Ron Paul is not pro choice on abortion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kevin,

That was, as usual with you, a very thought-provoking post. I will include elements in my longer reply. (Sorry I did not do it today. I had something come up that took precedence. But I will do it tomorrow.)

Just for now, I do not see the USA as running the same danger as happened in Iran. Americans have a profile that they tolerate a lot, (and that often means a WHOLE LOT), but then when it goes too far, they dig in and eliminate the problem in a very competent manner.

I do admit that this State of Fear thing Michael Crichton wrote about surprises me at times. I wonder at how effectively people get worked up over nothing at all because they are afraid of something they saw in the news.

More tomorrow.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

To complicate matters further, I think it's even odds that US-Israeli war against Iran and Syria will commence this summer, perhaps in a few weeks. If so, the crisis is already upon us. It could very well be the case that hatred will harden to solid rock, fused metamorphically by a passionate love of survival and glamourized Stars and Stripes. Congress is in recess. The window of opportunity is open for Bush to act quite recklessly.

:faceless:

[BaalChatzaf]

To complicate matters further, I think it's even odds that US-Israeli war against Iran and Syria will commence this summer, perhaps in a few weeks. If so, the crisis is already upon us. It could very well be the case that hatred will harden to solid rock, fused metamorphically by a passionate love of survival and glamourized Stars and Stripes. Congress is in recess. The window of opportunity is open for Bush to act quite recklessly.

:faceless:

Do you care to bet on this outcome. Twenty five dollars says Bush will do no such thing. I have no problem with this bet. I know I will win, even if I want to lose. I will tell you why I am right. Our armed forces are stretched so thin, we cannot invade Iran. The only thing we can do is bomb them from the air. I seriously doubt that Dubyah will undertake this.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

To complicate matters further, I think it's even odds that US-Israeli war against Iran and Syria will commence this summer, perhaps in a few weeks. If so, the crisis is already upon us. It could very well be the case that hatred will harden to solid rock, fused metamorphically by a passionate love of survival and glamourized Stars and Stripes. Congress is in recess. The window of opportunity is open for Bush to act quite recklessly.

:faceless:

Do you care to bet on this outcome. Twenty five dollars says Bush will do no such thing. I have no problem with this bet. I know I will win, even if I want to lose. I will tell you why I am right. Our armed forces are stretched so thin, we cannot invade Iran. The only thing we can do is bomb them from the air. I seriously doubt that Dubyah will undertake this.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is true. It would take too much time to refresh and mass forces, which Congress would never permit.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

To complicate matters further, I think it's even odds that US-Israeli war against Iran and Syria will commence this summer, perhaps in a few weeks. If so, the crisis is already upon us. It could very well be the case that hatred will harden to solid rock, fused metamorphically by a passionate love of survival and glamourized Stars and Stripes. Congress is in recess. The window of opportunity is open for Bush to act quite recklessly.

:faceless:

Do you care to bet on this outcome. Twenty five dollars says Bush will do no such thing. I have no problem with this bet. I know I will win, even if I want to lose. I will tell you why I am right. Our armed forces are stretched so thin, we cannot invade Iran. The only thing we can do is bomb them from the air. I seriously doubt that Dubyah will undertake this.

Ba'al Chatzaf

OK, you're on. Air assets massing Battlefield nukes moved from Ramstein to Italy and Turkey

Edited July 19, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[BaalChatzaf]

OK, you're on. Air assets massing Battlefield nukes moved from Ramstein to Italy and Turkey

This is sabre rattling. Let us be patient and see what will happen. Whatever happens will be (at least) interesting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK. Here goes some thoughts on what I think about the oversimplified spiteful opinions expressed by Bob Kolker in the social realm.

Let's get right to the issue of banning to start with. The idea of banning anyone is distasteful to me on a fundamental level because it implies that reason failed. As this is a discussion board and there is no danger of being shot, beaten over the head with a club, have property confiscated, etc., for holding different views (i.e. force being initiated) the very nature of this Internet environment is precisely where reason should prevail.

