearacratic record
keeping system is horrendous.
joepo...@earthlink.net
more chinese were killed than jews in WWII. i said genocided. the
japanese treatment of chinese civilians has not been classified as a
genocide. yes, it was huge and horrible, but its not technically a
genocide.
im gonna be honest with you ricky. i dont know where you made up a
such a silly fact as me saying the british left israel... becuase i
just reviewed my post and it didnt say anything about that there... i
said that the british dumped the israelis there after WWII, which is
true. and i was under the impression they did this under pressure of
zionist lobbying in england, and the rest of the world, becuase the UN
took over in seperating that area into an arab and jewish state.
yes, the entire middle east would destroy them. this is assuming the
ENTIRE middle east. not two countries. secondly, it would be a world
war if the americans got dragged in on one side, and other nations were
dragged in on the arab side. this could easily happen. it happened in
WWII when the germans invaded poland. im not goign to think about this
anymore because i want to go somewhere. i think we should discuss this
in person, without the aid of google.com and without this slow, poor
form of communication. ill battle you fool
saml...@yahoo.com
without a doubt one of the most genocided people of the world. The
holocaust was just a small piece of the Jews history with genocide.
Since the jews were exiled from israel/palestine 2000 years ago, they
have not found one place where they havent been persecuted. They have
been targets of genocide in nearly all these places. A small list of
these genocidal occurences would include: the holocaust, the spanish
inquisition, the czarist regime and stalins regime. This by no means
justifies the jews harsh treatment of palestinians. i am just trying to
point out that the holocaust was one of many genocides that targeted
jews.
-Sam Lawrence
Ricky Wat
Do you ever read my post? I mean, please don't gloss over them, because
everything your saying is totally different from what I am saying. I
said that US gives Israel approximately $2 billion for MILITARY
assistance, not the overall assistance. You are absolutely right to
point out that US financial donations vary considerably, but I was
posting specifically about military assistance ONLY......Of course, the
"true financial figures" that mentioned already include military
assistance. Hyperlink to "US Assistance to Israel", it has US aid from
1948 to 2005 [Source US State deparment and USAID]
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
This is more reliable because this is both verified by a Jewish
organization and more important, derived from US State deparment and
USAID. You can see from that website that the average (military)
assistance US gives to Israel is approximately $2 billion. Also,
US-Israel embassy website information
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/mission/amb/assistance.html
You can see again that the average (military) assistance is
approximately $2 billion. www.state.gov website information [page 15]
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/11062.pdf Again, you can
see that the (average) military assistance is more than $2 billion.
Yes, You are right that America gives much much more than $2 billion to
Israel such as for their economy. I was talking about military
assistance though.
I agree with you that internet facts are unreliable, especially facts
from the radical leftist and anti-Israel critics who is against Israel
and wants to distorts the facts. However, I do not see why you believe
that official American bureaucratic records are unreliable. Can you
please provide tangible evidence to back up your argument that
politicians are consistent liars and are corrupt as you claim they are?
This is just your opinion right, That corrupt American politicans are
providing Israel with large sums of money and are hiding the truth from
the American public and that the government is "bullshitting" us every
single day? Right now, its just pure speculation from you. Unless you
could actually like give some sort of validity to prove that the
government could be fibbing us taxpayerers billions of dollars and
giving it all to Israel, then you can't really argue with that idea.
Its not like you can prove that the government is lying to us about
Israel, so how can you use that argument against me? I can't disprove
that either, because its hypothetical and speculative. If you are going
to claim something so radical as in how our leaders are "liars and
corrupt", atleast try to provide some evidence to show the validity of
your claim.
I don't know why you said that Abrams could whip Merkavas, and
everything I post, I already know about. I know tanks. If you don't
know anything about tanks, then please don't make ridiculous claims
that Abrams can crush Merkavas because they obviously cannot. If you
don't look up information to back up why you think Abrams can crush
Merkavas, then please don't post just to support America's tank. Joe,
you could have easily posted that Abram is battle-proven in 1991 Gulf
War and in 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Abram destroyed like 1,400 T-72s
while only losing none to the enemy. I would have agree to that. You
could have posted a variety of things to counter my Merkava arguments,
if you did have proper knowledge of tanks, you could have supported
your claim that Abrams could rape Merkavas, because the Abrams CAN
actually rape the Merkavas. American tanks are powerful in their own
rights and can blast Israeli tanks away in some situations and in
different scenarios.
This goes back to your ancestor land argument. This is completely
different because the Jews were EXPELLED and BANISHED from their
homeland. Your great great great great Ancestors were not expelled from
the African continent like the Jews were, they weren't forced off their
lands like the Jews were, Your ancestors migrated elsewhere around the
world, probably due to their nomadic way and cattle herd seeking food.
There is a clear difference between migration and expulsion. I agree
with you Joe that you definitely can't go back and "Carve" out your
land that you voluntarily left because of you immigrated somewhere
else. However, don't you agree that if you were forced and kicked off
your land that you have the right to get it back eventually? The person
or nation who took your land illegitimately occupied it, and you as
victims of this invasion should have perfect right to reclaim what is
rightfully yours. How did you connect this back to your ancestors
leaving Africa on their own? The Babylonians INVADED and EXPELLED the
Jews from Israel. Your great greatancestors from Africa migrated to
Europe and throughout the world for that matter, and were NOT invaded,
NOT expelled, and NOT banished from their land by foreign invaders. (or
they could be, I don't know about your ancestors specifically)
Wow, You are saying that everything that happened before YOU is
insiginficant because "we had no part in it". The Holocaust happened 60
years ago, Using your logic, We should not remember the Indians nor
should we remember the Holocaust because "we had no part in it". That
is just the sort of neglect that sparks future conflict because we
forget the past and shove away into the corner of the room. So what if
stuff happened 3,000 years ago? In no way does it make it unworthy or
insignificant. You know how large of an impact that event 3,000 years
ago had on the Jewish people today even though "we had no part in it"?
The lives of generations of Jewish people to come is directly affected
by this event 3,000 years ago, because their native homeland was
conquered and they were forced to disperse and live throughout the
world. Slavery might have happened way before I was born, but using
your logic, We the heck should I sympathize the blacks for their
suffering? It was 300 years ago, and "I had not part in it." We can
still remember things that we had no part of. I laughed so hard when
you said: "3000 years is so long. no one remembers this." because you
implied that events 3,000 years ago are so insignificant that no one
would care to remember it. What about Jesus Christ and the rise of
Christianity? Even though this happened Two Millenias ago, 2 billion
Christians (30% of the Earth's population) remember Jesus and
EVERYTHING that happened 2,000 years ago. Christian religion of 2,000
years ago affects our daily lives and social environment so much that
it is completely wrong to say that events thousands of years ago are
not important because people today still remember them. What makes the
Jews anyless different? As an American living in Cambridge, its
extremely easy to say that nothing 3,000 years ago would matter today,
because we're only 16 years old, our nation is barely 300 years old,
and we barely have any contact with Jews half-way around the world, We
automatically assume that no one cares and no one remembers because "we
had no part in it". We don't live in the context of Israel and
Palestinians, thus, whatever our opinions of their conflicts are, it
doesn't matter because we are not in their shoes and we have not
endured their hardship and experienced their pain and hate. To say that
people don't care about events 3,000 years ago is meaningless. Events
of any era have substantial and equal impact on our society today. Even
if "we had not part in it", we can still remember the Indians and the
Jews, whose suffering and misery precedes even our own personal
existence.
To put this into your shoes of French Candians, How would you feel if I
said that the Acadians should shut the fck up about moving down to New
Orleans and Louisana because nobody in America cares because we took no
part in it. The Acadians (French Candians right?) were EXPELLED and
BANISHED from Quebec just like the Jews! The British invaded and kicked
them off their land and expelled them. Acadians, just like the Jews had
to live elsewhere in the world and eventually settled in Louisana and
became what we know them as CAJUNS. I love their foods. Anyways, Both
the French Acadians and Jews were removed from their native lands by
foreign invaders. Their homes and lands were illegitimately taken away
from them, and unless you disagree, Don't you think that it was wrong
that the British kicked out the Acadians from their land? Would you
agree that the Britain should ceded all the lands that they took away
from the innocent Acadians? Don't you think that Acadians rightfully
own the land that they lived on and they should get it back? Whatever,
Its the same exact situation, but with subtle difference which I know
you would disagree on. But what I am trying to say is that its in the
same type of situation, the French Canadian Acadians were forced off
their lands by British like the Jews were forced off their lands by the
Babolonians. Can I say that the Acadians should stop whining and accept
their land because no one remembers or even cares about events 300
years ago just because I had no part in their ordeal? Absolutely not,
The Acadians French don't deserve the treatment that they recieved, and
the Jews don't deserve the treatment they recieved either. This
situation is in the same sort of situation where both were EXPELLED and
BANISHED, and lost their title to their land by foreign invasion.
