Fire Hydrant of Freedom

CCP I agree; go after the ILLEGAL immigrants AND go after the employers who employ them. Attack supply and demand
equally.  We are a nation of immigrants, LEGAL immigrants.  The word "illegal" is there for a reason.  And anyone
who harbors or provides them a job should also be severely punished.

**The bold is my emphasis. I suggest you follow the link and read the whole article.**

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199009/muslim-rage

SEPTEMBER 1990 ATLANTIC MONTHLY
Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified

BY BERNARD LEWIS
The Roots of Muslim Rage


If the idea that religion and politics should be separated is relatively new, dating back a mere three hundred years, the idea that they are distinct dates back almost to the beginnings of Christianity. Christians are enjoined in their Scriptures to "render ... unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's." While opinions have differed as to the real meaning of this phrase, it has generally been interpreted as legitimizing a situation in which two institutions exist side by side, each with its own laws and chain of authority—one concerned with religion, called the Church, the other concerned with politics, called the State. And since they are two, they may be joined or separated, subordinate or independent, and conflicts may arise between them over questions of demarcation and jurisdiction.

An interesting observation, but I believe Christianity has been watered down.  I am not sure Church and State are "distinct".  Dating from Biblical times, civil disobedience was promoted if the word of the LORD was different than that of the government.  The Crusades again tried to impose Christianity upon the Middle East. 

Christians are commanded to "make disciples of ALL nations and ethnic groups.  And Jesus commanded, either you are gathering with ME or you are against ME.   Many Christian theologians have said that Christians have a clear choice to accept God's blessing and love or His wrath as the price of rebellion against HIS will in government here on earth.  Either you follow his word or you are damned.  And it is your duty to spread his word...

In Palms it says, "The earth is the LORDs and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein."  And, "Let them know that you whose name is the LORD that you alone are the most high over the earth.  Clearly, the LORD is a higher power and should be obeyed versus government.

And in Matthew 28: 18-19 "And Jesus came and said to them, ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of ALL nations, baptizing them...

And in 2 Corinthians 10:5 it says, "Casting down imaginations and everything high that exalteth itself against the knowledge of GOD and bringing into captivity every thought to the OBEDIENCE of Christ."

My point; if your read the Bible, it is actually rather aggressive; "either you are for ME or against ME!"  And backing it up, especially in the Old Testament there are numerous examples of the LORD striking down or destroying those that oppose him or his word.

Yes, render on to Caesar that which is Caesar'a and unto the LORD that which is the LORD's.  But the point, IF there is a conflict, ALWAYS obey the LORD, forget about Caesar. 

Perhaps the Koran has good and bad as well?

Is it really that different?

Marc, you mentioned you don't like Cafferty, but you might find this article interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/25/cafferty.clintons/index.html

It is amazing all the gals who run around saying she lost because of sexism.  Oh I get it.  It's not that she is a lying stinking manipulative selfish thief.  It is because she is a woman.  Right, and she "broke through 18 million ceilings".  This country is f***.

Now of course hedge fund Chelsea is being groomed to continue the clan of grifters.

O Great Moderator in the Sky, whether you like the Clintons (some do, many do not) or not, or whether you have criticism to offer, isn't there a limit on a forum searching for truth?  As GM (with whom I often disagree) appropriately likes to say and usually does,  "back it up with facts."   But wonton defamation doesn't seem appropriate or am I wrong?

I notice that often on this forum "Front Page Magazine" is quoted (cut and pasted).  Albeit interesting, it is hardly the pinnacle of the sources available in the search for impartial and unbiased truth.  Rather it is an extreme right wing biased magazine who definitely seems to only have a radical conservative agenda. 

