At last my heart and mind are at rest, until tomorrow.

I was waiting for a phone call from my daughter to tell me she is home safely.

She, like thousands of university students in Iraq, is taking her mid-term tests, starting today. They have a fixed schedule, i.e. are sitting ducks - for ten days.

Since the beginning of this academic year, the students in her college have been led quite a dance; a deadly dance. The college is situated in an area that has become more like a war zone than a normal neighborhood; it is too near Haifa Street for it to quiet down for more than a few days at a stretch.

They started out by going to college every day. Their college more like a fortress for its security, than an educational facility.

Attack after attack on the surrounding residential area frightened the Dean into improvising a random lecture schedule that allows them to attend their lectures in no pattern that lasts more than one week.

Result: the administrator of the adjoining hospital was abducted, and then killed. Snipers pick inhabitants and students walking from college to hospital or back. One car stops in front of the entrance, lets out one handcuffed young man, waits for him to take a few steps away … and then he is shot, bait, it turned out. Naïve students run to his aid only to be shot at by snipers on a rooftop of a high building in Haifa Street. My daughter was not more than twenty meters away.

Close Down.

Two weeks later.

Students are told to attend lectures at Mustansiriya University campus. A large well protected campus … protected by a militia … where no month passes without an abduction incident … abduction of females that usually ends in rape and murder, in twos and threes.

With heavy heart I am won over by her insistence, and she attends the random lectures for three weeks.

A great big double explosion takes place at the main entrance of Al-Mustansiriya one Tuesday, killing more than 120 students and wounding more than 200, most of whom were female students. One car bomb and one explosive belt … body parts were brought down from the date palms, as were remnants of their uniforms.

Although hurting for all the families that weredevastated that afternoon, I thanked God my daughter was not harmed.

At home for another two weeks.

Go attend Baghdad University. Also protected. No way.

All this time studying at home and online, doing her best not to lose yet another year to chaos, she is now taking her mid term exams at her college. A sitting duck.

She is mad to continue.

I am mad to let her.

http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/iraq/2007/02/sitting_ducks.html

"I thanked God my daughter was not harmed."

Thanking that which created the whole mess in the first place? How quaint.

"I thanked God my daughter was not harmed."

Thanking that which created the whole mess in the first place? How quaint.

Good to see your priorities are intact.

Good to see your priorities are intact.

Praying to Allah solves all problems, doesn't it? Where are your priorities, sam?

SamCDKey:

Isn't that horrible what these sub-human cretins do? Targetting students who have nothing to do with any fighting, just because they have easy to figure out schedules?

SamCDKey:

Isn't that horrible what these sub-human cretins do? Targetting students who have nothing to do with any fighting, just because they have easy to figure out schedules?

Who? The Mahdi Army, a militant branch of the government currently supported by the US? Or the Sunni insurgents, funded by Saudi Arabia?

Both.

The Iraqi peoples, exempting the Kurds, seem to be savages. They do not seem too much better than their Sumerian forbears in cruelty and inhumanity.

Both.

The Iraqi peoples, exempting the Kurds, seem to be savages. They do not seem too much better than their Sumerian forbears in cruelty and inhumanity.

I'm guessing you know a lot of Iraqis intimately.:rolleyes:

And the savages are the one who destroyed a country for financial benefit (even if it didn't go according to plan)

SamCDKey:

Considering we've spent nearly a trillion dollars liberating another country from a brutal despot, I fail to see how we have sought "financial gain".

And actually, I have never met an Iraqi, nor would I want to. Hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered in the insurgency is not something I want to be associated with.

SamCDKey:

Considering we've spent nearly a trillion dollars liberating another country from a brutal despot, I fail to see how we have sought "financial gain".


No one said they had a high IQ.

And actually, I have never met an Iraqi, nor would I want to. Hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered in the insurgency is not something I want to be associated with.


Too bad. Its the running theme of your country's history worldwide.

SamCDKey:

No one said they had a high IQ.

Aka: You're wrong. Financial gain was not sought.

Too bad. Its the running theme of your country's history worldwide.

Yes, because we do not have the balls to beat these dogs into submission.

SamCDKey:



Aka: You're wrong. Financial gain was not sought.



Yes, because we do not have the balls to beat these dogs into submission.

Hilarious. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/0508bloodylies.htm)

A lie and a mistake are two different things. The Maine being blown up from a fault in munitions does not mean "America based a war on a lie", unless this could be known.

Vietnam was justified regardless of its foundations. Communism must be stopped at any cost, no matter how high. Better dead than Red.

The Germans killed Americans in the Lusitania, regardless of what it was carrying.

A lie and a mistake are two different things. The Maine being blown up from a fault in munitions does not mean "America based a war on a lie", unless this could be known.

Vietnam was justified regardless of its foundations. Communism must be stopped at any cost, no matter how high. Better dead than Red.

The Germans killed Americans in the Lusitania, regardless of what it was carrying.

Seems like they should rename "American Intelligence". No?

Call it Brittany Spears instead with the theme song "Oops! I did it again"

SamCDKey:

Intelligence is not 100 percent flawless. Surely you realize this.

SamCDKey:

Intelligence is not 100 percent flawless. Surely you realize this.

One does not wage war without ascertaining the flawlessness of intelligence.

We ascertained it and found it valid. Only later did we find out we were wrong.

Such is the way of intelligence.

We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Surely that is worth something, yes?

Or are we to assume you are pro-Hussein?

We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Surely that is worth something, yes?


It's worth one civil war.

Considering the savagery of the Iraqis, perhaps they deserve it?

Who? The Mahdi Army, a militant branch of the government currently supported by the US? Or the Sunni insurgents, funded by Saudi Arabia?

...I thought the Mahdi Army was fired on on sight by US troops.

?

Geoff

...I thought the Mahdi Army was fired on on sight by US troops.

?

Geoff

Strange since they are the militant arm of the Shiite government.:rolleyes:

But thats ok. Friends and enemies are fuzzy logic where US is concerned anyway.

samcdkey,

What is your ideas on a solution to this mess?

Thanks
Michael

PS: Yes, the story was heartbreaking. Why do snipers need to shoot children going to get an education? It really makes no sense? How do they justify this with their religion? I mean killing kids??

samcdkey,

What is your ideas on a solution to this mess?

Thanks
Michael

PS: Yes, the story was heartbreaking. Why do snipers need to shoot children going to get an education? It really makes no sense? How do they justify this with their religion? I mean killing kids??

There is no solution, because it is hard to tell who the players are behind the scenes and what they want.

Snipers killing kids in not news. Israel does it all the time. Children who don't grow up don't have to be fought against later.

