WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK

Theresa · **Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:27 pm**

12 years ago, the UN commanded SH to get rid of his long range weapons, and all chemical weapons. He refused. The wimps at the UN decided to just "let him". The US didn't. A law is enforced, or it's meaningless.

PicardsTrueLove · **Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:29 pm**

Theresa · **Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:32 pm**

12 years isn't enough time?!

((Fun talking to you, too,

))

Starbuck · **Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:53 pm**

PicardsTrueLove · **Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:32 am**

Theresa · **Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:49 pm**

^Actually, by uncovering all of the chemical gear, and that crap, we're making the rest of the world look like idiots.

PicardsTrueLove · **Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:50 pm**

I don't believe the rest of the world has any doubt about the WMD. I was merely refering to Hussein's very clever (and very devious) way of putting civilians in harms way, so that he can use the press attention to his advantage. I have no doubt that he is extremely clever and devious: it's merely a question of our motives, which I do not believe to be entirely pure.

Theresa · **Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:01 pm**

He's arming ten year olds, and forcing them to fight. He's a MONSTER. Plain and simple. He cut out someones tongue for speaking against him. Clever guy.

PicardsTrueLove · **Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:13 pm**

Theresa · **Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:24 pm**

I think that the US is one of the biggest philanthropists on the planet. Scaled, we've given more than anyone. Please, Brits, don't argue, I said scaled.
Of course we look out for our own, what kind of country would we be if we did not? The answer to that is simple. We'd be Iraq, under SH.

PicardsTrueLove · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 12:28 am**

Theresa · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 8:12 am**

Again you name things, which at that time were the best options. I notice you don't post all relevant information, only that which supports your theory. That's the difference between you and me, I theorize on facts given, not my personal spin on them. I felt that Clinton was the biggest dumbass and worst president this country has ever seen. Do you? Does it matter? You can only take the facts presented to make your case. Anything else is immaterial.

Theresa · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 8:20 am**

Vortex · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 10:59 am**

Interesting discussions here.

Fact is, none of us know the facts. None of us know the motives. So who are we to judge?

PicardsTrueLove · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 11:03 am**

I talking about the time when Israel was not quite even established yet. The US ignored the Palestinian Declaration of Independence and instructed others to do the same. The UN declared Palestine (in its entirety) a state even before the British and Americans went in there and carved up their land, but both countries ignored it because they wanted Israel.

Oh and despite what the Bible says, there is actually no historical or archeological precedent for a Jewish homeland in Israel. No evidence of a great city in Jerusalem or a large territory from that time period has been unearthed. This is from a book I read: when I find it I will give you the title. It is written by a man who has spent his life studying Biblical archaeology. He says that since the 70s, archeologists have had doubts about the historical accuracy of the Bible, and that by the 80s there was almost no question that the Bible was simply a metaphorical tale about "a humanity that had lost its way." Therefore, the US and England's claim that this was a Jewish homeland was flawed because in actuality the Jewish people had never established a great kingdom there as the Torah and Old Testament claim. The UN Partition plan made a complete mockery of the Palestinians who had been settled in the area for centuries: this map shows how. The caption reads: A look at some numbers will help one understand why the Arabs rejected the UN Partition Plan. The Jews, who constituted only 31% of the population and owned or were settled upon only 6% of the land were awarded 52% of the land, while the Palestinians, who constituted 69% of the population and owned or were settled upon 94% of the land were given only 48%. Before 1881, the year of the first wave of European Jews migrating into Palestine, Arabs constituted 95% of the population and owned 98% of the land. This information was taken from the Northfield Mount Hermon School History of the Middle East Database, compiled by Ted Thornton in their Religious Studies Department. The database is very useful and "user friendly": http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/mideastindex.htm.

As for Palestinian and Israeli conflicts, the roots of Palestinian terrorism appear far before any recent problems. When the first Arab-Israeli war broke out in 1948, it began with an Israeli slaughter of an entire Arab village called Deir Yasin. Then another faction within Israeli massacred yet another village called Tantura. Israel persecuted and massacred the Arabs until they had little else to do but terrorize. I do not agree with this method but it was the only one they have. During the American civil war General Sherman's march could hardly be called a "proper" method of waging war, but it won for us. It's a classic Machiavellian dilemma: do the ends justify the means? Neither of the sides were "right" in their actions, but the root of the conflict is in the Zionists kicking out the Palestinians for their own gain, and then crushing any opposition, much like Hussein is doing in Iraq. [/url]

PicardsTrueLove · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 12:40 pm**

(Thanks Vortex for the reminder but it's still fun to debate wildly anyway

)

I found the book. "The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel" by Thomas L. Thompson. At the beginning of the book he writes, "Today we no longer have a history of Israel. We can no longer talk about a time of the patriarchs. There never was a 'United Monarchy' in history and it is meaningless to speak of pre-exilic prophets and their writings...We can now say with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of anyone's past. The story of the chosen and rejected Israel that it presents is a philosophical metaphor for a mankind that has lost its way." This quotation demonstrates the complete inaccuracy of a Zionist assertion that the state of Israel is the true theological homeland of the Jewish people. In point of fact, the Israel they exalt never existed. It has only been created from the teachings of a book which has little historical meaning. It is like basing a theology on "Anna Karenina:" the book is a wonderful exploration of the psychology of man but it is nothing more than a metaphor: nothing more than a tale. The willingness of colonial powers to conceed to Zionists assertions that the Jews were the only chosen people of that region demonstrates not a philanthropic intent but a selfish one: the colonial powers were anti-Judaism (anti-Semetism is actually a contradiction in terms: both the Jews and the Arabs are descended from Semetic tribes) and wished to rid themselves of the Jews! A despicable and Crusader-like intent to be sure, but they showed even LESS respect for the Arab world when they smacked the European Jews down into the middle of a world which was almost entirely removed from the one they were accustomed to, and booted its native inhabitants out of the land they had farmed and fought for for centuries. Israel was, in short, a continuation of the Crusades. It is a Crusader state, just like those created in the Middle East during the original Crusades.

Theresa · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:33 pm**

Concerning the Bible, I am not even going to go there with you, or anyone here. I happen to disagree w/ you, though. See how things are open to interpretation? It depends on what you beleive is true in the Bible, if for you, none of it is, then it's a moot point. Like I said, not even going there.

PicardsTrueLove · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:21 pm**

Theresa · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:29 pm**

LOL...................... I'm NOT going there. Iraqi's are on the side of the Palestenians, you know that, yes? Forget it, like I said, NO.

Theresa · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:36 pm**

PicardsTrueLove · **Sun Mar 30, 2003 5:10 pm**

Sorry about that. I get a bit hot headed. Runs in the family.

Seven of Nine · **Mon Mar 31, 2003 12:14 pm**

OK, so the war my not be about oil, but you know that the USA has to import 60% of it? and Iraq does have a very large supply

Anyway, chances are we'll run out with 10 years, then everything will change

Vortex · **Mon Mar 31, 2003 12:49 pm**

Really interesting. What is nice to know, is that most of the oil found in the US is exported.

That is business you know.

PicardsTrueLove · **Mon Mar 31, 2003 2:47 pm**