As for the issue of faith, IF Obama was or is Muslim, why is that, by itself, good or bad?  IF Obama was or is a Jew, why is that good or bad?  IF Obama was or is a Christian, why is that good or bad?  Fine men and women, peace seeking men and women exist in all of these faiths.  Evil exists in all faiths.  As does good.  Our country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion.  We are not a "Christian" Nation, but a free nation - you can choose your religion without worry.  That is the cornerstone of our country.  We preach tolerance; why promote articles of religious hate?

I have read many inflammatory and seemingly hateful articles on Obama being possibly Muslim.  Does that seem right?  If he was a Jew would such articles be tolerated?  I hope not.  Yet Romney is being criticized for being Mormon.  Again, is that right?  I mean if you don't like the man, fine, yet I know many fine Mormons, Jews, Muslims, et al.  What's the problem?  Kennedy had to go through this because he was Catholic - I had hoped/thought America was finally past such obvious bigotry.  IF you think Obama is/was a Muslim so what?  IF you like him, like what he says and the direction he suggests, vote for him.  IF not, don't, vote for McCain, another person, or simply abstain.  But if a Buddist or Hindu was running, and you liked them, you should vote for them.  Don't base your decision on the color of their skin or their own belief in their God.  That is not the American way.

Woof JDN:

IMHO GM's response to you (cut and paste as it may be    ) makes many very cogent points.  I await your responce 

In a separate vein, it is shocking that MSM has not covered BO getting his butt kicked in debate with a black conservative.

TAC!
Marc

Marc,

It is my thought on a disaster of the magnetude that the government FEMA was or should have been
most qualified to coordinate and fund the response.  They failed and should be held responsible.

That being said,

What can I say?  GM cut and pasted well   
I agree with most of the "Lessons Learned"

And I think the Salvation Army is an Outstanding Organization and
I have a very high respect for the Red Cross here and internationally.
Plus many other organizations, churches, etc. stepped up when the
government didn't.  Almost all were truly outstanding.

It just wasn't (couldn't be) enough without government's help.  And
I think FEMA failed.

In today's L.A. Times there was a good article on Sen. Biden; good and bad was pointed out.
But I did like the quote, "Respected, but not always popular".

Not bad for one's epitaph

Sure I got it. Our Global Moderator was trying to make a simple point that you disallowed via narrow scrutiny. Maybe next we can discuss what the meaning of "is" is.

Quote

Ahhh I have no interest turning this into a Bill and Hillary debate (or a Bush/Cheney debate), but for the record the fact is Bill and Hillary were NEVER convicted of perjury.

So if a tree falls in the forest, blue dress and "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" and all, it doesn't make a sound? Trust the converse is true that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Petaeus, et al aren't war criminals, election stealers, tools of big oil, members of various cabals bent on world domination, felons, and all the other dreck and gibberish that many throw around about 'em?

Yup!  the converse is true that Bush Cheney Rove (I prefer to leave Petaeus out of this: I respect him) were never CONVICTED of being election stealers, tools of big oil, etc.  Like Clinton, maybe there should be convicted, but they were not.

My only point is to clear the record; the FACT remains that Clinton was NEVER convicted of a felony.  Whether he should have been, what you think he did or didn't do, agreements he made, etc. doesn't change the simple fact he was NEVER convicted therefore by definition he is not a felon.  Marc had said he was; I am merely clarify the facts for the record that Clinton is not a felon; period.

Ahhh I have always liked the quote, "I don't care if he's a dictator as long as he's (America) our dictator".  So true; we have supported so many despots and butchers to further our own gain and oddly quite a few have come back to bite us.  And only then do we act noble and indignant. 

We can't be the policeman of the world; tragedy happens, or as GM said, "War is brutal and horrible."  GM, I believe YOU said, "If I had to choose between dead enemy civilians and dead US troops, I'ld choose for dead enemies."  Obviously, you don't care a whole lot for those innocent civilians - so what's your point or criticism of the "liberal left"?

Well, he certainly hates those serial felons, the Hillbillary Clintons-- with good reason IMHO. 

