Howard,

No, its not my personal view. But I think its deeper, far more rooted back in history than for example the British being lousy cooks (so I have heard ;) ).

What Jeff said, once again.

I have only the same concern I have for any human that is displaced by government, and no more. I don't care if Israel is a democracy or not, democracy is, hopefully, a fading form of government as people begin to realize more and more than government is too dangerous to have around.

You didn't answer the questions fully, who did the Zionist Movement buy the land, in Palestine since there was no Israel in the 19th century, from?

Who did the Zionist Movement buy the land from during the period of 1918-1930?

And, yes, I'm intentionally removing the National Socialist years from the equation since it clouds the issue and some people's minds.

It appears that you are confusing biblical Israel with the modern state of Israel, the two are not remotely the same.

In the ongoing Israeli domination and attacks against the Palestinians, here's the latest view:

Quote:

June 30, 2006 The Gaza Beach Party Massacre Israel bombs beach-goers and re-invades Gaza – because they can by Justin Raimondo The pretext under which the Israelis have re-invaded the Gaza Strip speaks volumes about the mentality of the settler state and those who hold it up as an exemplar of heroic virtue worthy of American support: one of their soldiers, Gilad Shalit, was kidnapped, and so, of course, this justified taking out half the Strip's electrical grid – a form of "collective punishment" that will result in the deaths of young innocents, as the water-purification facilities for many thousands are knocked out. The Israeli leadership firmly believes that the life of one of their own is worth more than hundreds of Palestinians, young or old, fighters or bystanders, guilty or innocent. This is the message they are sending to their antagonists in Hamas and Fatah, and, in an interview with Abu Abir, a leader of the "Popular Resistance Committees," it is quite clear that this message has been received: Q: "But the murder of the hostage doesn't improve your reputation in the world, and doesn't help end the IDF incursion in Gaza." Abu Abir: "We executed a person belonging to the category of people who are stealing Palestinian land and daily harming Palestinian civilians. What is inhumane is the execution of our women and children in cold blood. The blood of Zionists is not dearer than the blood of our children, women, and warriors." The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't about land anymore. It is about who is human, and who is not: who is a lord, and who is a helot. It is about power and domination, and the Israelis, by means of their much-vaunted "unilateral withdrawal" from parts of the occupied territories, have set up a theater in which their ideology of domination can be acted out indefinitely. Of course, they need a "reason" – which can be provoked or manufactured, as the case may be – but in reality they can invade at will, for any and no reason, and this ability to dominate is the payoff, the orgasmic climax the Israeli leadership is seeking. The buzzing of Bashar al-Assad's summer residence, the mass arrest of democratically elected Palestinian lawmakers and ministers, the targeting of infrastructure in violation of the Geneva accords and the commonly held concept of human decency – the Israelis do it simply because they can. This isn't "colonialism" – it's sadism. Israel's amen corner is constantly reiterating two themes that supposedly justify whatever horrific tactic the IDF employs: (1) The other side targets innocent civilians, and (2) Israel has the right to defend itself. The evil suicide bombings in pizza parlors and night clubs have – rightly – turned public opinion in the West against the perpetrators and lessened support for the Palestinian cause. Yet the tables are turning: Israel is now openly targeting the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. "Retaliation" for the kidnapping of a soldier and a Jewish settler on occupied lands is clearly not at all defensive: soldiers, after all, are fair game in wartime, and the settlers are clearly involved in an act of aggression, i.e., dispossessing Palestinians of their land. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9224

Did you ever consider that besides forcing Japan to capitulate, that the dropping of the bombs was also a show of force to the Soviets?

Bully boys......Yankees don't need to "bully" anyone, we are already the victors and nothing you say nor do can ever change that FACT. Your complex over this becomes more apparent with each of your posts.

I find the argument as to the legitimacy of Israel and its occupation of territory interesting. One question: when does might make right? If Egypt, Syria, Jordan... cannot protect/enforce their own boarders, do they have the right/power/ability to legislate the area, when Israel carved out their own country in wars did they earn the right to govern themselves as America did in the 1700's?

Pat, I also am interested in reading your conclusions as to how war should be carried out. You demonize Lincoln, Sherman, Roosevelt, and Truman, yet the wars they were involved in ended in US victory and lasting peace. In all those examples of extended viloence earlier in the post Germany, Italy, Japan, the North and South in the US were not included. I believe the terrible cost of those wars contributed to the lasting peace, and would prefer that our military not be employed without the reslove to use its capabilities. Had we not pulled back in 1991, it is easy to speculate that your animosity toward our current President could well be limited to his domestic ploicies.

Let's see, impress the Soviet Union, already nearly flat on it's back from the war with Germany, you nuke the Japanese, yeah, that makes sense.

Quote:

Bully boys......Yankees don't need to "bully" anyone, we are already the victors and nothing you say nor do can ever change that FACT. Your complex over this becomes more apparent with each of your posts.

The complex is yours.
http://images16.fotki.com/v272/photo...leston4-vi.jpg
Charleston, South Carolina after the Union Army's tender mercies. "We had to destroy it to save it."

