Question for Stephanie and other anti-Zionists:

If 11,000 mortars or rockets in the last four years had been fired from Tijuana into San Jose by La Raza militants wanting their "stolen land" back, what do you think should be the response by the USA?

When that happens I'll let you know.

Stephanie wrote:When that happens I'll let you know.

What will you call Americans who simply want to protect their homeland? Amerinazis?

Does La Raza--and other Hispanic nationalists--have a claim to American territory? Should we concede the SW to them and re-deploy to Guam?

Keli, you are beginning to bore me, you really are. You label anyone that doesn't support your beloved Israel as anti-zionist or anti-semite. I will admit you do prove the statement that the only difference between the right and left is who they support. However, you also show just how ignorant you really are.

Now allow me to answer the question in a manner the even you may understand. If I was in Israel's shoes, after the continual rocket attacks, I would remove them from the face of the earth. The difference between me and you is, I wouldn't expect the world to come to my aid, nor would I want or accept it. The same is true in your analogy of the US being attacked by militants in Mexico. Mexico would deal with it or I would. Either way, I would not whine to the UN or the world community. Retaliation would be swift, horrible, and without regard to collaterial damage or death.

The point both Stephanie and I have made and will continue to make is that the fight is between Israel and the arabs. The US needs to stay out of it comp-etely monetarily and militarily. Let the Jews and Arabs fight it out. At some point both sides are going to realize that the fighting makes no sence and that other avenues exists to settle their differences. The US has no causelegal or otherwise to be involved on either side. If we do become involved in anyway, all we will accomplish is to set the stage for the next conflict.

Keli wrote:If 11,000 mortars or rockets in the last four years had been fired from Tijuana into San Jose by La Raza militants wanting their "stolen land" back, what do you think should be the response by the USA?

We have 6,000 nuclear weapons. Would that be appropriate or should we just drop bombs for 32 days before sending in the 82nd Airborne, the 1st Infantry Division and the Marines?

Cato wrote:Keli, you are beginning to bore me, you really are. You label anyone that doesn't support your beloved Israel as anti-zionist or anti-semite. I will admit you do prove the statement that the only difference between the right and left is who they support. However, you also show just how ignorant you really are.

Now allow me to answer the question in a manner the even you may understand. If I was in Israel's shoes, after the continual rocket attacks, I would remove them from the face of the earth. The difference between me and you is, I wouldn't expect the world to come to my aid, nor would I want or accept it. The same is true in your analogy of the US being attacked by militants in Mexico. Mexico would deal with it or I would. Either way, I would not whine to the UN or the world community. Retaliation would be swift, horrible, and without regard to collaterial damage or death.

The point both Stephanie and I have made and will continue to make is that the fight is between Israel and the arabs. The US needs to stay out of it comp-etely monetarily and militarily. Let the Jews and Arabs fight it out. At some point both sides are going to realize that the fighting makes no sence and that other avenues exists to settle their differences. The US has no causelegal or otherwise to be involved on either side. If we do become involved in anyway, all we will accomplish is to set the stage for the next conflict.

Forgive me my stupidity; but, what if we discovered that Canada and Chicano-Americans were supplying and funding the weapons being lobbed over the border into San Jose? What would your repsonse be to the internal and external conspiracy?

Armon Ayers wrote:


Forgive me my stupidity; but, what if we discovered that Canada and Chicano-Americans were supplying and funding the weapons being lobbed over the border into San Jose? What would your repsonse be to the internal and external conspiracy?

You read what my responce would be. Unlike what the "chicken hawks, neoconservatives, snibbling democrats, and the present gaggle of elected boneheads, would do, when I got done they would never ever do it again. I would not expect or need the help of any other nation or the UN to do it either, nor would I go either for permission. However, your question has absolutely nothing to do with becoming involved with the middle east in any way shape for form. I fail to understand why people like you and Keli want to compare apples to oranges. Any nation or people that are attacked have the fundamental right to defend themselves. What that doesn't do is obligate another nation who is neutral in the matter to become involved. That is the point and sole point ofwhat I am saying.