"serial felons"  A rather strong term. I don't remember either Bill or Hillary (don't know about the
rest of the family) ever being found guilty of any felony.  Maybe I am wrong?

Sooo maybe we will see those debates after all 
I hope so.

And hilbillie or not, don't mess with Bill   

I still often worry if McCain is up to the job.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/cafferty.mccain/index.html

Saddam was not a nice guy; but check out the players in Sudan, N. Korea, Africa etc. etc. etc; they are/were worse; why don't we go after them?   In the end, Bush decided he really didn't like Saddam; personal I guess, but not really a good reason to go to war.  All of Bush's original "logical" reasons seemed to have been disproved as lies, mistakes and mirrors.

And since we invaded Iraq, according to the W.H.O./Iraq study over $200,000 innocent civilians have died. Other studies have put the number at over 400,000+ innocent deaths directly caused by the war; collateral damage I think they call it.  But I doubt if it was your family that you would call it "collateral damage".  Not to mention as pointed out above the damage to the infrastructure.  Plus I don't think anyone (as you have pointed out) is offering any guarantees that the killing will stop after we leave - it may even get worse.  One must wonder, given the hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, the destruction of the country, and the potential for a bloody civil war if Iraq is truly better off?  And is the world safer?  Time will tell...

My point and the article's point?  America should not be a hypocrite.  I don't approve of Russia going into Georgia, but we too have caused death and destruction.  And I bet we would do it again if Russia or Iran or N. Korea came calling and wanted to be close friends with our Mexico neighbor, putting "defense" missiles in our back yard.

**It's hardly a good point. We freed the Iraqis from Saddam and are rebuilding the country. I doubt very much Russian troops are building schools and giving medical treatment to Geogians right now.**
[/quote]

Ahhh lately we sure aren't doing a very good job of rebuilding ; and we did a heck of a job destroying Iraq.

– Education: According to a 2005 analysis by the United Nations University, since the 2003 invasion, 84 percent of Iraq’s higher education institutions had been “burnt, looted or destroyed.”

– Medical Care: Before the U.S. invasion, there were 34,000 doctors registered in Iraq; an estimated 20,000 have left since then. “It’s definitely worse now than before the war,” Eman Asim, a Ministry of Health official who oversees the country’s 185 public hospitals, told the New York Times in 2004.

While it is easy and perhaps right to admire and respect the Georgians, one needs to be practical too.  And, sometimes one needs to be fair and put ourselves in the other (Russian) person's shoes.  Aren't we being a little bit hypocritical in our condemnation of Russia when we would probably have done the same thing if Mexico became a close Russian/Iranian/North Korean ally with talk of a missile defense system?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-react17-2008aug17,0,2584755.story

A good point is raised.

Actually, I thought you did quite well at the drumming (the whole day went well); and while your replacement was much more attractive  your technique stood up.  And yes I understand you were busy, that is why I didn't introduce myself.  I was a spectator near the front row in jeans and a blue stripped dress shirt.  But perhaps I should have; I think having a face behind the words is often helpful.
I did train knife for a while with Felix and have done some stick and I do enjoy watching. I miss the park, but I understand business.

Iran?  Don't be surprised.  No question, I am a big fan of the carrot, I like and prefer diplomacy, but if that doesn't work, use a big stick.  The job needs to get done.  Frankly, if we could put nuclear weapons back in the bottle, I would be all for it, but that is not going to happen.  Therefore, limiting them is our only choice by whatever means is necessary.  And that includes N. Korea, etc.