There are some grounds on an initiation of force level to ban someone. One guy on OL once started deleting all his posts in order to physically disfigure the discussions. Another included an enormous amount of plagiarized material, practically invalidating many discussions (unless one suspends belief when reading them in order to gain value from the other posters). This is physical force with physical disfigurement of the forum, so banning these people was obviously necessary and showed clearly that reason had failed.

There are also reasons of a personal nature for banning someone. I will not be insulted with foul names or accusations of immorality, etc, on my own property, nor will I allow this to happen toward those I love. People are free to do that elsewhere but not here. I have yet had to outright ban a person for this, but I have deleted some posts and issued some warnings.

Now when we get to the intellectual realm, even though this forum is a platform that is privately owned and censorship is not really an issue, Rand once said something important about censorship that applies to my way of thinking. From The Ayn Rand Letter, "Censorship: Local And Express - Part 1," August 13, 1973:

The issue is freedom of speech and of the press—i.e., the right to hold any view and to express it.

It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle.

My principle here is not that I am a government with censorship powers, but that reason should be enough in most cases to persuade people on a discussion board. I also hold to the principle of trusting the independent judgment of each reader. Just because Bob Kolker says something oddball like man is a "lump of meat and nothing more" or that we need "killing zones" for enemies does not mean that the readers will agree.

(Incidentally, we actually do have killing zones. They are called "execution chambers" and they are used after all recourses of due process of law have been exhausted by the party to be executed, but this is not what I take it Bob meant.)

Ideologically, I do have some issues I will not allow to be developed on my property: bigotry, overthrow of the American government, development of terrorist techniques and strategies, pornography, etc.

On other issues, I certainly do not agree with Bob on several fronts. So why do I tolerate it?

Before going into that, let me state that there is another issue of a physical nature that is important. When a person floods the forum with a preaching kind of agenda, this physically drowns out the basic reason other users are here, so I am starting to become more attentive to this and contain it a bit more. I once mentioned a comparison to a privately owned public restaurant. A person is not permitted in such an environment to shout at the top of his lungs, pound on the table, play loud music, etc. There are other customers to be served and this drives them away. My personal evaluation is that when a person has to try to convince others by drowning out everybody and not allowing other views to be heard, that means his ideas suck (pardon my French) and he is incapable of convincing anybody by reason and normal persuasion. I have no desire to host that kind of crap.

Now back to unpleasant hateful views. So long as they are within a decent proportion, I have no problem with them. Kevin expressed concern that they haven't gone away in our society. I am also concerned, however one does not combat them by forbidding them to be discussed. All this does is drive them to other venues. (This reminds me a bit of the meme argument.) As stated above, this is a discussion forum. It is not just for Bob or me or any one person. There is a growing audience of individuals who are finding great value here (and that is personally gratifying).

One advantage to Bob's manner of putting things is that he cuts off the frills and presents the spiteful and fearful essence of standard arguments in a raw form. Sometimes I have found that raw form does hold a grain of truth (but not often enough to constitute what I consider to be a fully reasoned outlook). I believe full disclosure like this allows people to make much better decisions. Contrary to his intentions, I believe Bob actually prompts people to be nicer and (gasp) more altruistic toward their neighbors. I'm serious. When the mental image of him appears, I am certain that most people think, "I don't ever want to be like that," and as they shudder, they adjust their acts accordingly and pet the stray dog, help the blind lady cross the street and put a few dollars in the poor box at the local church.

Kevin's example of the college course in Iran is thought-provoking, but I do not see a cause and effect. I think the university student did precisely what he had to do by arguing for Western values. The unfortunate part was that this was in a university class and not in a mosque or on television or in the papers, etc. I do not see where prohibiting the discussion of Islamic fundamentalism in a university classroom would have made a difference one way or another in Iran. On the contrary, if that discussion (the rebuttal) had been allowed to grow, I see it would have made a difference. This leads me to Wolf's comment above:

The way out of this trap is to repudiate Kolker, Hannity, Michael Savage, etc.

I contend that these ideas have to be repudiated where discussions of ideas take place. Barring the limitations I mentioned above, I do not believe that repudiating them by banning the discussion of them by their adherents is very persuasive. On the contrary, if they are given their best expression and proven to be wrong and/or false, that is where I think intellectual progress will be made in the culture. OL is a small venue, so the impact here is small, however we do have a very select audience of highly intelligent people, so there is a "trickle-down" effect that does occur with some of the ideas discussed here.