Don't want to feel like I am arguing or anything. No harm involved,
keeping clean from now on.
- Ricky Wat
joepo...@earthlink.net
freaking land back. because people are living there now. and the
french canadians took it from the native americans int he first place.
no, the jews dont have any right to go back to israel and kick out
people currently living there, because they cant justify their removal
of people through something that happened 3,000 years ago. this is my
personal opinion. the native americans have no right to come back to
the east coast and uproot our entire civilization because we kicked
them out earlier. etc. etc. and please dont put words in my mouth
about not caring about jesus becuase he was born 2000 years ago. thats
a totally differnt story. you dont see a bunch of christians from
around the world deciding to go back to bethlem and take it over cause
jesus was born there.
all you have to do to realize how seriously corrupt our government is
to look back on the last few years. why did we go to iraq? oh yeah,
becuase there were weapons of mass destruction. do you remember any
reason for this war? and i didnt just say political leaders. just
look at all the corporate executives in trouble. even martha stuart!
martha stewart has lied to us! shes cheated us! also, if you want to
be made really angry like i am right now, read some poorly written,
factually twisted, left wing revisionist history books. like howard
zinn! (the chapters on vietnam are actually quite interesting) those
few chapters will make you so angry at the american government.
also, i never said anything about corrupt american politicians giving
money to israelis. on monday we are battling head tohead. im bringing
my super modern world history game to the table and at lunch im gonna
eat you up. AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
and how the hell do you know if my african ancestors were expelled from
africa? i bet they were. i bet the nomadic goat herding tribe
expelled my nomadic sheep herding tribe through a series of violent
clashes with weapons made from bean stalks.
Ricky Wat
radicals and leftist. He is just there to get people's attention and
take profit away from conservative textbook by offering an alternative
radical outlook on behalf of the unknown. I don't know where your going
with your post because your saying that I put words in your mouth, when
I obvious did not. I never used "Joe" and "Not caring" in the same
sentence. If it was implied, then I am sorry that you misunderstood me,
and I am sorry if you misinterpreted me. I was simply giving an example
of a historical event that happened thousands of years ago that had an
enormous impact on our society today. You are right that TODAY,
Christians all around the world don't want to be in another war and
retake Bethelhem and Israel just because their religion was started
there and "Jesus was born there." However, this was not true 1,000
years ago. The Europeans 1,000 years ago where directly affected by
Jesus events 1,000 years preceding it. Was it not Pope Leo IX or
whatever who advocated for the Crusades against the Seljuk Turks to
retake the holy land? Furthermore, TODAY, Christians might not have the
desire to retake the holy land, but is this is completely the opposite
view of the muslim people in the Middle East. Whose says the
Palestinians and the Muslim people don't want to see the Jews expelled
off of their historical land and Islam return back to Jerusalem just
like it was 1,500+ years ago (involving the prophet Muhammed) ? This
goes directly to support how time is irrelevant, and how events 3 years
ago, 20 years ago, 800 years ago, 10,000 years ago all have equal
bearing and impact on our contemporary society because each sets
*precedence* for the next event before it. This means we are
continuously being effected by ancient events such as the Big Bang or
Adam eating the apple if you like a religious view of things.
Anyone who uses Martha Stuart to justify a point is like me using Paris
Hilton to point out human sexual degeneration. No offense, but Martha
Stuart makes your argument look even dumber. In a case involving
cheating corporate executives (I don't know how this popped up), I
could have fully supported you if you had brought up Nixon Watergate
Scandal, VP Dick Cheney with profiteering in Iraq with his Halliburton
Energy company, OR EVEN ENRON? Martha Stuart is the epitome of media
overpublicizing and media hype. Martha Stuart is simply one incident
where she tried to save $45,000 of stock holdings and shares. Does
this single incident represent ALL corporate executives in America?
Martha Stuart's greed does not automatically make corporate executives
corrupt, it makes Martha Stuart corrupt, not corporate executives
corrupt. So any other evidence OTHER than Martha Stuart to support your
claim that all corporate executives are liars? Enron is a great example
because it has since entered the common American consciousness as a
symbol of willful corporate fraud and corruption. Enron's sustained
accounting fraud practices violates everything we believe morally in.
Enron is the a perfect example of aFortune 500's top tier company, a
role model of "successful American company" indulges in the practice of
fraud, corruption, and bribery. You can argue that Enron was looked up
by many companies to be the best symbol of success. If the role model
companies indulges in corruption, Why won't companies who look up and
follow Enron do the same thing? Comitt fraud as well. Halliburton
Energy Co. You can argue that how American politicians and corporate
executives are intertwined and have strong relationships. Vice
President of America, Dick Cheney, is also the Chairman and CEO of
Halliburton Energy Co. It has been the center of many controversies
involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to US Vice President
Dick Cheney. You could have easily related cronyism and favoritism by
the state government in Cheney's profiteering in Iraq. You could have
argued a variety of things and such as relating Dick Cheney's
administrative powers with his illegal business practices in Iraq for
the benefit of his company, and how he abused his powers for huge
amounts of profit. This could have displayed a better argument than
with Martha Stuart case. rofl.
Whatever, most people in Cambridge and Massachusetts are typical
democrats and liberals who frequently attack the Bush doctrine and his
justifications for war. Whatever. #1, You represent a big minority in
America, the Bush's popularity as a wartime president helped
consolidate his base, and ward off any serious challenge to the
nomination as reelection as President of the United States. Hey, If you
claim that Bush administration was lying to us and falsely led us to
war, then why did he defeat Kerry and was reelected President? He LIED
TO US! Even Kerry supporters, who attempted to capitalize on the
dwindling popularity to rally anti-war sentiment, SUPPORTED by the
success of Fahrenheit 9/11 in the summer of 2004 FAILED to convince the
American public that Bush lied to us in War. If Micheal Moore and
Fahrenheit 9/11 could not sway the American public against reelection,
Then BUSH must be right the whole time. Bush IS RIGHT, We should have
gone in, and a majority American population AGREED with Bush and
reelected him. There is no way you can argue against this, Bush had
more popular vote, and much more electoral vote. If Bush did really lie
to us about WMDS and Invading Iraq, this election would have
illustrated his lies and illustrated his unpopularity with American
people. When people in West Coast and East Coast whine about how Bush
mislead us into War, If this was correct, Bush should have lost the
election!!!!!! If he lied to us, He should have lost!!! But he didn't,
and its because he did not lie to us. The obvious sentiment against the
Bush administration arises purely from media distortion and hype.
You should calm down, I am going to stop posting right now. Eat me up
at lunch time? Lunch time is for eating food, not for cannabilism. Your
ancestors in Africa might have practiced Cannabalism, but more
prevalent was the use of clubs and spears. If you want to battle me
with clubs and spears, no thank you because I would lay the smackdown
on you man.
- Ricky Wat
Ann Ferraro
joepo...@earthlink.net
understand what you're saying. you keep reposting and arguing against
yourself. and please dont say that george bush was right to go to war
with iraq. i dont care how many senators voted for war, what percent
of the population supoprted teh war, or what any imporatnt person in
this entire country thinks about the war. war is wrong.
just because the majority of the country supports the war doesnt mean
its right. and you dont "whine" abotu going to war. when your sons,
daughters, friends, and fathers, are dying three thousand miles from
home, you dont whine about it. its a serious problem.
how are you going to say bush didn't lie to us.
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used
for the production of biological weapons."
George W. Bush, 2002-09-12
oh for real? where?
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent."
Bush, 2003-01-28
oh for real? where?
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bush, 2003-01-28.
no shit? ur serious? can we see it?