My comments, concerns on most of these forums is Civil Rights.  Somehow, I think we need to accomplish our goal(s) without sacrificing our Civil Rights otherwise we are no better than they are - and I hate to see the erosion of our Civil Rights, basic human decency justified as being necessary to beat the enemy.   History has shown us that road is fraught with danger.  But within the law, if someone does wrong, punish them to the max for all I care and if I am on the jury I will vote to hang them if the crime is appropriate (you see there can be some tough California jurors) 

As for GM, his specific quote was "masses of brown people in mass graves."  (not Asian, not Vietnamese, but BROWN PEOPLE in mass graves".  It was his chosen preferred term; the term itself in it's context did not mock the the left, he easily could have used the word "Asian" or a specific group and accomplished the same point yet GM specifically chose "brown people" therefore I stand by my comment; I felt "brown people" to be derogatory, but perhaps others do not.  If GM prefers to defend it or excuse his usage of the words, that is his prerogative.  Although I decided not test the question by calling a few of the Asian fighters on Sunday "brown people".  Don't know the reaction, but I do know I am getting older and I don't run that fast anymore.   

GM; if you want to see "actual torture" terrible torture just look at Guantanamo and Abu Garaib and numerous other CIA locations in Europe; it is all very sad. It's seems we seem to want to live in the same sewer as them.  But does that make it right???

As for Muslims/Islam I had dinner with my father tonight.  He conceded (I do too) your point; 9/11 was terrible, albeit lucky (what
are the odds of both building falling) however his point (my point) as terrible as it was, it was an abberation.  Muslims/Islam
do not threaten core American and simply cannot.  Another terror attack yes, but core America; no.  They do not have the means; intent is one thing, evil is evil, but means, i.e. nuclear weapons, a significant army, navy, delivery systems, etc. is another.    So I sleep well, as do most Americans and frankly I/Americans don't worry about Muslims/Islam attacking the Santa Monica Shore, or invading Los Angeles.  I assure you, we have enough problems to worry about, but worrying about Muslims invading America is very low our my list.  Actually, I know quite a few; they are doctors and attorneys and they are all wonderful people.  Unlike you, I don't think think they are all evil and a threat to America.  I think you will find every race has good and bad; it is too bad you focus and seem to hate minorities; Muslims and Asians in particular, yet you are a minority.  Rather odd...?

As for "facts and proof" interesting how you ignore the ones you can't (torture) contest, but manage to find (you must have lots of time) an article (I suppose I could find an article or source to support that the world is still flat; ahhh the beauty of cut and paste) to support your biased minority opinion.   I suppose if I had time (I don't) I could cut and paste articles to match your prolific articles one to one, but the overwhelming evidence contradicts you!  Our own government acknowledges torture!  Good grief man, wake up!  We've done wrong!  It's a given.  And basic Civil Rights have been denied; it might be you and me next time if we don't speak up.  Accept it and please don't cut and paste absurdly biased articles.  Open your eyes; the world is not us against Muslims and Asians (Brown People) etc.  The world is getting smaller and we need to learn to live together.  Most of my friends are very successful and work for large international corporations; they are not just American companies, but global companies and the world (Muslims, Asians, etc.) is their marketplace.  No one seems to share you belief that a boogie man (Muslims) lives and threatens us behind every tree...

What do I say?  Actually, yesterday morning after a great deal of time I had just about finished composing and was about to post an eloquent  and thorough response to GM's request for further support (I usually write versus cut and paste) when I pushed the wrong button (I just bought a iMac) and it disappeared.   

Not happy!  Had to go to work and again today, but I will try to give a brief summary of my position.

I suppose we could argue the legalities of the issue, but I am not an attorney.  Rather I tend to think/expect America to take the high road; I take pride that we are a moral country and try to do the right thing albeit not always "right". 

While I usually don't care what other's think, there is a limit.  When Germany terms our treatment at Guantanamo as "torture", when England's Parliament says "it is a monstrous failure of our times" and it has been called the "gulag of our times" I begin to wonder.

The impartial International Red Cross has stated that, "Every person in enemy hands MUST have some status under international law; he is either a POW and as such covered by the 3rd Convention.... or a civilian covered by the 4th convention..."  There is NO intermediate status; NOBODY in enemy hands can fall outside the law."  Doesn't this simply make common sense???