Sadly, what's happening in Iraq is what happened in Cambodia in the 1960's and 70's and what has happened to the Palestinians: Brain Drain. The wealthiest/most successful/educated flee the country and rarely return leaving the lesser educated and poorer population behind where angry religion builds on the hopelessness and fear and hatred of civil war, occupation, etc. Once the brain drain is over the country is set back decades. Cambodia has never recovered from the Vietnam War, Pol Pot and the Viet invasion in '79. The longer we stoke the fires in Iraq the worse the situation will get. After the Americans are through with it Iraq will be 50 years behind where they were under Saddam Hussein.

Communism must be stopped at any cost, no matter how high. Better dead than Red.It is every nations right to form the type of government they so wish. That could be a Communist one. That could be a Dictatorship.

Vietnamese overwhelming support to become a Communist State had no bearing on whether we would choose such. We were not right to fight them. I think that same is true of Iraqis choice to live under a Dictator. About 40%+ Iraqis supported Saddam. About double Bushwackers support base.

Don't you agree?
Michael

There is no solution, because it is hard to tell who the players are behind the scenes and what they want.

Snipers killing kids in not news. Israel does it all the time. Children who don't grow up don't have to be fought against later.I can't but help think monotheism sucks. Saddam spent years trying convince Iraqis they were Iraqis first and Muslims second. It just doesn't work. Kind of reminds me of Britain.

Are you first a Muslim or an Indian? Which is more important?


Well, we can't throw in the towel - so do you have any idea's of what the solution is? I think the USA only has 2 good options. 1) Leave 2) All out war.

I choose #1,
Michael

I can't but help think monotheism sucks. Saddam spent years trying convince Iraqis they were Iraqis first and Muslims second. It just doesn't work. Kind of reminds me of Britain.


Might have been more effective without the chemical gassing and acid vats.

Are you first a Muslim or an Indian? Which is more important?

Indian first of course. No second thoughts there.:p


Well, we can't throw in the towel - so do you have any idea's of what the solution is? I think the USA only has 2 good options. 1) Leave 2) All out war.

Doesn't matter. The country is already destroyed.

Doesn't matter. The country is already destroyed.Just some thoughts anyhow.

Michael

PS: Did I mention I tried to make vindaloo :) I suppose it's not the "real" deal though ... :( but it was OK nevertheless!

There is no solution, because it is hard to tell who the players are behind the scenes and what they want.

Snipers killing kids in not news. Israel does it all the time. Children who don't grow up don't have to be fought against later.

That is NOT why it occurs, Sam. It is not part of any such strategy.

By contrast, Hamas' goal is the death of all Israelis, including civilians.

Children who don't grow up don't have to be fought against later.

Michael

Vietnamese overwhelming support to become a Communist State had no bearing on whether we would choose such. We were not right to fight them.

Your proof of this? there was nothing like overwhelming support of communism in Vietnam, The funny thing is from Tet of 68 to Tet of 72 we and the South Vietnamese had almost total control of South Vietnam, the NVA could not operate with success in the south, and then in 1972 the demorat in the house started to cut the funding for the war, they cut the supplies for the U.S. troops on the ground, and then cut the support funding for the South Vietnamese, and at the same time the Russians, and the Chinese increased the funding to the North, and the end became a forgone conclusion.


I think that same is true of Iraqis choice to live under a Dictator. About 40%+ Iraqis supported Saddam.

40%, that is not a majority, by your own post the majority of Iraqi's did not choose to live under a Dictatorship, you just disproved your own assertion.

That is NOT why it occurs, Sam. It is not part of any such strategy.

By contrast, Hamas' goal is the death of all Israelis, including civilians.

Children who don't grow up don't have to be fought against later.

If there is no accountability, it is deliberate policy

http://www.americanhummus.com/2007/02/11/israeli-army-continues-killing-palestinian-children/

A child a week, almost every week. In recent weeks, I again went out to document the circumstances of the killing of several children and teenagers, shot dead by Israel Defense Forces soldiers. A very ill wind is once again blowing in the army and no one is saying anything about it. An army that kills children does not concern the public. No committee of inquiry has been, and none will be, formed to deal with this matter. But the fact that the IDF kills children with such a light hand, and fully supports its soldiers who do so, should trouble us no less than the reserves of war supplies in the North.

If there is no accountability, it is deliberate policy.

And that's just your biased opinion ...nothing else.

Besides, why are you so interested in the Palestinians when you should be more focused on the problems in your own shitty little nation of India? Indians have lots more damned problems than the Pals ...yet you care more about them than your own people! Pretty fuckin' sad, huh?

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

And that's just your biased opinion ...nothing else.

Besides, why are you so interested in the Palestinians when you should be more focused on the problems in your own shitty little nation of India? Indians have lots more damned problems than the Pals ...yet you care more about them than your own people! Pretty fuckin' sad, huh?

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

Sure we have a lot of problems in India, but we still have choices available to us.

The Palestinians live in a concentration camp. Their tragedy cannot be overlooked just because there are other problems in the world.

And that's just your biased opinion ...nothing else.

Besides, why are you so interested in the Palestinians when you should be more focused on the problems in your own shitty little nation of India? Indians have lots more damned problems than the Pals ...yet you care more about them than your own people! Pretty fuckin' sad, huh? Oh come on Baron, the USA has many problems as well. Why were we wasting our time worrying about Saddam when we could have actually captured and eliminated Binny and spent the close to $ trillion dollars on America's many, many, many ... many,,, many problems.

Also, don't get so pissy!
:p
Michael

Sure we have a lot of problems in India, but we still have choices available to us.

How much choice do the poverty-stricken people in Calcutta actually have, Sam? Or what choices do the poor farmers who are vastly in debt have, Sam? Choices??? What are they, Sam? Please explain.

The Palestinians live in a concentration camp.

If they hadn't started the horrific campaign of terrorism in the area, perhaps they could have come to a diplomatic solution. But they didn't even try, did they, Sam? Every peace arrangement was sidetracked by vicious terrorist attacks. Choices? Yeah, the fuckin' Pals made their damned choice ....now they have to live with it. Fuck Palestinians.

Their tragedy cannot be overlooked just because there are other problems in the world.

But one would think that the horrific problems facing India would of a much higher concern for such a patriotic nationalist as Samcdkey. But it isn't, is it, Sam? Why? I think it's because you can't see the horrors of India from the windows of your mansion!

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

How much choice do the poverty-stricken people in Calcutta actually have, Sam? Or what choices do the poor farmers who are vastly in debt have, Sam? Choices??? What are they, Sam? Please explain.



If they hadn't started the horrific campaign of terrorism in the area, perhaps they could have come to a diplomatic solution. But they didn't even try, did they, Sam? Every peace arrangement was sidetracked by vicious terrorist attacks. Choices? Yeah, the fuckin' Pals made their damned choice ....now they have to live with it. Fuck Palestinians.