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons
of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney, 2002-08-26
ok ill stop there. lets see how many weapons of mass destruction we
have found!
im counting.........0
we were lied to ricky. maybe it hurts, maybe it doesnt. and if they
could lie about something so big, how many little things could they lie
about.
who says i cant argue against the majoritys vote? im doing it right
now, arent i?
and would you please stop pointing out argument i "could have used" to
counter your arguments. i know youre trynig to make me look stupid,
and youre doign a good job. but your also making urself look smart
too.
also, i want you to know i dont think your arguments make any sense at
all. the ones about the majority voting in bush so that justifies the
war in iraq . im not understanding it.
whit...@gmail.com
talking about Bush. Ricky, just because Bush could get the majority of
Americans in the election to vote for him does not mean he was telling
the truth in any way. It merely means that he was able to convince the
majority of the country that he wasn't lying or to at least look over
his lie.
Also, i want to go further back to when you were discussing whether or
not you have a right to reclaim lands that were taken from you 3,000
years ago. I just want to point out that historians have little idea
of what actually happened 3,000 years ago. Do they have photographs,
video clips of the Jews being kicked out? Of course not, that would be
silly. Acutually that would be really cool but thats beside the point.
Historians may have some evidence that they are basing their decisions
on, but they have no PROOF of what actually happened 3,000 years ago,
its all guesswork. Besides, if you think everyone has a right to their
ancestor's land, why draw the line at 3,000 years? why not go further
back to when everyone at some point was sometime kicked off their land.
Hey, go back to Pangea, and give everyone a right to everywhere.
However, don't think that what I'm saying means that I think the Jews
do not have a right to Israel, I just disagree with that particular
arguement.
whitney
Ricky Wat
irrelevant. I give you respect that you would go back SO FAR into our
evolutionary history that recorded history did not exist. Brontosaurus
and the Dinosaurs are like 300 million years ago, way beyond recorded
history. 3,000 years ago is only a fraction of the Earth's life span,
and a relatively short period of time. If you reduce the scale of
Earth's geological time frame into one year span, 3,000 years ago is
probably microseconds. 300 million years ago is like 1.66 (repeating)
months. No humans existed back in Pangea, haha, Your just giving me the
extremities of the argument, I can't argue against that because its
ridiculous to go back to pre-pre-pre-historic age and give land back to
everyone.
Proof of what happen 3,000 years ago is evident through the dispersion
of the Jews throughout the world. Is that not enough proof for you?
Black Jews in Rhondesia (present day of what you guys would call
Zimbabwe) and South Africa illustrates the migration and dispersion of
Jewish culture and tradition. Large populations of Jews in Eastern
Europe shows evidence that the Jews lost their respective homeland and
were forced to disperse. Even back 3000 years, ago, people have
recorded documents and letters which are still preserved today. Jewish
People back MUST have recorded about the split of Judah and Israel
after King Solomon's death. They MUST have recorded the Baboloyian
invasion of their homeland. Just go to any encyclpedia or textbook and
you will find a WEALTH of information regarding the Ancient Kingdom of
Israel and how it was established through the unification of tribes and
etc... You will find an abundance of information regarding events 3,000
years ago. Our knowledge of our past is so advance that we know
EVERYTHING Ancient Egypt, and the Pyramids of Giza, which was built
5,000 years ago, and EVERYTHING about the Great Wall of China and
Chinese history, which dates back 5,000 years ago. The historians even
know a shitload about the Celts in Britannica and Stonehedge which was
built 10,000 years ago.
- Ricky Wat
thom...@hotmail.com
argument, but in my opinion the issue of who has the "right" to the
land is unimportant. There is no omniscient world court to go back into
history, decide whether the Jews or Palestinians were there first, and
force the other group to leave.
The reality is that both are there to stay and its in everyone's
interest to make the best of it and make peace. I'd agree with what Joe
said a while back, that both sides are babies who can't stop fighting,
except that I realize that humans are not rational beings and that in
this case hate and pride far outweigh logic.
On the subject of whether Israel could kick everyone's ass, I think its
not important in the real world. Israel would not solve any problems by
fighting or even nuking arab nations. The quality of their tanks cannot
stop more terrorists from spawning, and any war would have the same
problem that America has in Iraq, even though its army is undeniably
better than Iraq's.
The only practical solution would be for the Palestinians to finally
accept centralized control, and for that control to make a peace deal
with the Israeli's. Only if both sides agree, and if everyone on both
sides follows the decision of their leaders for peace, will there be
Peace in the Middle East
-Thomas
alan.i...@gmail.com
YES!!!
The only way this problem is ever going to get resolved (before all
hell breaks loose or before the US tries to play God) is for the
Palistianians to become united under one organization/government with a
leader who is capable and has the competence to make tough decisions.
Right now, both sides want everything and they dont realize that they
arent going to get it. Both sides need strong leaders who are able to
compromise for the betterment of their own people and the rest of the
world.
Peace in Western Asia.
--Alan
joepo...@earthlink.net
used this forum.
Ricky Wat
their own opinions on this matter.
However, Our opinions are based on what we watch on the news or what we
read from the newspapers, or what we hear on the radios.
The situation within between Israeli's and Palestinians are so complex
that it is impossible for us Americans to comprehend. Sam Lawrence
mentioned a while ago that "we must be in their shoes in order to
understand their situation" Since its impossible for us to physically
endure their hardship and to "be in their shoes", Isn't it fair to say
that it is impossible for us Americans to understand their ordeal? Just
like the world does not understand September 11 attack as well as the
Americans or New Yorkers for that matter, We do not understand their
regional conflict. Hell, I just watched CN8 with the Lynn Doyle (mad
hot) and wow. They were blabbering about Iraq, and they had an Iraqi
politician who joined the debate. So as 4 different white historian
guys were arguing with each other, they all shot down the Iraqi
politicians' opinions about his own nation. So, the Iraqi politician
has lived in Iraq for like 80% of his life and recently left Iraq due
to the war. His opinion was obviously neglected, even though he
experienced Saddam's dictatorship first hand, the 4 other white
historians were like: "fu, thats typical hussein propaganda that
brainwash you". Its not like the 4 other historians ever experienced
what the Iraqi politician endured. They haven't even set foot on Iraqi
soil before, let alone SEEN an Iraqi person in real life. Just another
example of how people who actually witness the situation, with actual
expertise in the area of debate was neglected by people who read from
textbooks or watched the news.
- Ricky Wat
Ricky Wat
New Topic Discussion so that EVERYONE can join and play fun time.
Topic Suggestions! What do you guys want to talk about?
- Ricky Wat
alan.i...@gmail.com
Azn power.
jedim...@yahoo.com
WHY? Because we are punks!. We have over 2500 active nukes and yet
North Korea has way lesser than that!
the reason why we cant stop them
first look at the population of the North Korean army
the Korean leader does really care about his people, his aim is to
become the world power in nuke programs. And why would the united state
think she has the right to stop any one from developing Nukes. United
states justifies with the reason that they are a potential threat. from
their own pooint of view, we are also a threat to them. I hate the fact
that the united states assume the role of the world police (this can
also be traced back to the idea of the city on the HIll and the
MANIFEST DESTINY)- this shyt pisses me off. This idea of world police
is also demonstrated in any undertaken by the US. for example- the war
IN iRAQ without the consent or support of the UNited Nations. THE
NORTH KOREAN leader- whatever his name is- is just tempting the united
state of making any false move- i BET u if this happens, expect UR
HEADS BLOWN OFF!! North Korea would now collaborate with terrorist and
America will be in A HOT SOUP!!--- I am rushing to get my points
accross - so this might not make the fullest sense.
alan.i...@gmail.com
However, I think you also have to look at it from the government's
perspective. If Kim Jong il (dictator of NK) is able to produce nukes
what is stopping him from doing horrible things. He could sell nukes to
terrorists on the black market or even start lauching nukes aimed for
US soil. I think our government sees Kim Jong il as a potential threat
not only to us but also to the rest of the world. Who knows what a
crazy azn like Kim would do if he had control of nukes. Plus the UN
isn't doing shit about this matter and so the US is obligated to step
in.
Hans Brix.... oh no!
Also, it's interesting how you refer to the US as a "she". I always use
"we" or "the government".
Peace in North East Asia.