I am not defending these individuals.  If they are guilty of high crimes, string them up for all I care.  BUT, there should be presumption of innocence.  They should be given fair treatment, not tortured.  And frankly, if they are found innocent, let go in a reasonable amount of time - not when the war on terror is over.  I think even you, GM, given your writings might not think this will happen in our lifetime.  Yet at this time over 400 individuals are being held, yet only two or three have been tried.  I am willing to bet that less than 5% of those being held will be brought to trial and convicted of a serious crime.  The other 95% are wrongly and illegally being held in my opinion.

"Enemy Combatant", "Freedom Fighter", "American Revolutionary War Fighter"; I don't legally know exactly what's the difference.  And one dictionary's answer is different than another. But if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, probably it is a POW duck   

Even our U.S. Supreme Court said enough is enough in the recent Boumedience v. Bush case stating that Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution and described the CSR Tribunals as "inadequate" (legalize for wrong) and invoked the Geneva Convention.

Back to my Duck, I mean if you have to fly prisoners halfway around the world to a little piece of land in Cuba that most people had never heard of, doesn't that force you to ask the question, "Why?"  What are you hiding? I mean if it's legit, simply build a prison in CA, right?  And if they committed a crime, I have confident that my fellow Californians will quickly find them guilty and sentence them appropriately.  It's more honest than our military which hides evidence, acts as interrogators, prosecutors and defense counsel, judge, and jury and finally executioner.  This is not a fair trial; it is a travesty.

And torture, our treatment of these individuals is simply wrong.  And it's not the America I know and love.

I am passionate for our individual rights; they must be protected and applied to all.  England has  said, "one cannot fight violations of international law by committing further violations of international law."  Because al Qaeda et al are often inhumane does that justify our losing our freedoms and becoming inhumane?  I hope not.

I don't need to be a lawyer to know it's simply wrong.  In my opinion they should be given fair and humane (Geneva Convention) treatment.  Further, if innocent, let go.  If guilty, do as you will.  But be fair and just about it.

JDN,

You might want to actually read the Geneva conventions before you cite them. Until now, the US has never applied the US constitution to prisoners of war, even legitimate enemy soldiers in compliance with the laws of war.

The first attack on the WTC was in 1993. Clinton was across the river in New Jersey when it happened and couldn't be bothered to visit NYC to review the damage done. Al Qaeda metastasized into the global threat we face today under Clinton's two terms, the DOJ not indicting bin Laden until late 1998. Look at the strings of attacks during Clinton's terms in office, leading up to 9/11. I'm not sure how you think returning to that would result in anything but the same results.

Last time I checked, Bush wasn't running again, so you couldn't vote for him if you wanted to anyway.

Yes, thank God Bush is not running.  Frankly, he should be impeached, but it is more bother than it is worth. 

Ahhhh and as for the Geneva Convention; didn't America sign this??? Isn't America the land of "justice"?  Don't we demand that our enemies adhere to these high standards?  Don't we act indignant if they don't?  Aren't we supposedly "better than them?"

The Geneva Convention; frankly, I am not sure you have read it and definitely Bush has not read it.  Interrogation techniques - pure torture, a travesty of justice.  So many provisions of the Geneva Convention have been broken it is hard to count. Again, thank God our U.S. Supreme Court read it and has also read our constitution and  has therefore ruled Bush's definition of "Enemy Combatant" to be a bad joke.  Germany has termed our treatment of prisoners as "torture".  Guantanamo has been called the "gulag of our times.".  British Judges have called it, "a monstrous failure of justice."  Numerous Medical Journals have demanded that our treatment of prisoners stop; terming it "torture".   And on and on... When will we stop???  Soon, but only thanks to the world's indignation at our inhumane treatment.