Can anyone imagine Bob Kolker convincing Barbara Branden or Roger Bissell or Robert Campbell or Daniel Barnes or any of the others who have regularly posted on OL that we need killing zones in America for our enemies? Hell, I can't even imagine him convincing the high-school student members of that. However, he does show clearly that there is this kind of spite and fear out there—he presents in in a pure form of spite and fear—and that we had better address this if we are going to do something about it. I think that is a good thing.

There is another forum, RoR, where the owner not too long ago decided as a formal policy to isolate and expel those who disagreed with his ideas (but, to be fair, there is a small limit of tolerance). That is perfectly within his rights as site owner, but the inevitable result that I observe is a brain drain and a huge lessening of the possibility for the activism that he preaches he values. What was once a hotbed of ideas and intellectuals has withered to discussions by a very small handful of members, thus the cultural impact is severely downgraded. I am not saying this to criticize RoR. I believe it is being run as the owner sees fit and the ideological results are what he wants. I am merely pointing to the cause and effect of being heavy-handed in banning, moderating and restricting instead of persuading by reason.

This leads to my optimism about reason. Ideas take time to change and take root, but I fully agree with Rand that the most consistent and rational ones are the ones that will prevail. See the following quote from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, "The Anatomy Of Compromise," p. 144.

The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

I have another elaborate post coming that I will direct to Bob. Because, you see, even though he is old and set in his ways, I do not believe he is completely blind to reason. He loves his grandchildren, so I know he loves. Although he is an excellent source of "clearly and openly" defining basic principles from the "ick" side of current affairs, it is also possible I may reach him through reason on his misunderstanding of human nature. I do not have high hopes, but I do not see it as impossible. So I will discuss it with him. I may not convince him, but the worst that can happen is that it will prompt others reading this discussion to think and come to their own conclusions. And they will see the issue in "opposite basic principles" that "are clearly and openly defined."

Isn't that what a discussion board of ideas is for?

Michael

[Ross Barlow]

Bob wrote in post #53:

“…Our armed forces are stretched so thin, we cannot invade Iran. The only thing we can do is bomb them from the air. I seriously doubt that Dubyah will undertake this.”

On this one issue I agree with you: the USA cannot invade Iran. It would never be as easy as the roll into Bagdad, and it would be much more impossible to occupy. Iran is quite a different animal, with a much larger population and level of education. While many or most Iranians may hate the Islamic law they live under, an invasion by a foreign nation would galvanize them behind their flag. Historically, nations in crisis rally under government “saviors.”

It is frustrating to me when I see how much US military power is over-estimated. I know that Brant and I are veterans who have seen war up close and have brought some humility from that experience. The McNamara/Westmoreland doctrine in Vietnam was that the US could win with our superior economic might and firepower, but they did not factor in how hard it is to field and sustain troops victoriously far away from home in an alien culture. If you do not have the local population overwhelmingly with you, you cannot win in the end.

Sure, we could annihilate vast numbers with the big bombs, but this would make the USA the world’s pariah. The USA needs allies, friends and admirers. American nukes can kill most of the life on the planet, and it can certainly kill nearly all the people in Iran, but I hardly call that victory. Strategic thinking in today’s dangerous world requires knowledge of psychology, diplomacy, military history and geography – which is all sorely lacking in DC.

To start even more military adventures at this point would require instituting conscription again (as immoral as that is), because US military recruiting is falling consistently short and the troops are drained. Even with conscripts, further invasions and occupations would not be successful. The one thing a new military draft might accomplish is revolution at home, as I cannot see today’s individualistic youth taking it without vigorously uprising and raising hell in the streets.

Usually, America has most of the world admiring her and supporting her. For reasons of strategy, of intelligence gathering, of economics and military support, the USA needs the moral support of other peoples and nations. But as the body count of non-combatants mounts up as the US uses the heavy guns from far off and the small arms of poorly-briefed teenaged troops up close, the US loses credibility and support.