--Alan
joepo...@earthlink.net
than stalin. he has no right to have nukes or to even be in power.
the reason were afraid of him having nukes is because he hates us. and
one nuke is enough to wipe out LA.
and that crap about us being able to have nukes and kim jong il being
able to have nukes is complete crap. do you want to know whats the
difference between us and him, and why we should be able to have nukes
and he shouldnt? because in our country we are allowed free speech.
in his country you can be shot for looking the wrong way. because in
our country we have to go through a massive process to fight a war that
requires the support of the majority. in his country, all he has to do
is be in a bad mood and press a button. POOF there goes 300,000
american citizens. kim jong il might be worst dictator of the twenty
first century. of course we dont know, because he shoots anyone trying
to get into his country or out of his country...
alan.i...@gmail.com
getting educated.... let's say for example learning how to read. I
heard that they post signs on bridges saying something like "danger! do
not cross bridge". So if you turn around (meaning you read the sign),
you are shot. This just goes to show that Kim Jong il is truely a
horrible dictator who doesn't care about the people of his country.
People here complain about Bush being a total dick... but comparing
Bush to Kim is like comparing the 72' Dolphins to the Houston Texans.
joepo...@earthlink.net
alan.i...@gmail.com
Milosevic is dead. For those who do not know who this man was, he was
in power in Yugoslavia in the 90s. During his presidency, he was
involved in 4 wars (Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia....), and was responsible
for the breakup of Yugoslavia. This communist leader had no compassion
for human life, he created concentration camps, tortured, massacred the
people against him and even to his own people. He has caused so much
death, chaos, and suffering throughout his life that it would be better
for the world if he was just removed from the human race. A person who
is on trial on 66 counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity does not deserve the compassion for anyone.
Now his death can be seen in two ways; good and bad. Well the good
thing about it is that this horrible person is no longer alive. A lot
of bad things come from his death. His death shows how the UN War
Crimes Tribunal is working too slow. At the time of his death, he was
in his 5th year of trial. It shouldnt take that long to convict someone
when it is blatantly obvious that he is responsible for the destruction
he caused.
I'm late for baseball, I'll finish later.
--Alan
Ricky Wat
American propaganda, the American media has brainwash all you people.
Pyongyang, the Capital of North Korea is a thriving metropolis, built
from the gleaming solar tempest of Communism. Our people are not
suffering, our people are bathing in luxury, and it is the American's
actions that cause our economic ravages and tremendous suffering and
demise. America has brought this shame onto us. In fact, the North
Korean economy is once so powerful and enticing that waves of illegal
Chinese immigrants smuggle over the Yalu river into North Korea every
year, just to absorb our decadence and luxuries. A powerful reminder of
former North Korean prosperity and longevity is that we outlast the
Soviet Union in their perilous pursuit for global domination. Through
the hearts and minds of the working class people, we were powerfully
united in a common cause. Forged by the heavens, our majestic leader,
Kim Jong Il is the Sunshine of the 21st century. He has paved the way
for the destruction of western intervention, and honorably defend our
nation's freedom and oppression by American pigs. He has engage in
protecting the Koreans of the Democratic Republic, from American
provocations and now reckless acts of aggressions. Freedom for the
people! Rise! Rise! Reform the old republic, into the gleaming past
that we were once apart of.
Thats Communist Propangada right there. And what you guys were talking
about is most certaintly was American propaganda. First and foremost,
North Korean nuclear missiles currently does not have the capability to
reach the American west coast. Whomever wrote that a North Korean nuke
can wipe out Los Angelos. You made that up. Either you created that up
from your mind, or you retrived it from someone else. North Korean
nuclear weapons have extremely limited range, No way can it hit Hawaii
let along the American mainland. Just a year ago, North Korea shot a
Taepo Dong ICBM missile over Japanese airspace. It barely went over
Japan, how can that display any threat to the American public? American
nuclear missiles however, display a FAR MORE threat than North Korea
missiles. It is PURE American propaganda to dismiss OUR OWN nuclear
missiles. While Russian/Soviet nuclear stockpiles have diminished
significantly over the past two decades, due to the SALT I and SALT II
treaties, American stockpiles have remained relative unchanged, and
still have the ability to rain thousands of missiles at any given
moment, possibility destruction 30% of the world's population and
dispersing enough radiation fall out to KILL the rest of the world
population. America possess approximately TEN THOUSAND nuclear
missiles, equally distribute throughout America, Canada, and in various
disclosed location around the world (ie slbm submarines) Although NORAD
is no longer present and active, we still have the ability to activate
our entire arsenal with the matter of hours and launch them to every
single place on Earth in the matter of minutes. Does North Korea have
such a tremendous capability to destroy all human life on this planet?
Absolutely not. You guys are obviously overwhelmed by American
propaganda that you are quickly forgetting how much powerful our nation
is. You are crying how much of a threat to the international community
North Korea is when America possess exactly 1000 times more nuclear
warheads and missiles than Kim Jong Il can even dream of. If you have
doubts to why Israel, Indian, Pakistan, Iran, China, Mongolia is more
dangerous than North Korea because they possess a signifcantly larger
stockpile than North Koreans do, then you have been disgraced by
American propaganda.
Another thing, Kim Jong Il is NOT stupid, He is not that stupid to
unleash a powerful nuclear weapon on Seoul and expect NO repercussions
from the international community. Hello? He wants to keep his position
as dictator of North Korea, NOT risk it in a stupid war that he KNOWS
that he will lose. Its all common sense. In order to maintain his
current position AND his countries' existence, he must BARGAIN with the
United States and other nations. He most definitely does not want to
unleash his nukes onto the world like some of you have implied. He does
not want any military conflict from the international community,
because he wants to maintain his position as president and maintain the
fragile existence of his nation. He is smart enough to utilize the
Nuclear weapons as a deterrgent against American imperialism. He used
the abandonment of the nuclear weapons program to negeociate for food
and energy from the United States in 1994 under the Clinton
Administration. He used a variety of tactics TO GET WHAT HE WANTS. He
uses nuclear weapons to bargain for money, bargain for food, and
bargain for other commodities because he knows his nation is poor, he
knows that his nation is living on the brinnk of poverty. What more do
you expect from such a person with tremendous obligations to satisfy
his people, and tremendous obligiation to keep his nation united
through the perils of economic isolation? North Korean people look up
to him like a GOD, because of his glorious fight against American
agression. He KNOWS that he can satisfy the people's anti-American
sentiment by fueling a crisis concerning Nuclear weapons and negociat
and bargain for the things they crucially need. Who will be crazy and
stupid enough to NOT bargain with a Superpower? Its like throw eggs at
America, two little eggs would mean the end of your existence as a
nation. American has 10,000 big eggs ready to throw on North Korea's
ass if they actually unleashed a nuke on Seoul. Kim Jong Il and his
military advisers KNOW about this. You are obviously thinking that Kim
Jong Il is so stupid and retarded that he would provoke another war
with America and shoot nuclear missiles everywhere. Its the kind of BS
that American propaganda throws at you when you don't know exactly of
what is happened and the background of the situation surrounding it.
There is American missiles aimed at Pyongyang right now, American
missiles aimed at Moscow, Beijing, and even Damascus! None of you
Americans know where our missiles are located, nor where at they aiming
at. We know nothing except We know that North Korean missiles are aimed
at us, and we should be afraid. Pure exploitation of fear of the
American public to degrade the image of North Korea. North Korea is a
extremely poor nation grieving for intenrational aid from United
Nations and most importantly, from United States. She needs adequate
food and supplies to feed her dying people. She is ONLY using the North
Weapons as a means of negociating for much needed products and food and
medical supplies, nothing more. DON'T BS, NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS USED
NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ACTS OF WAR..... NORTH KOREA IS NO EXCEPTION. Has
you forgotten that the only nation that used Nuclear Weapons in ACTS of
war is America herself? On Japan mind you! LMFAO. American Proganda,
American Propaganda....American Propaganda....The uneducated masses.
