Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

WTF WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE?? Why should we pledge alliagence everyday to a country who murdered thousands of peaple who were innocent?? Why should we say with liberty and justive for all?? There is still so much little justice and liberty in the U.S.A that it makes me sick!

NOW do you understand the song?

Transmission third world war third round
A decade of the weapon of sound above ground
No shelter if youre looking for shade
I lick shots at the brutal charade
As the polls close like a casket
On truth devoured
Silent play in the shadow of power
A spectacle monopolized
The cameras eyes on choice disguised
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?
Yes a spectacle monopolized
They hold the reins, stole your eyes
All the fistagons the bullets and bombs
Who stuff the banks
Who staff the party ranks
More for Gore or the son of a drug lord
None of the above **** it cut the cord

Lights out guerilla Radio
Turn that shit up

Contact I highjacked the frequencies
Blockin the beltway
Move on DC
Way past the days of bombin MCs
Sound off Mumia guan be free
Who gottem yo check the federal file
All you pen devils know the trial was vile
Army of pigs try to silence my style
Off em all out that box its my radio dial

Lights out guerilla Radio
Turn that shit up

It has to start somewhere
It has to start sometime
What better place than here
What better time than nowAll hell cant stop us now
All hell cant stop us nowAll hell cant stop us now
All hell cant stop us now
All hell cant stop us now
All hell cant stop us now

dude, the US doesn't 'murder' thousands of ppl. If you can show me evidence of that, then I'll quiet down. And don't say that the US dropped the Atom Bomb. It was either that, or a million US causalties and millions of Japanese deaths

Rage against the Machine

Yes they did trop the atam bomb for no reason just to show off which killed thousand of Japanese guys.

I want to hear guerilla radia where can I download it?

no, no, no.
The atom bomb was dropped to end the war quickly. Even after we did that, Japan still refused to surrender. Despite all that destruction, they were willing to fight. Invasion wasn't a possibilty. We had no choice to drop a second. I'm sure Truman didn't want that to happen. He gave plenty of warning to the Japanese gov't. I support his decision.

Nope they could have ended the war without killing so much innocent peaple!!

tell me how. tell me how u could of gotten the Japanese gov't to surrender. I hope u know who you're dealing with. The Japanese would rather die than surrender. It was the ultimate dishonor. How could u get Tojo to commit the worse thing possible. And, how could you do it minimizing US and Allied deaths?

I actually don't believe they could have ended the war any other way. Yes, it was sad that so many innocent people had to die, but it had to be done somehow. Actually, the US does kill thousands of innocent people... Take a look at how many civilians have been killed in Iraq.

Neo, to be honest with you, I don't know where you can download that song...

Saddam killed more ppl in a week than we have so far. Civilian death are invetiable. There's no such thing as a perfect war. How can we fight an enemy that blends in with the crowd? I say we need to be more agressive. It's the only way to root out the insurgents. Yes, it is bad that we will kill innocent people, but that's war. We're so worried about the Iraqi ppl that we're putting them above our troops. Our troops are getting killed because they can't get the proper air support because innocent people might be killed.

They warned Japan that they were going to drop a nuke on them if they didn't surrender. It's Japans own fault for not surrendering and for attacking Pearl Harbor. Had they not done either of those things, no atom bomb would have been dropped.

ty BF. My point exactly

Do you know how many did died in that week?

For Hiroshima were about 200,000 people

And Japan did warn the US of the Pearl Harbor attack - a lot of civilians also died in there.

I don't really know, I might of exagerated

I think that number combines Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I never seen that stat before

Not that I've read, where did you get that?

only a few. 1000 maybe?

Probably more than that...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kaleanae
And Japan did warn the US of the Pearl Harbor attack - a lot of civilians also died in there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a little weird.

not likely since the Japanese didn't target civilians, only by acciendent

um... no... if that's true, how come only 805 of our troops have been killed, but several thousand civilians have been killed? Listen, I didn't ask you about Saddam. Just because he killed more people than we have doesn't make what we're doing ok. Also, you can't say "that's war"--it isn't true. Sure, in every war there are going to be innocent people killed, but not this many. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but there are no WMD's, and there are very few, if any terrorists there. What a tremendous waste of both American and Iraqi lives.
Finally, you ask, "how can you fight an enemy that blends in with the crowd"? That's a tough one, but the solution sure as hell shouldn't be to go grabbing random guys out of their houses.