As an ex-pat living in Southeast Asia, I talk to many Thai, Malay, Lao, (ex-pat) Chinese and Cambodians. They still think America is something special, in general an example for mankind. They see the 9/11 attacks as the horror is was and feel sympathy and outrage for our sakes. But they are appalled at what murderous depths US foreign policy has sunk to, primarily with the careless killing of civilians. Most people on this earth are capable of reason and potentially have a lot of sense. The founding principles of the United States of America are so rational and sensible that it is natural for people to admire them. But invading armies rarely have credibility or sympathy.

To call for nuking the cities of a population that has not invaded us is insane. It is both immoral and impractical. It is not even the primitive “eye for an eye” justice between the individual who has aggressed and the individual who has been victimized. It is merely tribalist thinking, genocidal and bigoted. Check your primitive premises.

-Ross Barlow.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob wrote in post #53:

“…Our armed forces are stretched so thin, we cannot invade Iran. The only thing we can do is bomb them from the air. I seriously doubt that Dubyah will undertake this.”

Sure, we could annihilate vast numbers with the big bombs, but this would make the USA the world’s pariah. The USA needs allies, friends and admirers. American nukes can kill most of the life on the planet, and it can certainly kill nearly all the people in Iran, but I hardly call that victory. Strategic thinking in today’s dangerous world requires knowledge of psychology, diplomacy, military history and geography – which is all sorely lacking in DC.

The was a quote about the Romans -- They make a desolation and call it peace --.** The Romans were the world's pariah. It didn't bother them a bit. If someone objected the Romans sent the legions to put an end to the objection. For over two hundred years the Romans kept the peace by war, the Pax Romana. We don't need psychology. We need the balls to destroy anyone who gives us a hard time. It worked for the Romans who had a lesser technology. I don't see why it wouldn't work for us. Machiavelli pointed out it is better to be feared than to be loved. Indeed. Let us make the world so afraid of us they will shit in their pants before raising a hand against us. Think about what the Romans did to Carthage, and that was -before- they reached their prime. We need the same spirit -- Delenda Islama est!

The Romans were done in through internal political instability. They were never really conquered. The inside of the Roman empire gave way long before any external force could overcome it. While they maintained their core they were unbeatable (the thing at the Teutoborg Forest was just a glitch).

Ba'al Chatzaf

** Calgacus at the Battle of The Mons Graupius (Graupian Bridge)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

You will find cause and effect in your story. The way you say it, the cause of Rome's success was one, the cause of the downfall was another and there was no connection between the two.

The Attila mentality (one who rules by force alone) ends up making the rulers fat and lazy during times of prosperity. Warriors are needed in a society to protect it, but they cannot be its guiding light without ultimately wrecking the society. The warriors themselves need a guiding light.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

You will find cause and effect in your story. The way you say it, the cause of Rome's success was one, the cause of the downfall was another and there was no connection between the two.

The Attila mentality (one who rules by force alone) ends up making the rulers fat and lazy during times of prosperity. Warriors are needed in a society to protect it, but they cannot be its guiding light without ultimately wrecking the society. The warriors themselves need a guiding light.

Michael

It was lead poisoning that led (pardon the pun) to Rome's downfall. The ruling classes drank wine from cups soldered with lead. They also used sauces that were sweetened with lead compounds. This lead to a decrease in their fertility and an increase of mental debilitation. The rest is history. Philosophy had nothing to do with it and chemistry everything. If the rulers of Rome had a healthier diet and maintained their fertility, Europe would still be ruled by Rome. Goodness has nothing to do with hegemony. Strength has everything to do with hegemony.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Lead poisoning of the ruling class was the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Sorry. I just can't take that seriously. I'm trying, Bob. I swear I am, but you make it impossible...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Lead poisoning of the ruling class was the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Sorry. I just can't take that seriously. I'm trying, Bob. I swear I am, but you make it impossible...

Michael

Instead of laughing, learn.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2kdamn

http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/histor...ER/orb/lead.htm

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, as we are all born ignorant. There is a great deal wrong with invincible ignorance. The cure for ignorance is learning, so learn.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I have nothing wrong with learning. This forum is proof of it.

I do have a problem with gross oversimplifications. They do not convince me and never will.

EDIT: Given below here because of crossed posts.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I do have a problem with gross oversimplifications. They do not convince me and never will.