You people need to look aback at history. We become involved in WW1 and set the stage for WW2, the most destructive war in history. We have been meddling in the middle east for decades and the fighting continues. We have solved nothing. All we have accomplished is to set the stage for both side to continue fighting, knowing they can come whining to us for help. It is time we remove the helpo and let them stand or fall on thier own.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090110/D95KB8C80.html

Well Willie it looks like the chosen might have had enough and ready to do it your way.

Do you think they should just go ahead and take Iran out too while they are at it.

shermangeneral wrote:http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090110/D95KB8C80.html

Well Willie it looks like the chosen might have had enough and ready to do it your way.

Do you think they should just go ahead and take Iran out too while they are at it.

As long as the US leadership keeps their noses and ours out of it, I freankly don't care what they do.

Tell ME SHermy, what do you think they ought to do and what do you think we should do? I'd kinda like to know.

shermangeneral wrote:http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090110/D95KB8C80.html

Well Willie it looks like the chosen might have had enough and ready to do it your way.

Do you think they should just go ahead and take Iran out too while they are at it.

Yesterday.

And what should America do if Israel goes after Iran? How about you answer the question Cato posed to Sherman?

Well since you both asked I guess I should respond.

So I will answer with a parable.

We used to have a little dog named Charlie.

The vet said she was mostly border collie.

We saw somebody drop her off on our way to town and we got past them before we figured out what they were doing.

My wife wanted to go back and pick her up since there were several inches of snow on the ground.

So I said if she was still there when we came back we would and she was so we did.

She was my sidekick for probably 15 years so obviously we were close friends.

She loved to spend time in the woods and so did I.

She never bit or even growled at anyone or anything in all that time not even a cat. Except for one thing.

If we saw a groundhog she was on him like a duck on a june bug.

But like I said she was a small dog and sometimes she did not come out on top.

So I would get a stick and whack the groundhog on the head a couple times till he was addled and she would fly back into him and shake him like a rag doll till he was dead.

So just pretend Charlie was Israel, Iran is the groundhog, and I am the USA.

shermangeneral wrote:Well since you both asked I guess I should respond.

So I will answer with a parable.

We used to have a little dog named Charlie.

The vet said she was mostly border collie.

We saw somebody drop her off on our way to town and we got past them before we figured out what they were doing.

My wife wanted to go back and pick her up since there were several inches of snow on the ground.

So I said if she was still there when we came back we would and she was so we did.

She was my sidekick for probably 15 years so obviously we were close friends.

She loved to spend time in the woods and so did I.

She never bit or even growled at anyone or anything in all that time not even a cat. Except for one thing.

If we saw a groundhog she was on him like a duck on a june bug.

But like I said she was a small dog and sometimes she did not come out on top.

So I would get a stick and whack the groundhog on the head a couple times till he was addled and she would fly back into him and shake him like a rag doll till he was dead.

So just pretend Charlie was Israel, Iran is the groundhog, and I am the USA.

Okay...but how much wood could a woodchuck chuck--IF a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Perhaps is you had let your dog get its butt whipped as it deserved for attacking the groundhog the first time? Perhaps if it didn't come to depend on you from saving it would have stopped attacking and wouldn't need you to ensure victory but as you kept coming to it's rescue, it likely came to expect that and thus became much more aggressive then it would have been otherwise.

So your actions made things worse then they would have been had you not intervened by making it MORE aggressive then it would have been without your intervention. As a result of the increased aggression, the likelihood that the dog attacking other animals besides groundhogs, perhaps a bobcat or something much more dangerous, increased and not only put the dog in greater danger but put yourself in danger as well.

I don't suppose you thought of any of that, did you ShermanGeneral?

There are those of us that think because of the US's support and intervention, they have become more aggressive and are putting the US in more danger as well.

"I don't suppose you thought of any of that, did you ShermanGeneral?"

Nope.

I didnt have to stop and ask which side I was on.

Like I said she was my friend.

So if she got in trouble I was on her side.