Oh, and also, there are a lot of other violent, oppressive dictators in the world that we actually SUPPORT. Yeah, it's great that we got Saddam out of power. Yeah, he was a terrible person. But he hated Al-Qaeda, so even if we did do a good thing for at least some of the Iraqi people, we're not accomplishing what we were supposedly there in the first place for. Let's face it, Michale Moore said it best: you can't win a war against a noun.

History teacher, I rememeber she said that they did like 1/2 before the attack, it was like an strategy or something like that

Here it is:

Pearl Harbor Was Not a Surprise Attack
President Roosevelt, General George C. Marshall, General Leonard T. Gerow, Admiral Harold R. Stark, and Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner received several messages warning them of the attack.
* Three days before the attack the Australian Intelligence service sent a message to the US military that the Japanese fleet had been spotted en route to Hawaii.
* A British double agent working in Germany sent numerous messages warning of the attack.
* 24 hours before the attack, the US Navy intercepted and decoded a message from Tokyo to the Japanese Embassy in Washington. It made explicitly clear what would happen on December 7th.
2. The Attack Was Not Unprovoked.
In October of 1940 Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum wrote a memo to FDR that began, "The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act". The memo described an eight step plan for provoking Japan into attacking The United States. The steps mostly constituted the building of bases that would encroach on Japan's borders and making alliances with the Chinese to help fight Japanese expansion. Each step on the list was undertaken by FDR and in 1941 the last and most provocative of the eight steps was instituted. An embargo, cutting Japan off from all supplies of rubber, jute, tin, oil and iron was instituted. When FDR tried to pass this embargo Congress warned him that he would surely provoke an attack from Japan. A few weeks later they were proven right.

Interesting, never knew that about Pearl Harbor.

Pearl garbor never recieved that info until too late

crap, hit wrong button. ignore

Yes!

going back to the pledge... I never say it - only stand up

Hell, I don't even stand up.

Very few terrorists? Iraq's full of them. Serrin was detected in a warshell. The difference between us killing civilians and Saddam was we kill them by accident.

What makes you think Iraq is full of terrorists? And we don't always kill civilians by accident. Like I said, we drag them off the streets randomly and interrogate them. Well, that's not technically killing them, but it certainly isn't very nice, and it is intentional...

Somebody else tried and my homeroom teacher said, (screaming) "If you don't stand up, I going to call the principal and sent you to 116 (where they give detentions and suspensions)

My teachers are nice that way, they don't care if people don't stand up.

All the car bomings, killings, assassinations are signs of terrorists.

Tell me, how would you root out insurgents in Iraq while minimizing US deaths. And, what would u do in this situation: YOur unit is under fired from a fortified positons w/ civilians inside. You have just lost 3 men, some are wounded. Would u order an artillery strike against that building?

U really should stand up. Your problem is with Bush, not the country.

But standing doesn't change anything
I do it because I don't want to get in trouble but if my teachers were nice, I wouldn't do it. "Justice and Liberty for all"?
Who's all?

it's a goal, there will never be total equality and justice unless we're all the same

Justice for those who do wrong, and also those who do right.

At least we have fair trials *coughCommunismcough*

Fair trials my ass. Most of the time, yes, courtrooms are relatively fair, but not always. There have been cases where the judge literally ordered the jury to find somebod guilty.

Agent Elrond: I don't know, you tell me. I didn't support the war in the first place for that very reason, it's a huge mess. Why should I stand up? I don't have to pledge allegience to any flag.

Last ten years official "accidents" from official independent sources.

You had untill now only in Iraq "only" about 11.000 civilian accidents.
plus 3.500 civilian accidents in Afghanistan
plus 2.000 civilian accidents in Servia

Just multiply for about 4 and add the wounded civilians by "accident" if it pls you.

No to mention USA support to supposed democratic governments who kill everyday cents of civilians who are not important enough to be on your TV. And they are not terrorist, just civilians.

I would like to see if someone from your family was kill by accident only for economical, egoistical and political purposes.

you're all entitled to your opinions, but when ppl start dising the US, it ticks me off. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than some of the hell-holds of other countries. No one is randomly taken from their homes and tortured, you're allowed to be whatever u want to be, hell, your even aloud to say this gov't sucks ass.

Well not here, no, but obviously the government isn't opposed to doing so. And I can't think of another country where people are "randomly" taken from their homes and tortured for literally no reason. Other than Iraq at the moment. In fact, with this Patriot act thing, you can be taken out of your home and jailed without being told why, or where you're going, or being able to contact your family. Probably not entirely without reason, but it's still stupid and it goes against everything this country once stood for.