- Ricky Wat
alan.i...@gmail.com
even want to read the rest. You act as if 1 nuke couldnt cause any
harm. So it's true that we have thousands of nukes. But do we have a
corrupt (not Bush corrupt, like Hussein and Milsevic corrupt) leader
who is willing to blow up the world? No. Kim Jong can end the lives of
millions with just ONE nuke. Also, why can't North Korean nukes reach
US soil? Are they not smart enough to develop a bomb that can fly a
couple thousand miles? I'm sure that if you are able to develope a
nuclear weapon, you are capable of making it go where you want it. Plus
they don't quite have to launch it from their land. Send a ship off the
American coast and launch it from there. Smuggle it in a crate to one
of our western ports. Even if they stop it at customs, what is there to
stop it from exploding and killing people miles from it. You claim that
America is so powerful. Terrorists used our OWN planes against us. But
nooooooo what can 2 stupid planes do? I'll tell you what they can do.
They can end the lives of 2,752 people. Don't sit there and say that
this country is not capable of being attacked. You know for a fact that
this country if very vulnerable and if a person with a nuke wanted to,
he could use it against us.
joepo...@earthlink.net
offensive.
1) dont compare nukes with eggs
2) dont pull that bullshit out your ass about us being the only country
ever to use nukes in an act of war, because you know damn well that we
developed them first, and if we hadnt, germany and russia would have
done a lot worse. i hope you also know that using those nukes killed
500,000 people (an extreme estimate) and the estimated death toll for
americans in the invasion of japan was 1,000,000. and every time we
estimated a death toll in the pacific, we underestimated by 75%. using
those nukes saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
3) alan is right, he doesnt need an ICBM to hit us, he can put it on a
raft and float it into new york harbor if he wants.
4) what is all this about american propaganda. let me quote an essay
that a north korean defector wrote.
"one third of the farm land in North Hamgyong Province was used for
planting opium instead of corn. If farmers planted corn on 2.5 acres of
land, they produce 6 to 7 tons. If they planted opium, they can produce
3 kg which makes a lot more money. Under the government guidance and
permission, such harmful drugs are being produced and sold to outsiders
in order to bring profit to North Korea"
"If you don't have money, you die"
"These days, 5 to 10 day- worth of grain is distributed per month"
if this is american propaganda i dont know why a north korean official
wrote it.
5) how do you know the background of this situation. no one is allowed
into north korea. there is no such thing as free press in north korea,
and the only true information we get from their is from defectors. and
i dont think the defectors defect because it was such a great place to
live.
6) if kim jong il just wants food for his people, why does he go about
getting it by whipping out the nukes? why doesnt he just ask nicely?
why doesnt he divert all the funding from his military and nucleur
programs adn build stuff to sell to the rest of the world. i believe
kim jong il is stupid. i believe he is a moron. in fact, if he died,
i would care less. anyone he cares so little for his people, does so
little for them, and then has the nerve to call the place they live in
a democratic republic, can drop dead for all i care.
the point is ricky, you dont have to know anything about this situation
to realize that kim jong il is evil. north korea doesnt even have to
have nukes for you to realize kim jong il is terrible. you dont even
have to know where north korea is, what the people who live there look
like, or how many of them there are. all someone has to know here is
that kim jong il's people die because they cant get enough to eat.
im sure his people love him ricky. every time they scrounge in the
gutter for a few grains of rice to feed their dying baby, im sure they
pray to kim jong il.
thom...@hotmail.com
They don't have long-range ICBMs, and the terrorist smuggling delivery
method is unreliable. The difference between America's vulnerability to
terrorists hijacking planes and to a foreign bomb is that terrorists
can hit us because there isn't really anything to hit back against. If
NK nuked us, then we would have a hard to target to retaliate against,
and we would be justified in launching a massive nuclear strike at
North Korea. Kim Jong Il isn't stupid. His crazy plans wouldn't be
helped by his country being a pile of radioactive ash, so I think he
wouldn't attack the US with nuclear weapons. This type of deterrence
worked with the Soviet Union for 40 years, and some of their leaders
were far from stable.
alan.i...@gmail.com
stopping him from selling nukes to terrorists. Do these terrorists have
anything to lose? Not really. If they're willing to strap a bomb to
their chest and blow up a bus, they would have no problem trying to
smuggle a nuke into the country. Plus then what can Bush do? Launch a
war against terror? Oh wait, we're allready fighting in one of those.
thom...@hotmail.com
he really give one of them to terrorists and lose control over it? He
can't afford to go handing out nukes whenever he feels like it, which
wouldn't help him anyway. Terrorists blow stuff up to get people to
listen to their grievances. The government of North Korea certainly has
the world's attention already, and blowing up an American city wouldn't
get them anywhere. If I were him, I'd keep my nukes in reserve to deter
china from making an agressive move. He may not like America, but the
world's biggest army is sitting on his border, so he has other problems.
alan.i...@gmail.com
can be considered a world power. Although momentarily his plans do not
indicate any hostility to the US, who knows what will happen 5...10
years from now? Maybe something will happen to really piss this guy off
and he might just start world war 3. The thing is, you cant trust a
corrupt and unstable leader with something as powerful as a nuclear
bomb. It's like giving a baby a priceless vase. For the first 5 minutes
the baby is cool, calm, and collected. But all of a sudden he starts
going on a rampage and tosses the vase on the floor. People such as Kim
Jong are unpredictable and anything can happen now or in the future
with his nuclear weapons.
Let's get more ppl into this discussion.
Also the math team is selling pies tomorrow (Tuesday, March 14...
3.14).
joepo...@earthlink.net
china avidly support north korea in the korean war?
thom...@hotmail.com
north korea. My guess is that they don't want an unstable nuclear power
on their border and they want to maintain good relations with the US.
Also, KIm Jong Il isn't so much communist as totally insane.
Ricky Wat
PRC. The only reason why America and South Korea does not conquer North
Korea is because of China. China can readily deploy some insane number
of soldiers across the Yalu river and make US and SK think twice about
invasion. If I am not mistaken, Kim Jong Il relies on China for so
much, and has historically saved the North Korean's butts by repelling
the United Nations coalition forces (including USMC) during the Korean
war. China of course would suffer an immense amount of casualties, just
like it did 50 years ago, but this time, instead of ending in a
stalemate, the PLA can mobolize vast amounts of high-tech equipments
against SK armies. North Korea's army is currently the second largest,
with over ONE MILLION Soldiers. WOW. And Seoul is like 30 miles away
from the Demilitarize zone (38th paraell). Yes.
Thomas has some great ideas, and I believe he speaks the truth. Thomas
is a very educated person and is very updated with the news. I agree
that Kim Jong Il is a threat, but overall, that threat is miniscule
because China would never let North Korea detonate a nuclear bomb.
North Korea knows its in a desperate situation, and American/SK/Japan
is agitating to get North Korea to do something wrong that would
provoke war. Detonating a nuclear weapon or supplying a nuclear warhead
to a terrorist entity would be like welcoming an invasion of North
Korea by America. It would be welcoming the destruction of North Korea
and the overthrow of his dictatorship. World politics operates in a
funny fashion. Since NK has witnessed American invasion of Iraq, why
would Kim Jong Il ever want to release a NUKe on America?
#1 It does not have missile capability to launch a nuclear bomb at USA.
Do you know how much research and money is required to develop a
missile that could fly across the world and hit American cities? China,
with a GDP that rivals Japan doesn't have missile capabilities to hit
America. Heck, NK can't hit Hawaii and could probably hit Anchorage or
June Alaska.
#2 North Korea does not have the motivation or desire to hit America.
Hitting America would be inviting an invasion of North Korea. NK knows
that America has the overwhelming capability to retailiate with 10,000
nuclear weapons. If you were in Kim's position, would you ever think of
hitting America? NEVER. Kim Jong Il would never risk another Korean War
with the US, UN, and SK again. Last time, they had nearly lost without
Chinese PVA assitance. This time, China would never intervene on NK's
behalf militarily.
#3 NK is using nukes as a BARGAINING power. Just like in 24, Stupid
President Logan wants to negociate with terrorist regarding Cyntox
nerve gas. The terrorist are weak and have little actual power, but
possessing a Chemical weapon gives them the bargaining power to get
whatever they want. North Korea bargains with the World's most
destructive device in the world with America. North Korea desperately
needs more food, medical supplies, and other commodities from the
United States.