But one would think that the horrific problems facing India would of a much higher concern for such a patriotic nationalist as Samcdkey. But it isn't, is it, Sam? Why? I think it's because you can't see the horrors of India from the windows of your mansion!

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max


Diplomatic solution?

This from a supporter of the Bushwhacked!:p

Michael:

No, I don't think so, actually. Whether they want Communism or not, they are not allowed to have it. Communism is a threat to all of civilization. It transcends the "rights" of nations to participate in it.

For every Castro, there should be a Pinochet.

If there is no accountability, it is deliberate policy

There is not "no accountability"; nor would violations of same translate into policy.

There is not "no accountability"; nor would violations of same translate into policy.

Whatever.

800 children is a lot of poor snipers with unaccountable fate that lands their bullets in neat holes through the children's heads.

The article does not say all the children were killed by snipers. This is a misunderstanding. I assume you don't invoke sniperdom in order to "prove" the deliberacy of this "strategy"? And that's 800 children and teenagers:

Thus, our soldiers have killed 815 children and teenagers during the last seven years.

How many of the slain were teenagers told to go attack Israeli guard posts? The article doesn't say.

Geoff

Children who don't grow up don't have to be fought against later.
Deliberately targetting children, no matter which side partakes in such behaviour, makes that side a loser. Their cause becomes lost as far as I am concerned.

Such a notion that if we kill the children of our enemies, there will none to fight against later on is not only barbaric but also disgusting.

A small follow-up.

I cite from the heart of darkness: Wikipedia.

Between September 2000 and January 2005, 69 percent of Israeli fatalities were male, while over 95 percent of the Palestinian fatalities were male.

Now why would 95% of the casualties on the Palestinian side be male? That would be 3800 of the total casualties (4000) on the Palestinian side. Even if we assumed that as many of the children and teenager casualties as possible were female, this would still leave over 75% of all their deaths being male. Why such a male bias? It wouldn't have anything to do with shaheedism, would it?

Geoff

Deliberately targetting children, no matter which side partakes in such behaviour, makes that side a loser. Their cause becomes lost as far as I am concerned.

Such a notion that if we kill the children of our enemies, there will none to fight against later on is not only barbaric but also disgusting.

Agreed; but I don't believe the Israelis are the worst offenders. They have more to lose, and the intifadah more to gain, by the deaths of children. I don't see Hamas and Hezabollah and IJ as being damaged at all internationally by the deaths of Israeli children.

Geoff

The article does not say all the children were killed by snipers. This is a misunderstanding. I assume you don't invoke sniperdom in order to "prove" the deliberacy of this "strategy"? And that's 800 children and teenagers:



How many of the slain were teenagers told to go attack Israeli guard posts? The article doesn't say.

Geoff

More misunderstandings

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1516362,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0924-07.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1697825,00.html

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/palestine/4225.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/697464.html

In reference to above link:
http://www.harpers.org/InTheZone.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5032526-103552,00.html

etc.

samcdkey,

What is your ideas on a solution to this mess?

Thanks
Michael

There is no solution, because it is hard to tell who the players are behind the scenes and what they want.

That is a very telling exchange. No solution offered, but happy to shoot down anyone elses ideas.

Sam, it's easy to criticize other peoples ideas. How about your idea? If you were president of the US of A, what would you do in Iraq? Don't tell me about how you never would have invaded. What would you do now.

Michael:

No, I don't think so, actually. Whether they want Communism or not, they are not allowed to have it. Communism is a threat to all of civilization. It transcends the "rights" of nations to participate in it.

For every Castro, there should be a Pinochet.And what if the will of the people select communism? There is nothiong inherently evil with Communism it just doesn't work at the national level. Sort of like political Xiandom or political Islam.

I'd say Communism does work well at the Monk or Nun level. I mean monks/Nuns kind of live communist lives.

Actually do they? They do provide a service to outside people. We the people then give them food and $$. They then share it among themselves... They have a leader that is usually elected for live... They are about all equal??


Are you against Communes??


I say let anyone try what they wish. Even our Democratic Republic could be better off with a little more direct input by We the People - perhaps via PCs? I think we should have more referendums?

Michael

That is a very telling exchange. No solution offered, but happy to shoot down anyone elses ideas.

Sam, it's easy to criticize other peoples ideas. How about your idea? If you were president of the US of A, what would you do in Iraq? Don't tell me about how you never would have invaded. What would you do now.

Too bad I don't have a magic wand. Remember America after 9/11?
This is 600,000 plus deaths, with people willing to kill or die on behalf of their own.

Too bad I don't have a magic wand. Remember America after 9/11?
This is 600,000 plus deaths,...
No, it's the vapours.

Look. It's okay that all the little people get to mouth off about whatever they need to float their feel-good boat. More power to you.

But that's not real power. Real power plays itself out before your very eyes without the need to ask your permission, or acknowledge your spectator's existence.

Get over it.

You're a mere scavenger on the playing field of real life. ;)

No, it's the vapours.

Look. It's okay that all the little people get to mouth off about whatever they need to float their feel-good boat. More power to you.

But that's not real power. Real power plays itself out before your very eyes without the need to ask your permission, or acknowledge your spectator's existence.

Get over it.

You're a scavenger on the playing field of real life. ;)

No. I'm an old fashioned anachronism.

But that's okay. I like being me.

No. I'm an old fashioned anachronism.

But that's okay. I like being me.
You're a Sciforums Goddess. You have Power over the resident minions.

But you can't prevent the US from acting in its own self-interest. You can editorialize, but anyone can do that.

What you can't do is organize the minions to prevent the US from acting in its own self-interest.

Now is not your power time, either. ;)

You're a Sciforums Goddess. You have Power over the resident minions.

But you can't prevent the US from acting in its own self-interest. You can editorialize, but anyone can do that.

What you can't do is organize the minions to prevent the US from acting in its own self-interest.

Now is not your power time, either. ;)

I don't think the US is acting in its own interest.

"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

I don't think the US is acting in its own interest.
I'm failing to grasp why the US cares what you think its interests are and when you think it's acting in them.
"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
Ring-a-ling. Ring-a-ling. Ring-a-ling. ;)

I'm failing to grasp why the US cares what you think its interests are and when you think it's acting in them.

Ring-a-ling. Ring-a-ling. Ring-a-ling. ;)

It does not matter if the US cares or not.
My responsibility does not lie with the US, only with myself.

It does not matter if the US cares or not.
My responsibility does not lie with the US, only with myself.
Thus do we come finally to the real understanding of all reality: Self-interest, all around. ;)

Thus do we come finally to the real understanding of all reality: Self-interest, all around. ;)

There are two kinds of people in this world.