In the UK you can now be arrested for words spoken within the confines of your own home (ie it is lawful to eavesdrop...)

damn... that sucks...

Look up the Macpherson report if you doubt me.

No, I believe you... but that really does suck...

Desperate times call for desperate measures. I'm sure u or anybody has nothing to fear about the Patriot Act. So they know your health record. Big deal. What are they going to do with it?

I don't care if I have anything to worry about, I don't want some gov't official to be able to watch me whenever he damn well pleases and have it be perfectly legal. What, pray tell, makes the present time "desperate"? We got attacked once, almost three years ago. Yes, a lot of people died. Yes, it was very tragic. Yes, we all wish it hadn't happened. But it's not like things like this haven't happened before. Look at the Oklahoma City bombings, that was just as bad, and they didn't make nearly as big a deal out of it. Nobody went out to fight a war against the people who did that. 'Course, we're not even fighting the people who caused 9/11.

Finally, it is NEVER, IMO, acceptable to do what we are doing right now in Iraq. If some American guy commited a terrorist act in another country, and they invaded us, and were dragging people out of their homes on a random basis... You would do the same thing the insurgents in the Middle East are doing. Or if you didn't actually do it, chances are, you would be damn pissed and rightfully so. Imagine all the little kids who were orphaned by American bombs (accidentally or not), all the people who got their legs blown off... Picture yourself in their position, then tell me that "desperate times call for desperate measures".

The differnce is we don't support terrorism, Afganistan and in some ways Iraq. I won't say Saddam supported terrorism, but I bet $1000000000 he was partying on 9/11. Imagine all the kids orphaned by Saddam. Image all the times children have been orphaned in all wars. It happens. Deal with it. We're not in Iraq intentionally killing innocent people. How many innocent ppl died because of terrorist attacks by Iraqis or Al-Queda? Iraqis are killing Iraqis

Saddam didn't kill any of "his own people", he was a Sunni and he was killing Shi'ites and Kurds. Not that it makes it ok, but it bugs me when people say he killed his own people because that's not how he saw it. Ya know what? We don't need to be in Iraq, we haven't accomplished anything there except catching Saddam and some other Baath party guys. What makes you so sure he was part of 9/11? As I said before, he hated Al-Qaeda, and you know how dictators are about holding grudges. He would never have helped Osama carry out one of his dirty little plans. War sucks, yes sometimes it is necessary, but it wasn't in this case.

I never said Saddam supported Al-Queada.

Capturing Saddam and killing his sons was a great advancement.
The problem is every time we do something to fix Iraq, some terrorist blows it up. We're in Iraq now be/c we're finishing off were the UN left off. After Desert Storm, we should have finished off Saddam. But, we didn't, so now we are. It's a just war, just not for the reasons Bush gave. And I would like to view all Iraqis as one people, otherwise, there'll never be a stable gov't

See, it should never have been mushed together into one country after WWI. Under the Ottoman Empire, it was three separate millets, and it worked out relatively well. But I don't understand what the big deal about Saddam is, he never attacked us, and there are bigger problems in the world. IMO we really should take care of our own problems before we go blowing billions of dollars on smartbombs for some damn war.

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran and on the Kurds. He invaded Kuwait to control more oil. He launched Skuds at Israel for no reason, other than he hated it. Saddam had to go. The UN didn't have the balls to do so in 91.
And yes, there are other things we should be worrying about in our own borders.

Oh you wanna get into oil??
You really dont wanna get into oil.

I heard this on the radio the other day, its not exact but it went something like this.

Imagine the middle east to be a cruise ship thats broken.
Iraq is like the Top-deck and Isreal and Palistine are like the engine room. if we wanna go somewhere with this cruise ship why are we trying to fix the top-deck instead of the Engine no matter how messed up the top-deck may be.

The point is if the US really wants to fix the Middle East (And I suspect that the Administration really doesnt) we've got our prioritys seriously screwed up.

Palestine is a lost cause. The entire ME is a lost cause. The only reason we even care about is b/c off oil. In 50 years, we should have a different fuel source and we wouldn't care about the Mid East anymore

Well what do you think we should do? We can't abandon them. It's our fault that they are messed up like that!

Israel/Palestine is not a lost cause... Clinton had the problem almost solved. As I said before, Saddam is not the only tyrannical dictator in the world. There are quite a few other (albeit possibly slightly less evil) messed up gov'ts in the world that we actually support.

