Why was Isreal created? Answer.. Because in a desperate attempt to prevent another pogrom or another genocidal rampage by the rest of the world, the Zionist took land that no Arab government wanted. As the Trans Jordan territory was being broken up, Even the new kingdom of Jordan didn't want the area which now makes up Israel. It became an issue only when the United Kingdom decided to leave a worthless territory it could not justify administering. The Zionist seized the power void and declared a state . It was only at that moment of time that the Arabs took notice of the sudden IMPORTANCE of the territory which makes up Israel. The Arabs have started every single war, and have had their collective heads handed to them on a plate. America didn't really even directly support Israel until the Yom Kippur War. We came to the realization that unless someone stepped in for Israel, the Arabs would continue major military operations every 5 or so years against the undaunted Jews. Our very support of Israel has made surprise wars breaking out in the Sinai and Golan regions impossible If any President changed that policy, I can be reasonable sure that we would revert back to the pattern of my childhood, where Israel gets attacked repeatedly. So firstly, Jews were not "relocated" they were exterminated like flies. Secondly, we had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Israel. As a matter of fact Marshall recommended that the UK return to the Trans-Jordan and remove Israel with American support. Third, there was no religious tensions preexisting the creation of Israel. The religion angle was introduced by the Arab nations as a means of convincing Arabs that a secular war against a previously worthless area of land was in fact ordained by religious reasons. Finally American support for Israel has been the keystone to resolving the Arab aggression against Israel. You haven't heard of many 6 Days Wars lately have you? As to the implication that ruling by conviction, even if the public fails to see it at the time, is treason would lead to most of our Presidents' early political deaths. Do you realize how unpopular Wilson was? Do we now all agree that he was correct? How about Nixon's trip to China? I doubt that he cared too much for the polls which were INSANELY against it. I wont even bring up FDR, but suffice to say if modern polling had existed then, his popularity would have been in the low 30's. Lincoln was so unpopular he seriously came close to loosing the election for his second term. What do all these men have in common? they followed paths of conviction which were maligned by people at the time but history has judged them right.
Tuesday, May 8, 2001
Why Does the USA support Israel?
Wednesday, April 11, 2001
Email I got
I am a BAD American. I like big cars, big breasts, and big cigars. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some I'm not in touch with my feelings and I like it that way. I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or I know that owning a gun doesn't make you a killer. I believe it's called the Boy Scouts for a reason. I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized. I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, you'd better do it in I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for unpopular I think fireworks should be legal on the 4th of July. I don't want to eat or drink anything with the words light, lite or My heroes are John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant and whoever cancelled I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time arguing about it. I think global warming is a big lie. I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I didn't wander forty years in I want to know which church is it exactly where the Rev. Jesse Jackson I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you're I worry about dying before I get even. I think beef jerky could quite possibly be the perfect food. I enjoy watching high speed pursuits, the more damage the better. I know that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two I think tattoos and piercings are fine if you want them, but please, I think Dr. Seuss was a genius. If that makes me a bad American, then yes, I'm a bad American. If you, anyway..that.describes.an.ornery.american.pretty.wellHey Ya'll.....I cut out all the Fwd's....But I think this is good...dont care for the big breasts n cigars tho LOL
mid-level governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to
give it away to crack addicts squirting out babies.
Marilyn Manson sang.
English.
opinions or actions.
fat-free on the package.
Ellen, Full House and Bob Saget.
the desert after leaving Egypt, I haven't burned any witches or been
persecuted by the Turks and neither
have you, so shut up already.
preaches. And where does he get his money. And why is he always part of
the problem and not the solution.
running from them.
devoted parents -- one male, one female!
don't pretend they are a political statement.
too, are a bad American please forward this to everyone you know. We need
to start a revolution.
Sunday, March 11, 2001
AIDS in Africa
Yep Africa is in trouble. Remember the huge birthrate problem we were being warned about? Guess what there are countries in Africa where the prospective pool of parents for the next generation are riddled with high percentages of AIDS. Seems without any intervention from the developed word, the third world problem in Africa has taken care of itself. Just when did we become so racist as to allow flimsy laws and agreements preventing even humanitarian aid? And what gets me is that from a capitalistic viewpoint, the shear numbers of AIDS in Africa would allow huge economies of scale. Even if the western drug companies charge $1 a day for the drugs, they would reap huge huge profits. In fact, supplying AIDS treatments to Africa would probably pay for the entire original investment which created those drugs. I am not much a believer in conspiracy but in the case of inaction on AIDS in Africa, I can see no justifications at all. All I know is that the overpopulations which were feared in the 1970's did not take place in the 1990's like the UN feared. These countries are no longer in danger of doubling populations, they are now in danger of having severely reduced populations. Rhodesia was one example. I use the colonial name of the country because I think it has changed again. But I remember reading about the current state of affairs in the country. The book "Things Fall Apart" is loosely based on Rhodesia and what happened when this country fell from a democracy to a racist military dictatorship. In reality the country really did fall far. But by the mid 1980's the country was beginning to recapture some forwards momentum. The paper I was reading, was in an anthropology journal so it was, as usual, very dry reading. But the thing that I still remember as shocking was that of the population of child rearing age, 55% of the adults had AIDS. The implications are obvious. If you remove 55% of your future population, how the heck do you ever form a stable prosperous country? And because AIDS is a magnifying disease, the effects on the second generation is even more pronounced. Out of 100 people in a village, 55 people die and don't have children. The next generation is based on 45 breeding people. if 55% of them die, you can see the results. every 20 years the growth is ridiculously low. That's just Rhodesia. In a way, instead of overpopulation in Africa we are now faced with depopulation. And depopulation benefits the rest of the world. Now when a famine hits Africa, less hungry mouths have to be fed. Since economies are unstable, investment is cheaper and easier in Africa. In fact, a depopulated Africa has created a perverse possibility of a secondary unofficial colonialism. Western Economies well get the benefits of economic output without the drains of actual control. Look for example at Belgium sending troops into the Congo. 20 years ago there would have been a world wide cry of "foul". Now, due to the weakness of the populations, a former and hated colonial power can do what it wants. Yes there were political overtones to the invasion of Congo, but the real benefit was to Belgium economic interests. A society suffering from disease is unable and unwilling to resist outside interventions. African Governments are privately so preoccupied with AIDS, that they can not focus on any other issues. Hunt Petroleum out of Huston Texas conducted an exploration of Kenya for oil reserves. This was in the late 1980's. The oil fields found are massive. Kenya's population is riddled with AIDS. The government is currently unable to even control the development of the oil fields. Hunt Oil is basically in collusion with other world oil companies in not developing the oil reserves. Imagine if Kenya could use oil revenue to pay for AIDS drugs? The population would be healthy, and more importantly Kenya would be socially stable enough to do what it collectively wants with these oil reserves. I guess what makes me wonder is that there is absolutely no reason for AIDS drugs not being sent to Africa. Most of the countries could completely pay for them right now. More people alive would mean large economies, and larger economies mean more purchasing power. Why would Bayer, Merck, Littlejohn, etc not want to sell to a huge market? I don't know what my point is, but if the goal of capitalism is to make money in available markets why the heck are the drug companies not selling in this market? I really hope its not racism.
Posts
