A very informative and impressive post as usual. WOW!

You have a very rare talent for gathering facts and writing them in a clear, unbiased, intelligent work of art.

You should write for the news media. That's if you already don't. If not, your depriving the world of a great talent!

Hope I didn't embarrass you. I had to say it. :)

What? Me write for the news media? BLARGH! I would rather not prostitute the talent you claim that I possess by writing for them. Like I said in the post you replied to, I don't like them very much... No, not at all.

Two reasons:

1. Much of what passes for news in the USA these days isn't. It is entertainment and fluff.

2. Most of the news media in the USA these days actively try to influence (if not out and out control) public discourse by deciding what is 'newsworthy' (and therefore makes their print/web edition or TV broadcast), and by biased reporting. Both sides of the 'asile' in this country do it. Fox (on the right) does it. Most of the rest are on the left, and they do it. And then, to make matters worse, they bring on the talking head/op-ed people. These days, the line between 'news' and 'opinion' is very thin indeed. Journalistic integrity in the USA is, by and large, dead.

What do I want from the news? Just give me the news... ALL of it, don't filter it. What do I not want? To be told what to think about it. I am intelligent and well educated enough to be able to form my own opinion about what to think about it. As are almost all of the rest of the people in the world (intelligence), at least potentially (education).

So, with all of that said, do you really want me to 'join the dark side'?

No, of course not. History is replete with examples where a conquered people whose gov't was completely destroyed never did this. It's rare indeed that anyone has thought that the best way to fight back was to go around slaughtering your own countrymen. The Germans didn't slaughter other Germans after losing WWII. The Indians didn't figure that the best way to fight back against the white man here in America was to slaughter other Indians. The Eastern Asians didn't fight back against the Japanese in WWII by slaughtering themselves. This list is endless.

This is out of my area of expertise, but ... Rush, what about former blocs of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the USSR?

Now extending my previous question with a comment:
Did not the USSR force together peoples into a single country where those people had ancient problems with another?
I recently read that Iraq had not even been a country before the 20th century. There are at least three separate groups there. They were lumped together into a single country by treaty agreements. (Is this correct?) Then, add to that, being ruled by a cruel leader with an iron fist, which could also be considered somewhat parallel to the USSR. Correct or not?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Can we please take the long winded 'at a boys' and 'pat on the butts' to another thread... Thank you... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Now extending my previous question with a comment:
Did not the USSR force together peoples into a single country where those people had ancient problems with another?
I recently read that Iraq had not even been a country before the 20th century. There are at least three separate groups there. They were lumped together into a single country by treaty agreements. (Is this correct?) Then, add to that, being ruled by a cruel leader with an iron fist, which could also be considered somewhat parallel to the USSR. Correct or not?

You are correct. The land that is present-day Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries prior to WWI. Since the Ottoman Empire was on the losing side of that war, the winning side divested them of their 'empire', leaving only modern day Turkey. In late 1920, the British, under a League of Nations mandate, drew some lines on a map totally without regard for the ethnic situtation there, and the Kingdom of Iraq was born. Britain favored the Sunni power elites in Iraq, and this began decades of Sunni repression of both Shi'a and Kurds.

Iraq is not the only country in that region where the League mandate powers (Britain and France) made mistakes in the aftermath of WWI, thereby sowing the seeds of future (to them, present-day to us)... problems. And all of this was WELL before the rest of the world threw a lit match onto that powder-keg by, because of world sympathy for the plight of the Jews after WWII and Hitler's genocide, 'mandating' a Jewish state in Palestine.

As to your 'cruel leader with an iron fist' comment... Sadly, most of the governments in that area, even though some may be democratic in name, are ruled by despotic, dictatorial men. The people over there in the middle east do not have the rich 'Democratic Tradition' that is frequently taken for granted here in the developed West. Some of the nations over there are absolute monarchies. Others are theocratic oligarchies (Iran). Others may have democratic forms, but tend towards one-party, one-person rule. Saddam's title was, indeed, President, but it was understood by most that he was 'President for Life' and elections were merely rubber-stamping formalities.