More misunderstandings

Again: these are specific events. What is the trend, the percentages? Why are so many (95%) of the Palestinian deaths - and a minimum of 75% of the deaths among children and teens (and what % children, and what % teens? Can teenagers carry firearms? I know I did, once) male, compared to only 2/3 of the Israeli deaths?

Geoff

Better dead than Red.

Y'know, this is why I'm so furious about Republicans being red in the electoral tallies these days.

Used to be there was some pride in being called "Red".

Again: these are specific events. What is the trend, the percentages? Why are so many (95%) of the Palestinian deaths - and a minimum of 75% of the deaths among children and teens (and what % children, and what % teens? Can teenagers carry firearms? I know I did, once) male, compared to only 2/3 of the Israeli deaths?

Geoff

Numbers please.

How many men and women, ages, circumstance of death.

Are we talking 4 Palestinians and 2000 Israelis?

Y'know, this is why I'm so furious about Republicans being red in the electoral tallies these days.

Used to be there was some pride in being called "Red".
Well, then you agree with Rush Limbaugh about something. He was also bitching about that one day.

There are two kinds of people in this world.
XX & XY?

XX & XY?

Those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't.

Y'know, this is why I'm so furious about Republicans being red in the electoral tallies these days.

Used to be there was some pride in being called "Red".
You must be from the Ward Churchill School of Native Americanism.

Fake but real.

Those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't.
Ah. Americans and actually smart people. Got it.

Ah. Americans and actually smart people. Got it.

For that one the answer would have to be:

Those who say, "There you are!" and those who say, "Here I am!".

For that one the answer would have to be:

Those who say, "There you are!" and those who say, "Here I am!".
How about: Everyone gets a stiffy bitching about America, but no one gets a stiffy bitching about India.

Well, except those crazy Pakistani goat herders and camel fornicators, and those hyperactive maoist dudes.

Scale, and perspective.

How about: Everyone gets a stiffy bitching about America, but no one gets a stiffy bitching about India.

Well, except those crazy Pakistani goat herders and camel fornicators, and those hyperactive maoist dudes.

Scale, and perspective.

Kip Williams would have some interesting things to say.

Kip Williams would have some interesting things to say.
I thought you said that no man is an island? He can't be a mountain, either. Islands are just the tips of mountians above the waterline, afterall.

Numbers please.

How many men and women, ages, circumstance of death.

Are we talking 4 Palestinians and 2000 Israelis?

I believe that's my argument you're trying to steal.

The death toll, both military and civilian, of the entire conflict in 2000-2006 is estimated to be over 4000 Palestinians and over 1,000 Israelis,[1] although this number is criticized by some sources for not differentiating between combatants and civilians.

B'Tselem - Statistics - Fatalities". Intifada deaths since September 29, 2000.

My point was rather that 95% of all Palestinian deaths were male. Are 95% of all Palestinians male or something? That would be an odd sex ratio indeed, wilder and whackier than anything I've ever seen in snails. Now, 95% of 4000 is 3800 - thus there are 3800 males and 200 females. There are 800 Palestinian deaths of children and teenagers (not merely children as you first implied). Now, even if we make the assumption that all teenagers and children were female, this still means that (800-200)/800 = 75% of all deaths of children and teens were male. Again, this is a highly skewed ratio, even in this most conservative of cases. It's extremity suggest that there must be some underlying reason driving higher male fatalities. I suggest that it is shaheedism, since I believe people are more likely to send males to martyrdom than females. The ratio of male: female shaheeds does appear to be quite high.

Best,

Geoff

samcdkey, and Palestinian Child bombers are not new, they kill Israeli children all the time, and themselves to, so Parisians send their children out to get them killed for world sympathy, and to kill Israeli children, and be Sniper bait, and you defend them? Hay world look what living in India does for your sense of perspective.

XX & XY?Well obviously that not it as some people are XO YO XYY XXY .. etc

:p

Well obviously that not it as some people are XO YO XYY XXY .. etc

:p
Dude. You forget the whole Internet of XXX's. ;)

Michael:

I'm neutral on the moral foundations for monastic culture, but note that they are neither self-sustained, do not tolerate moochers, and are generally ruled not by an "equal" but a fairly autocratic abbot.

And what if the will of the people select communism? There is nothiong inherently evil with Communism it just doesn't work at the national level. Sort of like political Xiandom or political Islam.

I disgaree. See my "A Moral Indictment of Communism".

I say let anyone try what they wish. Even our Democratic Republic could be better off with a little more direct input by We the People - perhaps via PCs? I think we should have more referendums?

I strongly disagree. Greater poltical involvement demands that we sacrifice great individuals to the mob.

I believe that's my argument you're trying to steal.



My point was rather that 95% of all Palestinian deaths were male. Are 95% of all Palestinians male or something? That would be an odd sex ratio indeed, wilder and whackier than anything I've ever seen in snails. Now, 95% of 4000 is 3800 - thus there are 3800 males and 200 females. There are 800 Palestinian deaths of children and teenagers (not merely children as you first implied). Now, even if we make the assumption that all teenagers and children were female, this still means that (800-200)/800 = 75% of all deaths of children and teens were male. Again, this is a highly skewed ratio, even in this most conservative of cases. It's extremity suggest that there must be some underlying reason driving higher male fatalities. I suggest that it is shaheedism, since I believe people are more likely to send males to martyrdom than females. The ratio of male: female shaheeds does appear to be quite high.

Best,

Geoff

It could also be that the Israelis prefer dead males, seeing as they use precision guided weapons.

The last suicide bomber I read of in the news was a 60 year old grandmother who had lost her grandson to the Israeli weapons.

samcdkey, and Palestinian Child bombers are not new, they kill Israeli children all the time, and themselves to, so Parisians send their children out to get them killed for world sympathy, and to kill Israeli children, and be Sniper bait, and you defend them? Hay world look what living in India does for your sense of perspective.

Ha the single brain cell talks!

Its not just the Indians (http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp) who think like that.

edit: you might also want to go through the civil support list. Quite an eye opener there (one hopes).

Ha the single brain cell talks! Its not just the Indians who think like that.

edit: you might also want to go through the civil support list. Quite an eye opener there (one hopes).

Interesting, Sam. You can't put up anything like an interesting debate when you do it on your own, can you?!

For a long time, I wondered and questioned why you kept posting the opinions of others for your arguments .....now I realize clearly that it's because you can't debate an issue on your own!

Is that because your hatred blinds you to any and all other perspective? I think that, perhaps, my thread "Left Behind" might be much more accurate than even I once thought. Muslims have been left behind because of their own rigid beliefs. They'd rather bow down and pray than to work to better themselves ....then they complain that others have more than they do. The only thing they have left is ....revenge.

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

Interesting, Sam. You can't put up anything like an interesting debate when you do it on your own, can you?!