Fairness???  The military acts as interrogators (often illegal), prosecutors, and defense counsel, judge, jury and executioner.  NONE of this guarantees a fair trial.  America - where has our justice and sense of right and wrong gone?  I bet less than 5% of those held at Guantanamo will even be finally charged with a crime, much less found guilty.  The other 95% are innocent by definition; they are just being tortured and held illegally for years and years away from their family and friends and they have done nothing wrong except be in the wrong place and the wrong time.   I find it all rather sad.

We have forgotten the difference between right and wrong.

Tough job to quit I would think! 

And, let's say your son was found innocent of doing any wrong?
Should he still be kept as a prisoner???
That would be the case here...

Or if it was your son, wouldn't you want a FAIR trial for him?
Aren't we innocent until proven guilty?

1. China's PLA and intelligence apparatus consider themselves at war with the US using the "unrestricted warfare" doctrine as first articulated by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. The PLA is building a military capable of defeating the US in a global confrontation.
http://www.terrorism.com/documents/TRC-Analysis/unrestricted.pdf
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2008/Jul/rickardJul08.asp
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1303.cfm

2. China aligns it'self with many jihadist entities and thug nation-states, including it's support of the Sudanese gov't genocide in Dafur, and the brutal Myanmar/Burmese junta. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7493934.stm
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/jun/26/20030626-084600-7160r/
3. Chinese arms are equipping the Taliban in Afghanistan. http://www.washtimes.com/news/2007/jun/05/20070605-121517-7394r/
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080522/nation.htm#1

4.  Were China to suffer a serious terrorist attack or attacks at the Olympics (mind you, I am in no position to prevent or mitigate any attacks) it may well result in a strategic realignment of China into an alliance with the US, especially given the unprecedented degree of cooperation between the US and China in securing the Olympics, thus potentially avoiding a future military conflict that otherwise may well develop in the future.

5. China's split with the jihadist terror entities and nation-states would impair their operational abilities, thus improving US national security.

GM; not that you need my accolades or want my kudos but your above piece is very well put together.  Whether I agree or not (I do) your point is well made, succinct, with good references, a simple explanation and good personal analysis.  Further cut and pastes ties in to you analysis therefore I understand yours/Marc's point that comment is not always necessary.

On a personal note, I apologize for my behavior.  Sometimes I get a bit passionate, but that is no excuse.

best wishes,

james

Marc, as I again review your "Rules of the Road" (well written) I sometimes question your comitment to "the mission here is to search for TRUTH."  "If the facts prove us wrong, we change our minds." And, "if you are cross-current or even against the general currents of thinking around her, we incourage you to participate."  And again, I raise my point about a discussion, not a cut and paste contest - rarely does GM comment, but he seems very quick with the cut and paste; but then so too is the average child.

Regarding your comments;

Guantanamo? You are an attorney, does it seem right to hold someone, on quasi American soil, for 4+ years without a fair hearing?  I mean if they are guilty, I don't care if you string them up.  But if they are innocent, let them go back to their families.  How would you feel if one of your friends was mistakenly picked up and put in Guantanamo?  Wrong place, wrong time; but did nothing wrong.  And it has happened a lot!  How many have really been found guilty of a crime after 4+ years.  Very very few.  We are the laughing stock of the world and when we talk about civil rights we seem hypocritical in my opinion.  We are a democracy; time we acted like one.

Abu Gralb?  No one was killed; that is true.  Does that make it right???  Crimes were committed! Where is our sense of decency?

Iraq? 10's of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed as collateral damage.  Not to mention soldiers found guilty but excused by their superior of criminal acts. 

Raping Japanese HS girls.  Actually GM did post that article.  Did you read it?  I bet in college you took statistics.  Read carefully what the commander said, "American troops WHEN THE ARE OFF BASE commit one half the number of serious crimes than the general Japanese population does."  Now mind you, the average soldier is probably "off base" a total of eight hours or less once a week.   Yet in those few hours versus 24/7 they commit one half of the total crimes the Japanese population commits.   Statistically, imagine if the soldiers were off base 24/7 how many crimes would be committed?  Probably five+ times the rate of the general Japanese population!  Simply put, American troops in Japan are not lawbiding; they have been running amok and that's the problem.  Imagine if foreign troops visiting LA raped local girls...  As for the Philippina girl reference, perhaps I was not clear.  American servicemen also raped a Philippine girl in Japan.  However, I do understand your point about the Philippines proper.

