WILLIAM, SHAUN, INGER

[Guest guest]

, Shaun, Inger,

My environmental activism and my delving into the Bible has caused

me to see things diffrently than both and Shaun - and to a

degree, Inger also.

Monarchy

Constitutional Monarchy

Communism

Democracy

Nationalism

Etc.

Countries

States

Counties

Townships

Cities

All smoke and mirrors.

No one can govern anyone else. You can only cooperate with people.

No one can own land. You can " buy " it, put fences around it, and

defend it, but when you die it goes to someone else. Whether you buy

or rent it, you are only using it as long as you are able to drive

off, either by economical means or by force, everyone else who wants

it.

Case in point, this forum. I set it up, so it's mine. Right?

Wrong.

Mother can take it away from me any time it wants. And mother

nature can take it away from and time SHE wants.

I am the Administrator here so you all have to obey the rules. Right?

Wrong.

Just because you all post here doesn't mean I have any claim over

you. The fact that the three of you continue to post when I told you

not to do so proves it.

The issue is one of respect and whether or not we can all get along

with each other.

Why are there so many wars being fought in the world? Because

people cannot respect one another's rights and cooperate with each

other, that's why.

There are plenty of different places to live and plenty of different

forms of government. Something for everyone, in other words. It's

just a matter of finding the right place to settle in and finding

the right way to cooperate with one another.

To kill someone else for their land, or for their oil, or because

they believe God says they are entitled to something is wrong. To

pick a fight with someone because their belief system is different

is nothing more than causing conflict to advance one's cause.

To defend your own rights against these people and their

encroachments is okay, but to make war against them because they

believe differently is wrong.

It's a useless expendature of energy and only causes more

factionalization between the conflicting parties.

Everyone is an individual. Thus the term " every one. " Whether you

are rich or poor, or black or white, or worship one God or many or

none, no ONE is more entitled to anything than any other except the

respect of their fellow human beings, and everyone ought to be

respectful of other's rights.

If everyone could do that, then there would be no conflict.

That, at least is MY belief.

Now Shaun, it seems that you have been feeling as though some of my

rules are unfair. But I am the governer of this country and I govern

a population who doesn't like swearing and conflict on its forums.

If you want a citizenry that feels more at ease with that sort of

thing, I suggest you seek them out.

, I understand your point of view, and you have a right to

have it, but if you notice, the topics this past day has mostly been

politics and this is first and formost an AS forum, and so I'd like

to get back to basics and drop politics for a while.

And Inger, no internet kisses for you unless you can let the topic

rest. After all, and Shaun are entitled to their opinions as

are you, and just because you feel yours are right doesn't give you

cause to infringe on their belief systems.

Peace.

Tom

Administrator

Tom,

Yes talking about war and actually fighting it are two different

things. Anyone who has read my posts over time will see that I

prefer defending the homeland first and striking at the terro

leaders and training camps, not whole countries. As I have said,

Afganistan was justified because that country held Bin Laudin and

vowed to fight to keep him safe.

I don't think think America is too arrogant or powerful. The fact is

that Islam has always been a relgion of violence. When Mohammed died

in the 700 AD range, Islam spread within 100 years more than

Christianity had in 800. The reason for this was that Muslim

warriors spread it by the sword. They conquored through Spain and

nearly to Paris before they were defeated by Martel at Tours

in 732. Had they not been stopped, all of Europe would have been

muslim. It took hundreds of years of containment and fighting to

drive them out of Spain again. They had also been active in Eastern

Europe, reaching as far as Austria. War was constant there up

through WW1. The Crusades were in part a response to this.

It is so frustrating to keep hearin that the US and England are

solely to blame for things don ein the last 5 years. This mess has

been going on for over a thousand years! We are only the latest in

the line having to

1) Tell the Israelis that they must leave Israel, because the fact

is, they stole the entire country. They claimed it because they say

it is ordained by God that they should have it, but the Arabs have a

God too, and they did NOT persecute Jews while they lived in

Palestine.

The Isrealis did not steal Isreal. They were given a piece of the

Palestinian Mandate byt the British after WW2, something done with

UN support, though I don't recall the exact name and number of the

agreement. Many jews had already settled there by then and had begun

work on the land. Before the jews came, the land was largely desert

or swamp. They worked the land and make it useful. Because of this

and the Jews starting businesses, Arabs came. Because the British

restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine for decades before WW2,

arab immigration outpaced Jewish by 7 to 1. As the land was fallow,

so was population scarce. It was the Jews making a go of it that

attracted Arabs looking for jobs. Palestine would still be a

backwater but for them.

As for stealing, most land was given to them by the UN and British

or purchased legally by the Jews. They did capture a lot of land in

war, but they were attacked first. As has been the case for all of

human history, the winner takes the land. The Arabs have attacked

and lost ground every time. Isreal has been giving land back trying

to gain peace, but it is not working.

3) Jack up oil prices to $5.00 a gallon. That way the Arabs would

make enough profit to keep their citizens in reasonable comfort and

wealth while we would stop hogging it all and using it up.

This is a bad idea. The Arab countries already make a fortune on

oil, but very little of it reaches the people. Most of it goes to

the ruling families and more is siphoned off through the enormous

corruption in those countries. One of the people in my class owned a

company that worked with the Saudis. Every single person in the

chain over there takes their cut. Contracts cost 2 or 3 times what

they should because of this. Giving them more money for oil won't

help the people at all, rather it will just bolster the bad regimes

and funnel more money to the terrorists. Kuwait is making and effort

and so Bahrain and Qatar, but the rest are not, especially not

Saudi.

4)Become more isolationist and stop trying to cowtow to the demands

of other world leaders to the detriment of the welfare of American

citizenry.

I would agree here. The US often has to do the military hard work of

the UN and Europe because they are unwilling. The EU let the killing

in Bosnia go on for several years, even allowing the " Safe Havens "

be turned in to concentration camps or the people their outright

murdered, and did nothing. So the US had to come along and sort

things out, which the Clinton administration sort of botched. Should

have left that to the Euros: if they wanted to solve it fine, if

they wanted another continental war, which was very close to

happening before we stepped in, then that is fine too.

5) Dump and destroy all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Why not take the initiative?

Not practical at all. The US does not have bioweapons. We do limited

research into defense against such weapons but have no stocks of

them nor means to make them. WE do have some chemical weapons, which

I don't think we will ever use. There are some non lethals that we

could use, but the way UN policy is written, even that is likely to

backfire. This even though in cases it would make more sense to hit

an area with BZ (a non-lethal based on LSD that leaves people

confused and passive and has also been shown to be next to

impossible to die from) than flattening it with bombs and artillery.

It would also be good for counter terror operations.

Getting rid of nukes would, however, be pointless. We tried setting

the example in the 1970's both in nuclear and conventional terms,

but the Russians went right on outbuilding us in terms of numbers

and for that time, quality. Eliminating nukes now would have the

same effect. China and North Korea would only laugh at us and see us

as weaklings for doing that. The Muslim Terrorists would too.

Weakness invites attack. I'm not saying that we will ever use nukes

and that some of the older models couldn't be scrapped, but we can't

get rid of them all altogether.

As for letting this topic lie for a while, that's ok with me. It was

getting tiresome being accuses of supporting genocide for merely

pointing out what could happen and why. Unfortunately, in the past,

many of my predictions have come true.