For a long time, I wondered and questioned why you kept posting the opinions of others for your arguments .....now I realize clearly that it's because you can't debate an issue on your own!

Is that because your hatred blinds you to any and all other perspective? I think that, perhaps, my thread "Left Behind" might be much more accurate than even I once thought. Muslims have been left behind because of their own rigid beliefs. They'd rather bow down and pray than to work to better themselves ....then they complain that others have more than they do. The only thing they have left is ....revenge.

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

I can understand your dilemma Baron, since your opinions are usually baseless and display your complete ignorance of the world.

Interesting that your thread is also based on someone else's opinion. :D

PS. Are you advertising your thread? Pitiful.

I can understand your dilemma Baron, since your opinions are usually baseless and display your complete ignorance of the world.

No decent argument, huh, Sam? The only thing you can do is attack the messenger? :D

See? I'm right .....Muslims seem only able to attack!! They've followed the laws of the Koran and now find themselves completely left behind in the modern world ...the only thing they have left is to attack.

"Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world."

Baron Max

No decent argument, huh, Sam? The only thing you can do is attack the messenger? :D



Wow what an argument!
:rolleyes:

It could also be that the Israelis prefer dead males, seeing as they use precision guided weapons.

And why would they do so? You seem to be implying deliberate targetting of same, with a twist of civilian. Why would they do so? For me, the incredibly high percentage of male deaths suggests they were involved with military "maneuvers".

The last suicide bomber I read of in the news was a 60 year old grandmother who had lost her grandson to the Israeli weapons.

Exception, or rule?

Geoff

And why would they do so? You seem to be implying deliberate targetting of same, with a twist of civilian. Why would they do so? For me, the incredibly high percentage of male deaths suggests they were involved with military "maneuvers".

So where did these deaths occur? Were they all "military men"?

In Israel or Palestine?

Exception, or rule?

Geoff

Exactly.

So where did these deaths occur? Were they all "military men"?

In Israel or Palestine?

Exactly.

Noooo, you can't simply throw the argument back at me. Bad Sam. Bad. ;)

Noooo, you can't simply throw the argument back at me. Bad Sam. Bad. ;)

Humphhhhhhhhh!:mad:

Prince_James,

I had no idea you thought so? It seems to me that everything has it's time and place. I am still curious and wonder what sort of solution would We in the USA come up with if (or when) there is not enough land and people must rent from landlords. What would people think of private landownership when a handful of land-Barons own all the land? That is a reoccurring theme in the entire world (even Easter Island) for as long as there has been people owning land. I also think that is why the Chinese thought Communism was worth a try.

And you know, there was no harm to We the People living in America in the Chinese giving it a go.
Was there?
No.
So let them try.. .. .. .. ..


Anyway, I'm all for mob rule - that's democracy after all.
Truly great people are truly just people. Some people think that that arse-hole Kissinger is truely great. Some people think Reagan was truely great. From another perspective Kissinger was a monster who dropped one last bomb on women and children just to be f*cking prick (knowing the USA was leaving Vietnam the next day) and Reagan was a kook who thought aliens were observing us from behind the moon!?!?:eek:

Not to mention the many Americans that still think Bush is a truely insightful and great American leader :bugeye:

I have always maintained Julius Caesar was truely great. BUT to others his actions directly led to the demise of the Republic and that when politically out-gunned Julius took Rome by force like a spoilt prat (I tend to think it was inadvertently General Marius's fault by precedence).


We the People, aka Mob, I believe it says
:)
Michael

Actually I think Ophiolite thinks aliens are observing us from beyond the moon too.

Frankly I didn't know they were still operating universities in Iraq. I applaud their effort.

Frankly I didn't know they were still operating universities in Iraq. I applaud their effort.

You might be quite surprised at all of the other social activities that continue even though the news media would have you believe that Iraq is in total ruin and under total anarchy. The men still enjoy their coffee and conversation right on the street cafes every day ....just like they did a hundred, perhaps a thousand, years ago. People still go to the markets shopping, and people still gather for parties and wedding and other such normal, daily activities.

But the news media only shows the sensationalism of war and blood and death and destruction ......the other normal activities aren't very newsworthy.

Baron Max

Michael:

I had no idea you thought so? It seems to me that everything has it's time and place. I am still curious and wonder what sort of solution would We in the USA come up with if (or when) there is not enough land and people must rent from landlords. What would people think of private landownership when a handful of land-Barons own all the land? That is a reoccurring theme in the entire world (even Easter Island) for as long as there has been people owning land. I also think that is why the Chinese thought Communism was worth a try.

Feudalism tends to be very bad for everyone involved. It basically destroys the economy.

And you know, there was no harm to We the People living in America in the Chinese giving it a go.
Was there?
No.
So let them try.. .. .. .. ..

You never read the history of the Korean War? We lost the war in part because the Koreans were aided by the Communist Chinese.

We also have a billion+ strong enemy because of Chinese Communism. A nuclear one, at that.

Anyway, I'm all for mob rule - that's democracy after all.
Truly great people are truly just people. Some people think that that arse-hole Kissinger is truely great. Some people think Reagan was truely great. From another perspective Kissinger was a monster who dropped one last bomb on women and children just to be f*cking prick (knowing the USA was leaving Vietnam the next day) and Reagan was a kook who thought aliens were observing us from behind the moon!?!?

Not to mention the many Americans that still think Bush is a truely insightful and great American leader

Do you use this same logic when seeking a doctor?

We the People, aka Mob, I believe it says

Actually, "We the People" referred to landowning American pseudo-aristocracy gentlemen.

Michael:
Anyway, I'm all for mob rule - that's democracy after all.

And when the mob decides that your rights are inconvenient for them, because your of the wrong skin color, religious belief, political belief, sexual orientation, been accused of a crime you didn't commit, and a thousand other reasons, and string you up a tree, are you for the mob?

Prince_James,

After the war with Japan, General MacArthur took the land which was lawfully owned by wealthy Japanese families and shared it among the average citizen. This was because without land those Japanese were forever indentured to the landowners. He simply stole the land and willy-nilly handed it out to people for free.

Do you support this decision?

What about New York. Some people will never be able to own property. They will forever rent from property owners. Would it be OK it someone simply took the land and handed it out for free to people living in New York?
Do you support rent control? Is that fair? It's their land - why can't they rent it for what they want? Let the economy sort it out? Why do we have rent control?


Lets suppose.
What is the peoples recourse if:
In the future there are large land Barons that own ALL of the land in the USA. We'll just say there are 1000 extremely rich families who own ALL of the land. All of it. Every Citizen must pay them rent. They agree among themselves to make the rent so extremely high that the Citizens are forever in poverty and debt to the landowners. What are the Citizens to do?
The landowners own the land legally afterall. It is their rigth to demand whatever price they set as rent. If you do not like it - find some other place to live.