The Union Army has been murdering people for over 140 years, the same as today.

Taking just your statement about Lincoln's illegal invasion and conquest of the Confederacy, it did not in fact end in a lasting peace.

For 12 additional years, the Union waged a war of terror upon the conquered territory of the Confederacy, and is continuing to wage a war of cultural genocide today.

I think it's easy to show that there is no peace in the South today, just that there is no ongoing shooting war, yet.

More a case of sour grapes after getting beat.

Where is your "moral outrage" over the destruction of Lawrence, Kansas by Quantril and Anderson?

All of your bluster regarding "people's rights to protect their homelands by any menas necessary" and "any wars' involving incursion into others' land is illegal and unecessary" fails to take into account Lee's invasion of the North, which ultimately resulted in defeat at Gettysburg. By your skewed reckoning--Lee should be the biggest pariah in the South--spearheading an illegal invasion into Northern territory, ending in a crucial battle which led to the South's withdrawal, and ultimately its defeat.

Beat that drum at your next LOSer gathering:)

Get used to it.

Quote:

Where is your "moral outrage" over the destruction of Lawrence, Kansas by Quantril and Anderson?

Did South Carolina send those folks into that area, or was that a response to John Brown's murderous rampage in Virginia, a raid sponsored by well known Northern abolishionists (aka the secret six)?

Quote:

All of your bluster regarding "people's rights to protect their homelands by any means necessary" and "any wars' involving incursion into others' land is illegal and unecessary" fails to take into account Lee's invasion of the North, which ultimately resulted in defeat at Gettysburg. By your skewed reckoning--Lee should be the biggest pariah in the South--spearheading an illegal invasion into Northern territory, ending in a crucial battle which led to the South's withdrawal, and ultimately its defeat. Beat that drum at your next LOSer gathering:)

No, once war was initiated by the Union, any method necessary to force the Union out of the south, including entry into Pennsylvania was legitimate. Discussion as to whether is was a good idea, in my opinion it was not, is another subject. What was a good idea was an immediate follow-up to the First Manassas victory with the taking of Washington, D.C. which would have ended the war very quickly. The Confederacy did not do that because they were not fighting a civil war, they were defending our land.

Now an illegal invasion into the North was legitimate, although in countless threads you posted the sentiments that"anyone killed while invading another's lands got what they deserved".

As I said, at your next LOSer gathering present the case that Pickett and all of his men got what they deserved.

Noah,

Well written:)

I see you guys have Pat foaming at the mouth again.

Pat constantly lives in a very, very small window of past history. Any and all discussions with him always lead back to that point. :rolleyes:

Maybe Pat was beaten up by a Northern Jew when he was little...... :D

Cultural Genocide? Are you implying that a viable culture that is capable of functioning in today's society is being actively stamped out intentionally by a government forced on it?

No shooting yet? Will the defense of this culture be limited to your yard, state, or anywhere the opressors are at work? (Specifically is PA out of range of this coming armed conflict?)

Pastey believes that eventually sc and other like-minded state populaces will eventually withdraw frrm the Union utilizing peaceful means starting at the local/state government levels. This will be accomplished through the election of candidates which believe in this doctrine. Then Santa Clause and Merlin will build a gumdrop castle in south carolina and invite everyone over for mint julips and cotilians.

Why we actually fought to KEEP the south, I'll have no idea. If they wanna' go I say let 'em. Don't let the door hit 'em on the ass on the way out. The rest of us could keep a lot more tax money that way 'cause we wouldn't have to be subsidizing more "recipient" states.

Hell, I think CA ought to secede and that we'd be better off for it, but nobody else seems to want to back that position.

The idea that anyone stole land from anyone else is incredible. Land changes hands all the time. Boundaries are constantly being redrawn. If you want to use that argument, we all stole our land from the caveman. And he got it from whatever primate was his daddy. And apparently the ape stole it from the primordial muck! Laughable.

Jerusalem has been conquered 40 times and burned to the ground 18 times. Which one of those times defines the owner, legitimate heir and/or sovereign ruler?

Whoever's living on the land is the owner. If anyone wants to take it, they can certainly try. The Palestinians and Jews have been fighting for all these years to a stalemate.

Maybe this time one of them will put such a beatdown on the other, that it will be settled. I'm betting on Israel.

In fact, the Palestinians would be better off if they would just lay down and let themselves be conquered. That way thier Arafat inspired ***** hole of a country would be transformed into someplace where you'd actually want to live.

Jeff you are way out of line. The contributions of the South are increbible - Jazz, Blues, Country, Zydeco (well, Country, Jazz and Blues anyway), fried chicken, cajun cooking, BBQ, gumbo, etoufe, southern charm and southern belles.

The only contribution I can think of from CA is large silicon breasts (and I want to personally thank CA for that)!

No, no, please, let them think what they want; as long as we get to go, that's all that's important.

Leave the Union to it's boiled dinners. (Yark!)

COmments denegrating the south are generally made by people who have never personally experienced the south.

Let them stay where they are and ignorant.