No, of course not. History is replete with examples where a conquered people whose gov't was completely destroyed never did this. It's rare indeed that anyone has thought that the best way to fight back was to go around slaughtering your own countrymen. The Germans didn't slaughter other Germans after losing WWII. The Indians didn't figure that the best way to fight back against the white man here in America was to slaughter other Indians. The Eastern Asians didn't fight back against the Japanese in WWII by slaughtering themselves. This list is endless.

This is out of my area of expertise, but ... Rush, what about former blocs of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the USSR?

Eh, I don't think those situations are much of a parallel, as you are talking about gov't control that, in essence, collapsed from within of its own weight. In Iraq, or here, or Germany, there was clearly an outside invader that had dismantled the gov't in question.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Can we please take the long winded 'at a boys' and 'pat on the butts' to another thread... Thank you... ;)

Just for you...

Staying up late fixing my friends brother in laws computer...late sleep in...NN.

---

Account frozen...

No, of course not. History is replete with examples where a conquered people whose gov't was completely destroyed never did this. It's rare indeed that anyone has thought that the best way to fight back was to go around slaughtering your own countrymen. The Germans didn't slaughter other Germans after losing WWII. The Indians didn't figure that the best way to fight back against the white man here in America was to slaughter other Indians. The Eastern Asians didn't fight back against the Japanese in WWII by slaughtering themselves. This list is endless.

This is out of my area of expertise, but ... Rush, what about former blocs of the Soviet Union after the collapse of the USSR?

Eh, I don't think those situations are much of a parallel, as you are talking about gov't control that, in essence, collapsed from within of its own weight. In Iraq, or here, or Germany, there was clearly an outside invader that had dismantled the gov't in question.

Ummm ... no, I don't think it was from within, since it was the so-called "satellite" countries that experienced the problems. I'm thinking of Kosovo, Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. ... .

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Ummm ... no, I don't think it was from within, since it was the so-called "satellite" countries that experienced the problems. I'm thinking of Kosovo, Serbs, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. ... .

Then I don't understand your point.

The Czechs and Slovaks did not begin slaughtering each other as a response to either the Warsaw Pact entering the country in 1969 or the failure of the Pact to keep control. The so-called Velvet Revolution didn't result in them slaughtering their own countrymen either. They split the country up, but hey, that's what they wanted.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I see that we are at least keeping things civil, (aside from the usual 'drive by' posts), but what about the topic, which for the most part, was America...


Is this what some would call, 'a successful thread hijacking' ? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

... or, a 'nice dodge' ?


Don't mind me, the author of the thread... By all means, carry on... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Peace.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

:(

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

:(

Just wanted to make the point that 'peace' and 'religion' seldom, if ever, ride in the same handcart (or air liner).
Christian, Moslem, whatever. They're all the same.

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

We went to Iraq in the first place to topple the Govt. of well-known international bad-boy Saddam, because he didn't live up to the surrender agreements made after his failed invasion of Kuwait. That was a strong mission accomplished.

What?!? You mean we didn't go there because we thought he had WMDs?!? ;)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Wow... This was an unexpected turn of events...

Talk about 'beating a dead horse'...

Does this somehow justify what we Americans have done? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Wow... This was an unexpected turn of events...

Talk about 'beating a dead horse'...

Does this somehow justify what we Americans have done? ;)

If you can sit there and justify the murder of 2000+ people, then WE can justify what is happening now.

Ever seen the Bible line that says " an eye for an eye " ?? Sounds like justification to me.

Don't sit there on your self-righteous horse and tell us how everything that happened on 9/11 was provoked and was only an act of self defense.

I have never had any particular problem with you Jeffrey ( aside from the fact that you can't seem to come up with an original thought, so you keep posting quotes from books that you think gets your point across ) but on this one....you are so full of crap that you squeak.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Wow... This was an unexpected turn of events...

Talk about 'beating a dead horse'...

Does this somehow justify what we Americans have done? ;)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Here I thought Jeffrey was going to break down and finally tell us his theory of how the Twin Towers were really destroyed. Oh, well.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Ever seen the Bible line that says " an eye for an eye " ??

You mean this one:

Matthew 5:38-41
You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Us religious folk are so terrible... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Since the law of physics does not agree with how the towers fell, and lack of footage of the terrorist attacks on the pentagon and plane crash, it is hard to be completely accurate that the attack had no special significance to America itself.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.