So? What do the Citizens do?


And when the mob decides that your rights are inconvenient for them, because your of the wrong skin color, religious belief, political belief, sexual orientation, been accused of a crime you didn't commit, and a thousand other reasons, and string you up a tree, are you for the mob?The Bill of Rights Grantees certain basic rights and outside of that the public is within their rights to alter the Constitution. That is the "Mob" I'm talking about about - you and I.
:)
MII

Michael

The Bill of Rights Grantees certain basic rights and outside of that the public is within their rights to alter the Constitution. That is the "Mob" I'm talking about about - you and I.

Not without due process, the Constitution is the law of the land, and if you want to destroy it the fastest way is with mob action, for once the mob rules nothing is safe, look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, one of the few revolutions that didn't go through a mob reign of terror was the American Revolution, so you have your mob change of the constitutional Rights, and you will most likely end up a victim of that very same mob, mobs eat their own in the end.

Buffalo Roam,

OK OK .. I didn't mean mob as in "mob" I meant mob as in the general public over, say. elite land owners.

Yes, I agree - due processes.

Now with that in mind, is it possible for the Public to vote for a Communist Style government? Legally is it possible? It should be - if that were the Will of the People. Also, is it possible to Legally make the USA an Islamic State? Is it possible to Legally make the USA a dictatorship?

Just curious ...
Michael

Michael,

OK OK .. I didn't mean mob as in "mob" I meant mob as in the general public over, say. elite land owners.

So now your saying that the general public is a mob, check your dictionary, word have specific meaning, and with comments like that you are proving just how much of a elitist you are.

Buffalo Roam,

Really, it was an off-the-cuff remark. I included myself in the term "mob" but read "mob" as general public. PJ is the one who said Land holders get the say while the "mob" plays second fiddle. That sounds like elitist to me....

Michael:

After the war with Japan, General MacArthur took the land which was lawfully owned by wealthy Japanese families and shared it among the average citizen. This was because without land those Japanese were forever indentured to the landowners. He simply stole the land and willy-nilly handed it out to people for free.

Do you support this decision?

No.

But you shall also note that the merchant class of Japan was extremely prosperous following the Meiji Revolution. The old, landed aristocracy, of the samurai caste lost their true power following said revolution 80 years before WWII. I find it hard to imagine MacArthur then confiscated that much land.

What about New York. Some people will never be able to own property. They will forever rent from property owners. Would it be OK it someone simply took the land and handed it out for free to people living in New York?
Do you support rent control? Is that fair? It's their land - why can't they rent it for what they want? Let the economy sort it out? Why do we have rent control?

I think it would be horrible to confiscate the land from the land owners. It is theirs.

Similarly, I do not support rent control. Rent control is placing an eggregious tax against many land owners still here in New York City.

Moreover, there still remains areas where you can cheaply afford a house in NYC. In fact, throughout much of America, most Americans can buy property. What the free market demands is only that the best land is more expensive, not that all land should be.

Right now, I could buy acres of land in Montana much cheaper than in New York, for instance.

Lets suppose.
What is the peoples recourse if:
In the future there are large land Barons that own ALL of the land in the USA. We'll just say there are 1000 extremely rich families who own ALL of the land. All of it. Every Citizen must pay them rent. They agree among themselves to make the rent so extremely high that the Citizens are forever in poverty and debt to the landowners. What are the Citizens to do?
The landowners own the land legally afterall. It is their rigth to demand whatever price they set as rent. If you do not like it - find some other place to live.

So? What do the Citizens do?

Colonize other lands - like the Europeans did in the Age of Exploration.

Also, in a capitalist system, this never occurs. Land is freely traded in. It's considered a rarity to own a property that has been in one's family for over a hundred years.

Prince_James,

You place a lot of faith in Voodoonomics ;)
Me too.. .. ..
I understand your position and I agree with you - I think that for today this is as good as we'll likely get. However, I do think that land ownership (or lack there of..) and revolution share a seat at the same table - - along with their buddy Mr. Colony.

Hence conflict.

I for one thinks it's wrong for the Chinese to have taken Tibet. But, their land space is extremely limited and they did exactly what you suggested.
ala: Age of Conquest

I do hope they are smart enough to see there is a real opportunity for commercial tourism should they grant real semi-autonomy to some small slice and allow Tibet culture to adapt from within and to retain what they deem essential to "be" Tibetan.


I guess we'll see,
Michael

Prince_James,

OK, I was thinking about this from another angle. Under then English Law the King of England owned all of the land that became the USA.
The King was the legal landowner - right?

Do you support the actions our forefathers took that is now called the War of Independence? It seems to me that according to your land-ownership rational We the People were wrong in stealing the Kings land?

What is land-tax if not the same as rent? He owned the ships. He owned the land. He had every right to squeeze as much tax/rent as he deemed worth his while. It was his property after all.

So do you celebrate July 4th?
Why or Why not?

Michael

You might be quite surprised at all of the other social activities that continue even though the news media would have you believe that Iraq is in total ruin and under total anarchy. The men still enjoy their coffee and conversation right on the street cafes every day ....just like they did a hundred, perhaps a thousand, years ago. People still go to the markets shopping, and people still gather for parties and wedding and other such normal, daily activities.

But the news media only shows the sensationalism of war and blood and death and destruction ......the other normal activities aren't very newsworthy.

Baron Max

So do you look for those types of stories when you read newspapers or watch the evening news about America?

Do you want to read stories of a group of American teens sipping coffee at Starbucks in Chicago, telling jokes to each other? Do you want to read stories of busy single mothers shopping at grocery stores in Houston, Texas? Do you want to read about that wedding in Shreveport, Lousiana? Do you, in fact, want to read about normal, daily activities?

Face it, no one on earth, in any bloody country, wants to read normal daily activities on the newspaper or on the news. If you do, you're a liar.


The fact is, Iraq is a hell-hole right now, which is why American politicians can't even go anywhere outside of the Green Zone in Baghdad. If Iraq were so nice and rosy, I want to see American civilians go walking outside in Iraqi cities in broad daylight.

terryoh,

I want to see American civilians go walking outside in Iraqi cities in broad daylight.


It would surprise you but they do, Outside of Baghdad, and Sadr City, thing are really quite stable, watch the news and most of the bombings take place in Baghdad, why? because that is were the bombers get the best news coverage to influence the propaganda cycle to make it seem like the whole country is in turmoil, watch the bombing and see where they are happening, very little action outside the triangle.

I just went through 112 news stories about bombings in Iraq, 110 were in Baghdad, 2 happened in the rest of the country.

Any reporters outside Baghdad?

samcdkey, why do you think most of the attack happen in Baghdad? I'll answer it for you, because that is were most of the world's new reporters are.