That's just the way I am.

shermangeneral wrote:"I don't suppose you thought of any of that, did you ShermanGeneral?"

Nope.

I didnt have to stop and ask which side I was on.

Like I said she was my friend.

So if she got in trouble I was on her side.

That's just the way I am.

Then Sherman, if that is the way you believe, I submit you are a hypocrit for condemning Bush and the neocons for opting to invade Iraq. Afterall aren't we suppose to be the firends of the people of Iraq and didn't we free them from a tyrannt?

Aaron wrote:
There are those of us that think because of the US's support and intervention, they have become more aggressive and are putting the US in more danger as well.

Not so. I think that there are thousands who have been permanently placated. Plus, think of how many virgins we have made happy.

Cato wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:"I don't suppose you thought of any of that, did you ShermanGeneral?"

Nope.

I didnt have to stop and ask which side I was on.

Like I said she was my friend.

So if she got in trouble I was on her side.

That's just the way I am.

Then Sherman, if that is the way you believe, I submit you are a hypocrit for condemning Bush and the neocons for opting to invade Iraq. Afterall aren't we suppose to be the firends of the people of Iraq and didn't we free them from a tyrannt?

We did not invade Iraq because we were "friends of the Iraqi people". Not even Bush used that excuse- and he was desperate for excuses.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:"I don't suppose you thought of any of that, did you ShermanGeneral?"

Nope.

I didnt have to stop and ask which side I was on.

Like I said she was my friend.

So if she got in trouble I was on her side.

That's just the way I am.

Then Sherman, if that is the way you believe, I submit you are a hypocrit for condemning Bush and the neocons for opting to invade Iraq. Afterall aren't we suppose to be the firends of the people of Iraq and didn't we free them from a tyrannt?

We did not invade Iraq because we were "friends of the Iraqi people". Not even Bush used that excuse- and he was desperate for excuses.

And I didn't say he did? What I was pointing out is how hypocritical Sherman's position was. He had condemned, Bush and the neocons for taking the nation to war in Iraq and then he make the statement he makes in his post here. I imagine it has alot to do with the politics of the people who call the shots and little to do with the wisdom of said people.

So you have a full understanding of what I believe, we did not belong in Iraq nor in Afganistan other than what was necessary to either capture or kill bin Laden and his ilk. Otherwise we need to be out of both places along with many other places we have our noses today, including the mess between Israel and the Palastinians.

What I was pointing out is how hypocritical Sherman's position was.

Sherman might be hypocritical about something or other. But not in the matter at hand nor the example you cite- because there is no evidence that we invaded Iraq because we were friends of the Iraqi people. We don't use false pretenses to kill our "friends" by the hundreds of thousands.

Hundreds of thousands? Me thinks you've had one to many tonight.

But you're saying it's ok to kill in the thousands if IT IS IN the name of friendship and not a false pretense?

Keli wrote:

Aaron wrote:
There are those of us that think because of the US's support and intervention, they have become more aggressive and are putting the US in more danger as well.

Not so. I think that there are thousands who have been permanently placated. Plus, think of how many virgins we have made happy.

Yes, it is so. Israel is Sherman’s mutt, the one who has come to expect someone bigger and stronger to protect him so he gets more and more aggressive.

Two years ago it was Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Last year they went miles into Syria and now it's Hamas again.

And if you have your wish, it will be Iran next.

What you and yours don't understand is that while Shia only make up about 15% of Arabs, if Israel continues unabated in their aggression, more and more Sunni will join with Shia and if that happens, we're going to find ourselves in the middle of a great big hornets nest and for what, a promise made before Christ walked this earth?

And here I was thinking that we were no longer under old testament rules when the veil of the temple was torn. Silly me.

What's really so sickening about Sherm's parable, is that to him, an Arab life is no more important than that of a groundhog.

No, what is really sickening about Sherman's parable is that political affiliation excuses unconstiutional and stupid acts. If Israel had invaded Gaza two years ago, Sherman's parable would have quite a different tenor. The sad part is sherman isn't the only person that thinks this way.