That's right about us caring because of the oil... And funny that it doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

Tpt, that comparison of a cruise ship is really interesting, and true...

Thank you free speech radio!
I just did a huge entry on this in my site. (See profile) (Its just a xanga its not forum spamming!)

How's it our fault? We're not responsible for the hatred in there.

Clinton didn't do much, but what he did with the Palestine/Israeli crisis was good. However, now there is no one in charge of the Palestinians, so negotiating with them is impossible. Best thing to do is to use force.

And about the oil. That wasn't our primary concern. Image if Iraq control Kuwait and nabbed part of Saudi Arabia, Iraq would control a large part of the world's oil supply. Now that China's modernizing, it's demand for oil has shot up. If Iraq doesn't release that oil, prices go up and tension between us and China will increase. That's one reason Desert Storm was launched. OIl isn't too important in this war as none is getting to us

Dude, you just said:

"The only reason we even care about is b/c off oil."

Surely that would qualify as a contradiction?

Clinton did do something. Like I said before, he almost solved the problem just by talking to Sharon and Arafat. And whose fault do you think it is that there's nobody in charge of Palestine? Partially ours for not cotinuing with the peace talks. Sorry, I disagree that it is best to use force. We have been entirely unfair to the Palestinians, we expected them to comply with the rules on the "road map to peace", when they had never even agreed with them in the first place.

*rethinks*
I think I confused myself. In this war, anyone who says we're there for oil is mistaken. We're not there for the oil, we're there to oust Saddam and give the Iraqis freedom from tyranny. Now, you mentioned other dictators, and guess what? I'm for getting rid of those bastards. We're prioritizing our actions. And I did say Clinton did alot with the Palestinians. Even if we wanted to negotiated with them, there's no real leader of them.

You no I have no idea why the hell we are out there trting to solve other peoples problems, when there is enough here, and I mean lets face it, there are so many other countries with dictators and tyranny, yet why dont we help them , right they dont have oil!

I can't answer that truthfully, I don't have all the facts. There's a reason Iraq is #1 and it's not oil.

I'll say more tommorrow. Night

*Iraq is number one becaue they don't have perational nuclear forces and its forces consist of ex-soviet weapons that are forces are built and train to destroy.
*North Korea's got Nukes and modern forces... they are the world leading supplier of cruise missles.
*Irans got eonough terrosists and fanatics to blow a hole in the world.. we know if we attack there we will be going into a trap.. Iraq is a good way to draw them out of their territory infrastructure forcing them to smugggle and recruit what forces they have into Iraq.
*Indonesia and all of the Southeast asia countries remind everyone too much of Vietnam thanks to all the anti-war crap we can probably never help any of those countries again.

*The Japanese sent a warning about an hour before the invasion basically saying that the declared war and no specifics where they are going to attack... no one knew what to do or where to alert... philipenes where mobilized because no one thought any modern navy would have a long enough reach to hit Pearl so easily.

*We help others because if we don't no one else will and bitterness in any country will result in anger toward the prosperous nation.. therefore eventually we will be the enemy. ... the obvious way to counter that would be to stop the problem before it starts.
*Anyone else?

Please read my above post first^
*Kuwaits got all the oil actually and technically we have rights and agreements for that already... Iraq oil would be the stupidest thing for any country to try and take advantage of.... due to the fact that we will be considered an aggressor trying to conquer the arab world and then we would have a problem that makes the present state a joke.

Ok lets say The country does get angry with us, and the bomb us or whatever, they arent stupid why would that country try to harm the prosperous nation, it makes no sense they know they'll lose. The only problem is that many of our men are dying to save another country when our own country needs help.

really, I had no idea that we had ever made an agreement with them to take their oil, when thousands of people were dying over there because of the poisoned waters due to the all the oil "mills" or whatever, the funniest thing is that why is it ethat we have all the advantage to the agreement, maybe because it wasnt an "agreement". I dont think Kuwait was given to the us , when 2 other countries were fighting for it, There is definitely something else behind that.

Well, I don't believe we "officially" have a "contract" with Kuwait. Just that we sorta saved them during the Gulf War. As it happens, we did go in there because that's where all the oil is... We won the Gulf War, we pretty much got dibs on the oil.

About Palestine, my point was that if we had kept talking to them as soon as Bush got into office, there still would be a Palestinian leader.