#4 Supplying terrorist nuclear weapons is impossible. CIA, NSA, DoD,
and all those organization keep a extremely watchful eye on North
Korea. NK can't need nukes over DMZ. Impossible. NK can't sneak nukes
over Yalu river, the Chinese have that border secured with over half a
million Manchurian troops. NK can't sneak nukes into the Yellow Sea/Sea
of Japan, the Japanese and South Korean navy has that oceanic area
secure. The North Korean navy is almost non-existant, its warships are
ancient old WW2 type crafts.
I was going to talk about stuff, but Thomas eloquently reiterated it
already. CNN
~ Ricky Wat
joepo...@earthlink.net
come over yalu river. from that one statement i think you are just
making this up cause thats what happened in korean war. china sweats
us now, and they wouldnt fight us or our south korean allies.
also, why would north korea use these nukes for bargaining power. i
havnt seen them try to bargain for anything with them yet? you know,
they could easily get what they want (aka food) by asking politely and
not being a bunch of herbs. if kim jong il wanted food enough to
depserately build nucleur bombs, then i think he would be desperate
enough to cease being a control freak dictator and ask politely for aid
so he can get his country on track. if what you say about china
helping htem is true, why doenst he ask china for food?
also, i think north korea can easily build a nuke to hit america. the
germans 60 years ago were able to build missiles that could cross the
english channel and hit london. 60 years later i think the north
koreans could put together one nuke that can travel far enough to hit
san fran.
also its so possible for the north koreans to sell it. think about how
likely we would have thought the chances were someone could bring the
WTC to the ground. two airplanes later, they were squashing civilians
like ants. the north koreans can get something out of their country if
they really want. osama bin laden escaped the worlds greatest military
in afghanistan, even though he was the most wanted man in the planet.
if he can get out of talibanland, north korea can get a box out of
korea.
otherwise, your arguments are valid, and i think i agree that north
korea would probably not nuke the united states.
thom...@hotmail.com
is a very educated person and is very updated with the news."
Well thank you Ricky! You have atoned for the "sit down and shut up"
incident.
Ricky Wat
Huh, Yeah, thats what I said. I said: "China would never intervene on
behalf of North Korea militarily"
I do not understand what you mean by "Crossing the Yalu river" How else
would China enter North Korean territory without crossing this natural
river border? The Yalu river separates China and North Korea. In the
hypothetical event of PLA reinforcing NK troops, PLA must cross the
Yalu river. Or, cross into Russia and through Vladiostok into North
Korea, which is still crossing the Yalu river.
Second paragraph:
You haven't seen North Korea using nuclear weapons BARGAINING for
anything? The first time, in 1994, (just two months after Kim Il Sung
died) Kim Jong Il theatened to continue to producing enriched uranium
in their nuclear plants. United States was aware that North Korea had a
program underway to enrich plutonium for future use in nuclear weapons.
The Clinton Administration in 1994 signed the "Agreement Framework"
with North Korae, which North Korea would freeze its existing nuclear
program and in return, the US would remove the economic sanctions that
it put on North Korea since the Korean war and provide North Korea with
half a million tons of crude oil in compensation of their fuel
shortage. One of the most well-known things about North Korea is its
chronic food shortage. The DPRK first appealed for international food
aid in \1995. In response, the United Nation's World F00d Program (WFP)
has issued several appeals for donations from the international
community. Since 1995, United States and WFP has been working in the
DPR Korea, assisting the country by providing nearly 3.6 million tons
of food.
http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/indexcountry.asp?country=408
How come the North Korean's don't ask nicely? This is world politics,
Not children's talk. World politics is extremely complex, North Korea's
request for assistsance would be denied by America, because of the
previous economic SANCTIONs that America imposed on North Korea.
Diplomatically, the North Koreans have been negociating with US in the
Six party talks with China, Japan, SK, Japan, Russia, and Us. Would you
ask nicely to your enemey for food? No! You demand that America gives
me food, OR ELSe. Yes, Kim Jon Il is a very smart man, He uses the
nukes as a device to get whatever he wants.
Paragraph three.
Nah, your wrnog.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif97/pg7.gif [Make it bigger if you
can't see the image.] Missile range of NK's missiles is clearly out of
range of American continent. No, North Korea cannot develop a long
range ballastic missile. It would have to dedicate billions of dollars,
immense amount of money into research and development. Was Nazi Germany
funded the V2 rocket program, it committed vast resources, resources
that North Korea does not currently have. North Korea does not have the
funding to create ICBMs. Its current military funding is a MERE $5
billion dollars. Do you know how much V2 rocket program cost Nazi
Germany???? $2 billion Reichsmarks in 1940's, and approximately $21
billion dollars TODAY. Wow. And the V2 had limited attack radius. 200
miles attack range for $21 billion dollars today money? Can NK build a
ICBM with 8,000 mile range with a mere $5 billion dollar military
budget? never.
Paragraph Fuior:
Yes, it is possible for NK to sell it. You can say WTC with
conventional planes, and all that. However, never in the history of man
kind has Terrorist obtained Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weapons
AND terrorist has never deployed them succesfully in history. The odds
favor that NK will never supply terrorist with weapons,I can't argue
against that NK can't sell them, but the probability that Terrorist
accessing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons is never. Yeah, I
can't really argue against that, but yeah, okay. Taliban land does not
exist anymore. Its America land.
~ Ricky Wat
thom...@hotmail.com
kind has Terrorist obtained Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weapons
AND terrorist has never deployed them succesfully in history."
In 1995 terrorists released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system, so
that's not strictly true
Ricky Wat
radical Japanese religious cult leader, who lead couple hundred of his
religious followers to "surrender themselves" and committ suicide. OMG,
I was thinking about that incident in my head when I was typing that. I
though no one would know that event in Tokyo subway bombing, so I
decided to slip it in, hoping no one would notice.
Nice one Thomas, You are pretty smart. Yeah, so its true that in 1995,
Japan was screwed my terrorist religious fanatics. haha, So I was
technically wrong.
~ Ricky Wat
joepo...@earthlink.net
for everything ricky. before sept. 11 terrorists had never in the
history of man leveled the two tallest buildings in the mostpowerful
country in the worold. it didnt take long. youre right you cant argue
against it.
joepo...@earthlink.net
the rest of your posts. i knew you were taking advantage of people who
didnt know what you were talking about. you are a huge schemer. it
will catch up to you.
schemer schemer SCHEMER
no wonder you got schemed for your textbook
Ricky Wat
you. Thomas simply mentioned a technicality/specific unknown instance
that disproved my claim. I agree with Thomas that it was a radical
claim to say: "never human history....has terrorist obtain chem, bio,
nuke weapons.", but in no way was I trying to scheme you or
intentionally mislead you. We can talk about technically, the Sarin gas
incident perpetuated by a Buddist religious group. The crazy leader
told his followers that the "end of days" was coming or armageddon, and
the only wayt o stop it was to make the crazy leader " king of Japan"
and overthrow the Japanese govenrmenet, not really a "al-qaeda type"
terrorist cell or organization in the American sense.
~ Ricky Wat (Never schemes)
saml...@yahoo.com
scheming is out of control. Settle down Ricky (or is that not really
your name?) Also i think that we have exhausted the issues of military
devices. I suggest that we move on to a topic that more people can
realate to. How about Affirmitave Action?
-Sam Lawrence
Ricky Wat
be mad right now because I have been labeled as a schemer. Joseph
should be nice and not accuse others of scheming. I am never going to
post in thread again. I am so engulf with happiness right now....the
second I post this comment, I will go outside and do something
productive with my life. I have a great life.
~ Ricky Wat
joepo...@earthlink.net
joepo...@earthlink.net
today (3/24/06) on the forum? The one about ethnic values and
oppurtunity...
Liana jackson
joepo...@earthlink.net wrote:
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2ยข/min or less.
joepo...@earthlink.net
groups succeed and others fail?
Eva
if anyone else found the assignment kind of difficult in the sense that
some things were not exactly.... proveable. like for example we were
supposed to compare the cultural values of different ethnicities but
where are we supposed to find evidence that these values DO belong to
the particular groups? for example, we talked about how asians put a
strong value on education but its not like theres a source you can
quote to prove that idea. and as i was writing my essay i felt like i
was making tons of generalizations and stereotypes about all different
kinds of people. its was fine to do this during class because it was
just an informal discussion, but writing an essay based on
generalizations is a completely different situation. did anyone else
feel this way?
joepo...@earthlink.net
for instance to back up the statement that asians value education you
could go to a colleges information, for instance harvard, and say that
25% of harvard is asian ( i made that up). thats pretty solid evidence
that asians are the largest minority group at this college.
saml...@yahoo.com
the other ones is much less tangable. I think that what you said was
very valid but i think that this question is one that individual
opinion and analysis is really much more important than statistics and
concrete details.