Sure, all those awful things are happening because primitive thinking Iraqis and madmen from other muslim countries are doing them, and there is no justification for that,
but Americans with their illegal war tipped the ballance that Saddam had created, destroyed the country and set back the development for a 100 years, and there is no justification for that too.

And that makes the two evils very much alike and I detest the American government and its electorate just as much I detest those insane, religious, tribalistic nuts.

samcdkey, why do you think most of the attack happen in Baghdad? I'll answer it for you, because that is were most of the world's new reporters are.

So if all the reporters are in Baghdad, how does anyone know what's happening outside the city?

So if all the reporters are in Baghdad, how does anyone know what's happening outside the city?

they count heads.

very dramatic Avatar.

Stringers

I just went through 112 news stories about bombings in Iraq, 110 were in Baghdad, 2 happened in the rest of the country.


Let's choose a random day, like March 4th (I would've chosen March 5th, but the night isn't over yet) to see where the violence is occuring:

source: ICASUALTIES.ORG (http://icasualties.org/oif/) (a non-partison website that just displays the headlines from Iraq and does a body count)

1. 10 bodies found in Mosul
2. 1 Marine and 1 Sailor killed in Falluja
3. Roadside bomb kills 4 Iraqi soldiers in Baquba
4. Roadside bomb kills 1 in Baghdad
5. 2 Bodies found near Tikrit
6. 50 insurgents arrested in Tikrit
7. Evidence of torture in Basra prison
8. Journalist killed in Baghdad
9. Policeman killed in Baghdad
10. 2 policemen killed in Mosul
11. Roadside bomb kills 4 in Hillah
12. US troops enter Sadr City (Baghdad)

As you can see, the violence is well spread out in Iraq. I see 4 in Baghdad, 2 in Mosul, 2 in Tikrit, 1 in Falluja, 1 in Baquba, 1 in Basra, and 1 in Hillah.

If you're not convinced, let's take March 3rd:

1. Suicide bombing kills policeman in Ramadi
2. Iraqi Newspaper Editor found dead in Baghdad
3. 3 US soldiers dead in Baghdad
4. Attack kills 1 in Kirkuk
5. American contractor killed in Basra
6. 42 insurgents arrested in Baghdad
7. 1 body found in Iskandariya
8. Gunmen kill woman in Hawija
9. Roadside bomb kills woman and 2 children in Latifiya
10. 3 policemen killed in Tikrit
11. Journalist killed in Kirkuk
12. US airstrike kills al-Qaida members in Baghdad
13. 6 Sunni men killed execution style in Youssifiyah
14. US kills helicopter shooters north of Baghdad

As you can see, there are more non-Baghdad attacks than from the capital. I don't know where you get your news headlines, but I just simply took random days and proved that the violence in Iraq is not only concentrated in Baghdad and no where near the 110 to 2 ratio that you provided. Maybe your news sources are embedded in Baghdad primarily.

I know this is off topic a little but I am still curious:

Under then English Law the King of England owned all of the land that became the USA.
The King was the legal landowner - right?

Do you support the actions our forefathers took that is now called the American War of Independence? It seems to me that according to your land-ownership rational We the People were wrong in stealing the Kings land?

What is land-tax if not the same as rent? He owned the ships. He owned the land. He had every right to squeeze as much tax/rent as he deemed worth his while. It was his property after all.

So do you celebrate July 4th?
Why or Why not?

Michael

Under then English Law the King of England owned all of the land that became the USA.
The King was the legal landowner - right?

Do you support the actions our forefathers took that is now called the American War of Independence? It seems to me that according to your land-ownership rational We the People were wrong in stealing the Kings land?

Of course we were "wrong", why do you think the British called it a "revolution"? ...LOL!

So do you celebrate July 4th?
Why or Why not?

Of course, we won the revolution! If we'd have lost, the British would be celebrating instead. See? Ain't history fun?

You should also learn to see things/events through different perspectives before you make any judgements about them. In Hitler's eyes, he was right in what he did; Since he lost the fuckin' war, he wasn't permitted to write the fuckin' history books! Perspective, perspective, perspective. :D

Baron Max

Well, I suppose my point was in regards to land-ownership and how, when people don't have an opportunity to own land, they usually kill the people that do and take it from them. Our Laws must be enforced but they must also want to be obeyed by the general populous.

For now people want to obey.. in some other time perhaps they will not.

I personally feel that large Land-holders is a reoccurring historic theme and may a times it goes part-and-parcel with revolution.

I agree that a Capitalistic Market is great at distributing goods accumulated from productivity - especially if people have a work-hard culture. But, I still wonder about private property that age-old story of owners and renters....

I personally feel that large Land-holders is a reoccurring historic theme and may a times it goes part-and-parcel with revolution.

You might want to rethink that idea ....as our cities grow larger, the people ain't much interested in "land" ownership, but ownership in high-rise condo buildings and luxury apartment buildings. and many of them haven't even seen "land" except perhaps the city parks!

Most people wouldn't know what to do with land if they owned it! ...other than to resell it to someone else for a profit. Land ownership is no longer the same thing that it once was. You should think seriously about that side of the issue, and not let your ideals of history sway you too much.

But, I still wonder about private property that age-old story of owners and renters....

The times, they are a'changin'.

Baron Max

Baron,

Yes, you may be right. With high-rise mega strcutures of course a small plot of land can support a lot of people. Yet, what I'm talking about takes 500 or 600 years to play out. Apts can be owned just as easily as land. I suppose in the end people want to have a home and not forever be indentured to an owner, aka: a renter.

Over and Over it Goes.

Anyway, those were just my thoughts on why China decided to go Communistic and also why they should have had the opportunity to decide for themselves if they'd, as a people, like to give it a try.

MII

Anyway, those were just my thoughts on why China decided to go Communistic and also why they should have had the opportunity to decide for themselves if they'd, as a people, like to give it a try.

China (the people) didn't "decide" to go communistic, it was forced upon them by only a few violent, greedy, idealistic, radical pricks!

With high-rise mega strcutures of course a small plot of land can support a lot of people.

Huh? It takes about the same amount of land (agricultural land) to support high-rise residents as it does to support any other people. I'm not sure what you're getting at? And in reality, it probably takes more land to support city dwellers because of the pavement, etc to provide for the distribution of the food and goods.

Yet, what I'm talking about takes 500 or 600 years to play out.

That don't mean you can't use your imagination, and form theories based on reliable data and historical evidence.

Baron

China (the people) didn't "decide" to go communistic, it was forced upon them by only a few violent, greedy, idealistic, radical pricks! Actually, China had had many small revolutions during that time. The ideals of Communism were supported by many Chinese. It didn’t work – but it was still supported by many Chinese. They probably stopped there because they were exhausted as a people and simply wanted peace.