Perhaps you know, but I am not sure GM is happy with the civilians in charge.  (PS My name is James, but Jason sounds fine too   )  As for the military commanders, I fully agree, their advice is sorely needed.  And as for your "dig"; I think America truly is great and does give, but I question whether we entered this war only for alturistic reasons.  If there was no oil in Iraq, would we have gone?  Would we still be there?  I don't think so.  We had our own (money - oil) selfish interests at heart...

And I agree, simply because it is written, left or right, often the source is biased and therefore should be examined for truth.

As for GM, no this is not some sort of ad hominem (thank God I had four years of Latin in High School and still remember   ) attack.  I did read the thread; I did grasp your "concept" and I kindly gave you at least two opportunities to change/retract your argument/words, yet you persisted and said a mass casualty attack is good; i.e. you would "feel like Churchill felt when America entered the war."  I am sorry, but to be euphoric and relieved and wish that 10's of thousands of innocent civilians die to further your cause is barbaric and reprehensible.  And no, I not dense, just moral.  As for the comment about your wife; you mentioned that she is Asian; I just expressed hope she wasn't Chinese given your attitude.

Back to Marc; I guess if you want this "forum to serve as a tremendous resouce for people who want to read about a subject/theme" it should offer different perspectives on the question/subject, don't you think?  And I think commentary
is important; yes it takes more time and thought, but anyone, even an eight year old can cut and paste ad nauseam.

To good discussions,

james

Knowing that you now have a much improved chance of not being conquered is different than being happy innocents died.

I am still confused  So you are saying that that if tens of thousands of Chinese die due a "mass casualty attack" during the Olympics we have a "much improved chance of not being conquered"?  By whom - the Chinese?  And therefore such attack is therefore justifiable (not necessarily "happy") that 10's of thousands of innocents die???

GM; enough!  America is great at charity; we have big heart.  America is great at giving MONEY,
but do you want your son or daughter to DIE for Darfur, or anyone in African, or
 "masses of brown people"?  The answer for most Americans is "No".  We will die
for America, we will die for Europe, maybe Israel; I think that's it.  I worry for Taiwan and Japan.  It all
sounds good, but when the chips are down, people fold.  I grew up in upper
middle class, La Canada (near LA) and now own a home there, but live in LA proper.
Many fine people talk about charity and give money, but when CA state, quite some years ago
offered a $500,000 to La Canada in addition to paying for the construction
to pay for low income housing, the La Canada say, "no thanks" - Not In
Back Yard (NIMBY).  I bet Marc's neighborhood would do the same.

People "care" (after the war) about the people in Vietnam, but it's talk.  It's easy
to give money; it's clean, and you feel good.  But America doesn't like to get their hands dirty.
And they sure were not willing to die to save them.  Wrong or right; I don't know.  We can't
save all the world.

So please don't tell me about how much money Bill Gates gives (I think it's fabulous)
when you are talking about war and genocide and America caring.  Deep down,
it doesn't.  We have always been a nation of isolationists.

And I have a suggestion.  Marc had once suggested that we talk like we are
at dinner.  Superb idea.  Agree/Disagree; but enjoy the wine and conversation. 
But simply cut and paste articles serve no purpose.  I suppose I could cut and
paste 100 articles in my favor, but is that a discussion???  Imagine if I did that
at our dinner together?  You seem intelligent, albeit we disagree ; so give me
your opinion, reference a quote if you like, but give me your opinion.  It makes
it much more interesting (let's have a drink one day) than simply cut and paste.

james