Ricky Wat
This is mad old though; http://ahafun.net/143_Chinese_parade.html
Ricky Wat
joepo...@earthlink.net
Liana jackson
Eva <evakir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
joepo...@earthlink.net
is really pissing me off personally. in my opinion, illegal
immigration should be cracked down on. ill talk more about this if
someone would talk back..... :-(
Ricky Wat
upon the hardwork and labor of immigrants from abroad seeking new
opportunites and wealth in America. Yes, many immigrants would come to
America for a variety of reasons, including political freedom,
religious tolerance, and social unrest back in their native country.
Yes, America was built by the sweat of immigrants. Yes, without the
large pool of hardworking, committed, and low-cost immigrants, the
rapid growth of mechanization, factories, and American industry would
have been possible. Although all these are irrefutable and 'true', No,
present day America does not require anymore large scale migrations to
fuel its economic needs. No, our technologically-oriented economy does
not require large pools of unskilled labor anymore. No, foreign
immigrant manual labor is not required anymore in American factories or
American agrilculture anymore. During the 1800's, the rich prairie
land of the United States and Canada attracted many European farmers.
I am going no where with this, but my point is that illegal immigration
would bring a massive amount of people competing with one another and
against Americans themselves economically; to maximize their profits,
to seek a share of America's 'fixed' economic wealth. There is not
enough wealth to be distributed to all Americans, let alone share
wealth with illegal immigrants.
Furthmore, illegal immigrants pose a MASSIVE threat to homeland
security. Our 2000 mile border with Mexico consist of barren desert,
hostile climates, and variety of unbearable terrains; it is very
diffcult to examine and protect against all outside intrusions. Arab
extremist could easily slip into America through both the Mexican and
Canadian borders. They can easily infiltrate our cities and unleash
destruction again and again. I will leave it on that note.
~ Ricky Wat
capital i = I;
letter 'l' = l;
Ricky Wat
myself, My parents waited 1 decade = 10 years to get an official "OKAY"
from the USA government to come. We had millionaire relatives in
America, and since Tiananmen Sq. massacre occured, and Communist would
going to resume control of capitalist Hong Kong soon after the British
left, my parents were like: "Why not?". So I am here now....
There is a special quota on how many people can come from Hong Kong per
year (500 ppl). Hey, if we did what was right, waited 10 long years,
why can other immigrans bypass this system so easily and not face dire
consequenches.
There is a lot of illegal immigration coming into Hong Kong as well,
from China, from Vietnam, and other Southeast asian nations. However,
our borders are closely guarded and a high percentage of illegal
immigrants are captured and deported back from where they came from. I
do not see why American cannot adopt such security measures to prevent
this large exodus of poor people into our nation, if Hong Kong, Japan,
and other developed nations have these measured already implemented.
~ Ricky Wat
joepo...@earthlink.net
deport illegal immigrants. cause theyre illegal. we have the most
relaxed immgrant laws. theyre just lowering american wages and taking
american jobs. i think we should adopt more strict immigration
policies and just start deporting all the people who come here. im not
trying to be mean, but people like your family wait for a long time and
try to come here legally, and its not fair for people to bypass that
system and run to america. unfortuantely living conditions are so poor
in mexico and other suoth american countries that they all look forward
to coming to america. what really needs to happen is for these south
american countries to get fixed up so their homies arent so desperate
to come here. of course we have all our sweatshops set up down there...
mbbu...@yahoo.com
shuting our boarders isn't the answer. Personnaly my father came here
illigally from El Salvador so i sympathize with the immigrants coming
here illigally. Would America be America with out immigrants? As my
best freind John McCain said today our country is founded on freedom
and democracy and we need to keep that true today.
Ricky Wat
the word "illegal" should be connected with "violation of the law" and
"illegitimate". Anything "illegal" should not be tolerated, because it
is illicit and is prohibited by law.
Like I mentioned before, America was built by the sweats of "Legal"
immigrants. So to answer you question of whether or not "America be
America with out immigrants?", No, America would not be America without
legal immigrants.
I can understand why illegal immigrants come to this country of
fantastic opportunities. If I was a person living in a poor nation, I
would definitely risk all my earnings, my life, and my family to find a
new life in America, Wouldn't you? Well, I know that I can be arrested,
harassed, exploited, and deported, but I would have nothing to lose. I
would be breaking the law.
~ Ricky Wat
alan.i...@gmail.com
only way something can get in or out is by ship or plane. Of course
it's mad easy to prevent illegal immigration because all they have to
do is check the ports and airports. But this is the freakin United
States of America. We have over 5000 miles of land bordering other
countries and thousands of miles bordering the sea. Managing every inch
of our borders would cost a gigantic amount of money, something this
country is already having a problem with. There is no way you can make
a the comparison between this country and an island. This place is just
too big.
Ricky Wat
immigrants in. You see, its never about guarding the frontier borders.
Thats a virtually impossible task that the government would not succeed
in, yes, I agree with you Alan on that issue. Its all about NOT letting
the illegal immigrants be granted rights and priviledges that American
citizens have. Its about NOT letting illegal immigrants becoming
naturalized Americans, and its about NOT allowing illegal immigrants
the right to assimilate into the labor workforce and integrate into our
society without repercussions.
Its all about allocating money to help seek out illegal immigrants,
stop American domestic companies from employing illegal immigrants or
giving jobs to illegal immigrants, and etc... There is a variety of
ways to slow illegal immigration, but stopping them at the borders is
impossible because they will always find ways to circumvent the border
authorities. Its all about employing federal agents to scout out and
track the illlegal immigrant movement and where their concentration is
location. Its all about immediately giving them a speedy fair trial
under Habeas corpus and quickly deporting them bback from where they
came from.
Well, given the circumstances Alan, Let's put yourself in a position of
an illegal immigrant. if YOU were an person who had poor command of
engrish, and YOU did not know the topography, terrain, geography of
America, YOU are a complete foreigner with no knowledge of America at
all, how would you expect to row your little canoe onto American shores
and expect to find proper housing, proper employment, and proper income
to sustain you and your family if you don't know America at all and
don't speaky no engrish huh? Its almost impossible, and the only way
that you will be able to survive is to have undeground connections with
smuggling organization that can specially arrange proper housing and
employment for illegal immigrations. What the United States government
need to do is to not crack down on individual illegal immigrantst,
because they do not know where they fuck they are going in America,
this is a completely foreign placee to them. The illegal immigrants
rely on one source to guide them to America: Smuggling rings and
underground organizations that help them, and THIS is the primary
source of illegal immigration. They profit heavily from this smuggling
illegal immigrants, and the only reason why they are in business is to
supplement the immigrant's desires for new opportunities and to make
huge profits. The Goverment needs to seek out these underground groups
and exterminate them. By cutting this primary source of illegal
immigraiton, the Unted STates will seek a rapid decline in illegal
immigration rates. These groups serve as a medium for smuggling
families into America, and it is extremely important that the US be
vigiliant and bblow these organizations up now!!
In Hong Kong, Considerable effort also goes into detecting and
prosecuting immigration law offenders, and removing illegal immigrants.
Policies are framed to limit to an acceptable level population growth
through immigration, and to control the entry of foreign workers.
Immigration procedures for Hong Kong residents, tourists and
businessmen are streamlined. Nationals of more than 170 countries and
territories are allowed visa free visits to Hong Kong. While ensuring
that professionals and businessmen are welcome to work and invest in
the local community, effort is also made to prevent the entry of
undesirable persons and the departure of persons wanted for criminal
offences.
It has nothing to do with whether or not a nation is an "island" or
not. If wealth is there, illegal immigrants will find a way to sneak
it. There is MAD illegal immigrants from Vietnam. As you might have
heard in the news Alan, your people are jumping off boatings and are
willingly giving themselves up to the HK authorities. These vietnamese
illegal immigrants give themselves up in order to get into HK jails,
where they recieve three course meal every day, comfortable beds, and
sustainable housing environments in the HK prison system as opposed to
the pretty bad living conditions in Vietnam. Your people would rather
live in Hong Kong's jails than in your people's land. I sympathize for
your people.