Huh? It takes about the same amount of land (agricultural land) to support high-rise residents as it does to support any other people. I'm not sure what you're getting at? And in reality, it probably takes more land to support city dwellers because of the pavement, etc to provide for the distribution of the food and goods. Well my point is that even though we have more space available for living in, it is still possible for a few individual families to own most or all of the land. When this has occurred in the past, it usually was followed by a hike in rent and then a bloody revolution OR a mobilization of the people to go kill and take someone elses land.

Don’t you think history bears this out?

MII

Prince James,

What are your thoughts on the American Revolutionary War? I often find it interesting in a sort of anthrolopolical manner in which society maintains itself. Back then, the USA was a colony and under English Law the King of England owned all of the land. The King was the legal landowner. Just as some person in NY may own a large track of land or someone may own a large ranch in Texas, ect .. ..


Yet, European settlers went to war and took the land for themselves. They didn't buy it - they killed people and stole it.
It seems to me that according to your land-ownership rational We the People were wrong in stealing the Kings land?

What is land-tax if not the same as rent?
The King owned the ships.
The King owned the land.
The King had every right to squeeze as much tax/rent as he deemed worth his while. It was his property after all.

So do you celebrate July 4th?
Why or Why not?

Well my point is that even though we have more space available for living in, it is still possible for a few individual families to own most or all of the land. When this has occurred in the past, it usually was followed by a hike in rent and then a bloody revolution OR a mobilization of the people to go kill and take someone elses land.

Don’t you think history bears this out?

I think one could show that "history bears this out" with many, many happenings in human history. Does that make it correct? I don't know ...but one should be careful of making judgements about history using simple coincidences.

Baron Max

Yet, European settlers went to war and took the land for themselves. They didn't buy it - they killed people and stole it.
It seems to me that according to your land-ownership rational We the People were wrong in stealing the Kings land?

Well, certainly! But then all revolutions are "wrong", aren't they??

The King had every right to squeeze as much tax/rent as he deemed worth his while. It was his property after all.

And the colonists had every "right" to revolt and fight for what they felt was their responsibilities to themselves and their families and their neighbors.

The ideals of "right n' wrong" are only for arguing or debate ...but it seldom, if ever, changes history.

[/B]So do you celebrate July 4th?
Why or Why not?

It's a good excuse to have a party and eat barbequed pork and beef, drink lots of beer and get drunk! :D

Baron Max

Michael:

As far as I am aware, the king owned nothing at the time. Parliament had the right to levy taxes and such.

Well "Taxation without representation" was the crux of it - BUT, who in hell gives a tenet a say in their rent?!?!? Usually it's pay me my money or I'll get the courts to convict you and the police to evict you.

(never mind the tax was very low in the colonies - yes, quite fairly priced - just what were our forefathers thinking? The audacity's!! To take someone else's property??? Could we or would we do it again?!?!? Would we ever be so daring???)

I'm not sure as to the legal right of the King of England over the British Colonies, but the colonies were a "Great Britain" possession.

Agreed?

[Cold we compare the political elite that ran Britain's empire with a modern day corporation? Corporate Britannica :)]

Either way, the conclusion of the Revolution saw that the land and it's wealth was no longer managed by the British and a new set of elected new Property Managers had a say, ala the Constitution.....

Isn't that stealing?

I bet a lot of British saw it as such!

Michael

Isn't that stealing?

I bet a lot of British saw it as such!

Of course it is! Who's saying that it isn't?? That's exactly what happens most often in a "revolution" ....or haven't you been paying attention in history classes?

What did you think the colonists were going to do ....fight the British to a stand-still, then ask politely to lower the taxes, then they could go back to what was before?????? You don't know much about history, I'm afraid.

Baron Max

Mike, I think those in the states celebrate July 4th as their "independence day" , as many other nations have these days. Some nations, looking over time, would have many "independence days" as they have constantly been conquered, ruled, and revolted during history. Yes , owning land is a huge key to power, as since the population of earth is constantly growing, land technically becomes scarcer, and value goes up .If you can't own, you need to rent, since you still need to have a bed to sleep in, generally no matter what the situation in your life is.

I'm not sure, but I feel Capitalism doesn't work well if land is held by a few people. In a Democracy Citizens do not need to have a bloody Revolution to correct this - we could, for example, tax the land out of the large land holders hands - legally removing and redistributing it peacefully. I suppose the Chinese were trying to figure out a solution to this age-old conundrum when they formed their Communist régime? But, taking all the land and making it public didn't work either. People need to own land. It's just part of our psyche... Either way it is an interesting aspect of society and, I think, can have a huge impact on democracy if the balance shifts to far to the one side of the equation - that is, large land holders with lots of renters.

I'm not sure, but I feel Capitalism doesn't work well if land is held by a few people.

I think that's probably true. But do you know of any such capitalist nation where the land is all owned by only a few people? See? I think you're projecting your ideas onto some nation where there is not such problem ...then trying to make a case for your theory. That ain't the way theories are supposed to be supported or proven.

People need to own land. It's just part of our psyche...

Well, I don't know, perhaps things are changing? I noted the large numbers of people who are perfectly content to own condo apartments in high-rise buildings in most of the big cities on Earth. There is not land ownership at all. There is ownership, but not land!

I also think you should review the various governing ideologies, not so much the theories, but how they actually and truly function. I.e., democracy is not really "democracy" in practice. Ditto for communism. So a little reality might help you grasp your ideas a bit better.

Perhaps you need to think more about your theories, huh? And I'm not being weird or condescending ...I'm trying to be honest and supportive.

Baron Max

I think that's probably true. But do you know of any such capitalist nation where the land is all owned by only a few people? See? I think you're projecting your ideas onto some nation where there is not such problem ...then trying to make a case for your theory. That ain't the way theories are supposed to be supported or proven.Yes, not yet. That's because there's this anomaly of all this land - due to the Age of Discovery. Which is not likely to happen again :)

China, Japan, Europe, ect.. have a histories millennia longer than ours. We will eventually run into the same problems they did concerning land, large-land holders, and shortages of space. If our populations continue to grow. Who knows, with sea levels rising - perhaps sooner rather than later. Say 300 years?

Well, I don't know, perhaps things are changing? I noted the large numbers of people who are perfectly content to own condo apartments in high-rise buildings in most of the big cities on Earth. There is not land ownership at all. There is ownership, but not land! This is true. Of course you yourself made the point it takes a lot of land to cater to those living in Apt... farmers ect... And in places like AU the gov. simply lock away the land - it's impossible to build on a lot of the land around Sydney. This keeps the market price high and the rent high.

Just another means of supporting the land-holder at the expense of the renter. IMHO

I also think you should review the various governing ideologies, not so much the theories, but how they actually and truly function.It's just something I occasionally think about.

Michael