I've been forgetting something: Saddam was in office since the '70's. We were fully aware what he was doing in his country, because it was pretty damn obvious. Yet we did nothing until the '90's, and we were, in fact, his friends. Then it all fell apart when Saddam invaded Kuwait. We can live with thousands of people being gassed, but dammit, stay the hell away from our SUV's!

^^well said!



History lesson time!
After World War 1, the Ottoman Empire, who had previously controled all of that area was broken up as part of the War Guilt Clause. (I think thats what it was). That whole area became a British Mandate (Basicly a suped up colony). Now the Brits promised that land both to the Hebrews and the Arabs, but they didn't make good on this untill after WW2 when the US pressured everyone to give up their colonies. And in 1949 Isreal was Born.....And immediatly attacked by every other surronding country within about 500 miles. Needless to say no-one liked Isreal. The US stepped in and instead of working out a solution, joined the Isralie side and helped them push forward and capture the Gaza strip and other small areas. Now all the existing cizitens, The Palistnian ones were forced into refugee camps. Now they were about an 11 on an anger scale of 1-10. But lacking weapons they made do with what they had, explosives and Rocks. Thus the stalemate we find ourselves in today. With Isreal dealing with the gurilla warfare from the oppressed and pissed of Palistinians with brute milatary force. Neither is very effective and both are extreemly brutal. Now they have locked into a cycle of vengance. One side must attack teh other to get vengance for something the other side did, in response to another attack by the first side. If we just leave it alone it will never stop and our supposed "War on terror" is good for nothing because both side are using different styles of terrorist warfare.

Exactly this war isnt about helping people its about getting something out of it. I mean its pretty damn smart of the U.S invading country that can be a use to us, but I dont think its worth people's lives.

Anyway I am just posting up my opinion, I so can be wrong in everything I say, but its just my opinion, no facts, but this thread has some really good tid bits about this whole iraq thing.

Land is worth peoples lives unfourtunetly... war has always been over land--- so is freedom--- so is your family---

Saddam held iraq with an iron fist since the 70's correct. We supported him when Iran was the enemy but when he signed pacts with russia for arms to capture the Arab heartland... he was in the soviet alliance. we could not touch hi without sparking a war with the soviets possibly.

Take notice 1989 soviet collapse----1991 Gulfwar... we attacked as soon as the threat was over.

Back to WW1 --- Isrealis were not promised the land... they led a rebellion after mass imigration and arms funding from the US to capture what originally was thier homeland. By the way it was the Six day war and countless other conflicts aimed at destroying isreal by the arabs which were waged. We gave isreal the arms to protect themselves because the soviets were allying with all the arabs and selling them ex-soviet hardware.

you are a war to early.
All of those things did happen but they happend After WW2
The Isralies were promised the land right after WW1 but never really got it untill 1949 when all the stuff you mention happened

ya i just realized that after the mass migration part after the nazis... nice^


Yet its still all acurate.

yeah war has been over land, but according to who is land worth peoples lives!?

but hey I totally get what you're saying but we all have different opinions so yeah....

Yes we do... but what woild this world be without differing opinions.. i would fight for you to have yours and for mine.

You know what's interesting, is that the Zionists (Israelis) invented terrorism. Read Elie Wiesel's Dawn, which is one of two sequels to Night, it talks about that.

No one 'invented' terrorism. It's an idea. Don't know if what u said is true, but I have no real reason to doubt it.

First started doing it, came up with the idea, whatever. Just an interesting thought.

When did the Iraeli's ever use terrorism?

When the Zionists first moved to Palestine, the British tried to get them to leave. At first they didn't have any weapons, so they used guerrilla warfare tactics, which was the first known incidence of terrorism.

Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism. The South was guerrilla warfare in a limited scale, was that terrorism. Where the Vietcog terrorists? The goal of terrorism is to spread fear. Using guerilla tactics is a way of defending yourself, not spreading fear.

It's a way of killing people, not defending yourself. The Israelis were on what was not their land, and like it or not, they basically stole it from the Palestinians. That qualifies as terrorism in my book. Actually, what is refered to as "Sherman's March", I believe was terrorism. Surely sweeping through an area and destroying every man-made object in sight is a way of spreading fear?

Hate to break it to you, but the Israelis were there looooooooong before the Palestinians came. The Romans kicked them out and ever since had every hardship imaginable. I think your defination of terroism is a little off. From dictionary.com, terrorism is defined as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Sherman's March was not terrorism, it was total war.