~ Ricky Wat
alan.i...@gmail.com
and then telling me that I'm wrong. I never stated my personal opinion
on any of this stuff and yet you are telling me to picture myself as an
immigrant and then telling me what the government needs to do. All I
said was that your comparison between the United States' and Hong
Kong's defense against illegal immigration was flawed.
Also, you stated that "if YOU are a complete foreigner with no
knowledge of America at all, how would you expect to row your little
canoe onto American shores". If a person doesnt have any knowledge of
America then why would they be comming here? Potential immigrants
should have an understanding of what they want to do when they get
here. They just dont wake up one morning and say 'hey lets go to
america amigos'. They hear stories, know of people, places, jobs etc
etc. For you to say that some immigrant has no knowledge of the country
he/she is trying to get into, then they wouldnt be comming here in the
first place.
Lastly, you might want to get rid of all the fluff in your posts. Just
get to the point and stop shooting out these irrelevant "facts" that
you use to try and make yourself seem like you know everything.
Ricky Wat
hah, got you there.
~ Ricky Wat
Ricky Wat
Palestinian boy. Israeli tanks are no match.
http://static.userland.com/sh4/images/booknotes/boyVsTank.jpg
saml...@yahoo.com
to America legally. Think about it from to the point of view of a
refugee immigrant or someone who is suffering in their own country. If
you were in such a desperate situation going through the extremely long
tedious immigration process could be extremely detrimental to your
future. Ricky said i disagree with your statement that the united
states doesnt need any more unskilled labor. The majority of all the
food you eat and all of the fruit comes from illegal mexican immigrants
who cultivate it in florida and other parts of the south. To say that
they dont benefit the country is ridiculous. Most of them are very
honorable hard working people. We have them to thank for the very very
cheap food that we are able to purchase.
Sam
mbbu...@yahoo.com
joepo...@earthlink.net
The way to fix this problem is not to tighten our border security
(thats part of it). We have to help these countries where people are
suffering. Rather than just shut ourselves up further we should give
aid and try to cultivate a better economy there. Yeah, I'm saying it,
let's go intervene in South American affairs again. Because they
clearly need our help. If so many millions of them risk their lives to
get here, then they clearly need help in their own countries. Lets go
fix dem hos up.
Also, we don't need those illegal immigrant. We don't need them one
goddamned bit. I'm sure they are all hardworking people, thats not the
point. The point is they drive the american wage down, and they take
american jobs. And when i say american, dont get me wrong. When I say
american I mean legal immigrant, native Americans, etc. I mean
everyone who's here and is here legally. check these florida
statistics: http://stats.bls.gov/eag/eag.fl.htm . we dont need these
immigrants when we have this unemplyment.
yeah so we should just help the countries that are sending these
illegal immigrants. but we should also keep them the hell outta here.
if you want to know why we should keep them out of here, go to
huntington new york. they wait on corners to be picked up, then they
get paid $5 an hour. they have effectively segregated the town of
huntington and huntington station, and they have made it so legal
americans cant perform unskilled labor.
to sum up lets fix those countries and we dont need illegal immigrants.
Ricky Wat
problem stems from the mother country herself, and America should
realize that the reason why illegal immigrants come here in the first
place is to seek opportunities that are not available in their
homeland. By creating opportunities and wealth in their native land, we
can slow down illegal immigrant (not completely stop it), and
simulatenously benefit the poor nation's economy and everyone as a
whole. Eliminating poverty and hunger is the first step to solve this
migration crisis.
I have a question for Joe. To what extent does America need to improve
these poor nation's economy to deterr or slow down illegal immigration
from these countries? Considering America is very rich and abundant
with wealth, is it possible to accelerate growth in these poor nation's
economy enough to make potential immigrants less tempted to sneak into
here. My point is how far does the poor nation's economy need to
improve in order to make America not an option for illegal immigrants.
America can never be replaced as the perfect place to gain wealth and
opportunities, but to what extent can we American improve the poor
nation's to mimick a fraction of what America can provide. Would it
cost money? If so, how much money? I would like to know because if the
money we are providing to assist with national growth of a particular
nation outweights the cost of protecting and guarding our borders,
would it be a wise financial decision to go with improving nation's
economies? Just questions, nothing critical or anything..
Also, Joe, What do you say to this: "2. Mexico is NOT a poor country.
It has the fifth richest economy in the world, and by sending its
teeming masses to our country, that status keeps on rising. Mexico has
more resources per square mile than the U.S. and plenty of money to
take care of its own people. Why should the taxpayers of this country
subsidize Mexico's corruption? "
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html
Hello Sam! Yeah, With regards to me saying that "America does not need
a large pool of unskilled labor anymore", I knew that this was not
completely true, but the way that I conveyed it made it seem that I was
make it true. In the 1800's, 41% of the American population was working
in agrilculture. Now, in the 21st century, only 2% of the American
populuation is currently working in farming and agrilculture. The
reason why I said "America does not need a large pool of unskilled
labor anymore" is because technology drives everything in the farming
industry. Agrilculture is now 100% mechanized, and slave labor, or
manual labor for that matter is a thing of the past. Back in the day,
hundreds of people used tools such as the scythes to cut wheat and tie
them up in threshes and separate the grains from the undesired parts.
Now, a single Combine machine harvester replaces over 20 people on the
field.
Sam, Where did you get that information that illegal aliens benefit our
economy? Because illegal aliens only make up 5% of the American labor
force.
"6. The economy does NOT depend on illegal aliens. Sure, greedy CEOs
(making $50 to $150 MILLION a year) and business owners depend on
illegal aliens, but due to #3, #4 and #5 above, the only thing illegal
aliens are contributing to is the collapse of our economy and making
the rich richer.
7. Without illegal aliens, the price of agricultural products and other
goods and services will NOT soar. The definitive study on this subject
is the University of Iowa's "How Much Is That Tomato?" The study
concludes that 'since labor is such a small component of the end-price
of agricultural products (which includes price to the growers,
transportation costs, processing /storage costs, grocers' profit,
etc.), using minimum wage workers instead of illegal aliens would
increase prices of agricultural products by approximately 3 percent in
the summer and 4 percent in the winter ... hardly the making of $10
heads of lettuce, $25 hamburgers, $1,000 per night Days Inn hotel rooms
like the pro-illegal alien lobby claims. "
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html
joepo...@earthlink.net
the work force? they are illegal they are not registered... Because
on places like long island almost 100% of the agtricultural industry is
mexicans, el salvadorians, dominicans, etc. i dont have statistics for
that but i can tell cause if you ever go down there, check out the
landscapers, the people working at flower markets, and the people on
the vineyards and little farms in teh hamptons. check it for yourself.
yeah and in response to your question. i have no idea how to help
them, what to do, or how much it would cost. its just an idea. i
think that to kill a problem you have to kill it where it grows from
like when hercules killed the hyrdra by stopping its heads from
growing! what! greek mythology! yeah its like terrorism, we cant
hunt them down and kill them, we have to stop it from developing in the
first place.
mbbu...@yahoo.com
How much is it really effecting you personally to have immigrants come
here? You probably wouldn't even notice or even care about this issue
if it wasn't a major topic today. Yeah Joe your probably right that
100% of the work force of landscapers is hispanic, but who really
cares? They're doing the job that most people would dred to do. The
majority of illigal immigrants are doing the jobs we think are beneath
us like landscaping, janitors, bus boys, dish washers, factory jobs
just to name a few. Are immigrants that much of a threat to us that we
need to seriously try to limit them to come to America?
mbbu...@yahoo.com
money for us to go to every Central and South American country, they
probably don't want America there. They aren't in any real threat nor
are they a real threat to us. They don't have some crazy dictator
ruling them or in a major war with anyone. The reason they come here
is because they are mostly 3rd world coutries who don't have a lot of
money and that doesn't have many jobs. Once we're in these countries
how happy are you actually going to be. You'll probably be more upset
that we're helping out these countries and putting so much money into
them then about this boarder issue.