Yeah, I'm fully aware that the Israelis were there before the Palestinians and how they think it's their homeland. I think it's ridiculous. That was thousands of years ago, for crying out loud. That's like if the US gov't one day decided that to give the native americans their land back and just one day kicked everybody out. It wasn't right that they were kicked off, but now that we live here, it wouldn't be right to kick us off either.

Well, our definitions of terrorism don't match. But even based on your definition, what happened in Israel that I described was terrorism.

one mans freedom figher is another man's terrorist.
difference is that the Danes fought German soldiers, not civilians

The Palestinian people saw it that way--they lived there, all of a sudden somebody sold their land and they were eventually asked to leave.

You bring up a good point with that last bit. It all depends on perspective.

Terrorism is any means of fighting that uses fear as a weapon. Gurrila Warfare IS terrorism because the whole objective is that then enemy does not know where/where/how you are going to strike and thus believes no place is safe. Terrorism.
The US uses terrorism with its "Shock and Awe" Tactics, they are used to scare the enemy into surrendering because of our superiority.
"War on terror" Is and oxymoron because War Is Terrorism.

But I am going to use my Evil analogy with terrorism. "Terrorist" is a label that is used to depict the enemy as dirty people who done fight fair, whatever that may mean.
And People shouldn't disgrace gurrilla tactics because they are what created America. And other countries.

Just to be Nit-picky
DR the first documented use of terrorism was the Mongols. Their hit and run tactics coupled with the fear inducing. "Slaughter and Burn a whole village so others will surrender" was most definitly terrorism.

Shock and Awe is not terrorism. It is a military tactic used to overwhelm the enemy. Just b/c is causes fear does not make it terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to spread fear. That is the job of a terrorist. The goal of Shock and Awe was to break the morale of the enemy so they wouldn't fight.

You sound Arabic.... if you want to go to the level of who invented terrorism. Every race has used it .... Mongols .... Romans ... Jews ... every army uses terror as a weapon... lobbing the enemies dead in catapults. Yet not all target the civilian populace directly. Fear is a weapon used by the weak, those who wish for conquest but lack the reasources or will of their own people.

The Palastinians and Arabs tried to conquer a weaker nation and got their asses handed to them in the Six day war. Along with countless other conflicts... they are just bitter that they cannot win because of their greed. So they lost the Goland hieghts because they used it to Bambard jeurusalm.

so Ravan, looks like we both agree on these issues.

So, if a country goes into another country intending to conquer it and fails, it's not ok, but if a country does the same thing and wins, it's alright?

Your views are, IMHO, bordering on racist.

Racist? Where did that come into play.. i'm neither Arabic or Jewish.. but i've studyed enough history to know that extermination is wrong and aggressive war is wrong....

"So, if a country goes into another country intending to conquer it and fails, it's not ok, but if a country does the same thing and wins, it's alright?" --- when did i say that? The isrealis saw that the surrounding countries were intent on destroying them so they used a surprise attack to bring down thier offensive force and made a buffer zone.


as an italian, austrian, spanish and american indian mix , my people have been both conquered and conquerers... neither gained truly anything from either endevour.

Thank you Raven, couldn't have said it better.

"The Palastinians and Arabs tried to conquer a weaker nation and got their asses handed to them in the Six day war. Along with countless other conflicts... they are just bitter that they cannot win because of their greed. So they lost the Goland hieghts because they used it to Bambard jeurusalm."

...which would certainly imply what I said. Implies that you think Arabs are bitter, greedy, violent people. Aggressive war is wrong, eh? I agree with you. Do you support the Iraq war? Just curious.

...which would certainly imply what I said. Implies that you think Arabs are bitter, greedy, violent people.--- English said that about the Spanish and Austrians and they said that in return about the english... along wth the Aztecs.
-Anyone who wishes to conquer for mearly land that is not essential to thier survival is greedy.-

We should have finished what we started in the first war, did you support Desert Storm? Saddam wanted and still up to the day he was captured looked to conquer all of the Arab world.
I support this war on the grounds for freedom, and weapons of mass destruction are just a side venture.

By the way aggressive war is a war of total conquest and assimilation of land, people, and reasources--- if Sadam had not had an iron fist of terror over his people they would have rebelled on their own. Right after the first Gulf war he surpressed two rebellions mind you.

I support this war for those very same reasons. Saddam had to go. The first war didn't get him, so we had to wait 12 years to final nail his ass.