You mean, like: "philosophy determines history"?

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I have nothing wrong with learning. This forum is proof of it.

I do have a problem with gross oversimplifications. They do not convince me and never will.

Michael

First read the material. Second, tell me you conclusions. But read the material.

If the ruling classes of the Roman Empire had stayed sharp they would still be in power of a considerable portion of the Euro-Asian landmass. Especially Europe. Having one's brains destroyed by lead poisoning does not conduce to mental alertness. A radical decrease in the birth rate and a dependence on foreigners for both labor and breeding stock leads to a dilution and diminishing of power and hegemony.

The Romans did not need a democracy or a republic. They needed a stable political and economic system and they got neither. The rest, as they say, is history. Now Augustus (born Octavian) was a hegemon. But he was reasonable and introduced necessary reforms and Rome actually prospered under his rule and the rule of the next five emperors. When the competence of the ruling elite was degraded, very likely by lead poisoning, they lost their center and their stability. Political chaos set in.

The Romans had the best water distribution system in the world. Unfortunately the water was delivered through lead pipes. The Roman ruling class had a very prosperous life style complete with lead-based makeup for their lovely skin and sweet lead based sauces for their fish.

The effects of lead poisoning have been observed in modern times. The Franklin Expedition to find the Northwest Passage was destroyed by lead poisoning.

This from the Wikipedia Article:

In 1845, a well-equipped two-ship expedition led by Sir John Franklin sailed to the Canadian Arctic to chart the final unknown parts of the Northwest Passage. Confidence was high, as there was less than 500 kilometres (311 miles) of unexplored Arctic mainland coast left. When it failed to return, a number of relief expeditions and search parties explored the Canadian Arctic, resulting in final charting of a possible passage. Traces of the expedition have been found, including records that indicate that the ships became ice-locked in 1846 near King William Island, about half way through the passage, and were unable to extricate themselves. Franklin himself died in 1847 and the last of the party in 1848, after abandoning the ships and attempting to escape overland by sledge. While starvation and scurvy contributed to the deaths of the crew, another factor was significant. The expedition took 8,000 tins of food which were soldered with lead. The lead contaminated the food, poisoning the crew. They would have become weak and disoriented—later stages of lead poisoning include insanity and death. In 1981, Dr. Owen Beattie, an anthropologist from the University of Alberta examined remains from sites associated with the expedition. This led to further investigations, and the examination of tissue and bone from the mummified bodies of three seamen, exhumed from the permafrost of Beechey Island. Laboratory tests revealed high concentrations of lead in all three. New evidence shows that cannibalism was also a factor which may have contributed to the deaths of the crew.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or do you think that is oversimplification and the expedition was destroyed for lack of a good philosophy?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do have a problem with gross oversimplifications. They do not convince me and never will.

You mean, like: "philosophy determines history"?

Dragonfly,

I edited my post above before I saw your post. Yes, I do have a problem with that one. A friend of mine from Egypt (Hussein El-Gohary), in a separate project, gave me what I consider to be the best standard for determining history. It is a four-part set of measurable parameters, one influencing the other, and what he called "cosmic view" is where philosophy is included. I think philosophy (including religion, not just Greek-based philosophy) does influence history, but in conjunction with the other factors. (Hussein also mentioned tools, language and social structure. I hope to put something out about this soon.)

So saying that "philosophy determines history," implying that it is the main cause, is an oversimplification. Saying that "philosophy does not determine history" is also an oversimplification.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I am putting my edit here since our posts crossed.

EDIT: OK. I just looked up some things. My apologies. This idea was new and it sounded crackpot. I was out of line to laugh without looking it up. However, I still have problems with oversimplification.

Here is just an easy example to throw a monkey-wrench in the lead-poisoning as the major cause argument. For instance, here is a passage from the Wikipedia article on lead poisoning you mentioned:

Symptoms and effects

The symptoms of chronic lead poisoning include neurological problems, such as reduced cognitive abilities, or nausea, abdominal pain, irritability, insomnia, metal taste in oral cavity, excess lethargy or hyperactivity, headache and, in extreme cases, seizure and coma. There are also associated gastrointestinal problems, such as constipation, diarrhea, vomiting, poor appetite, weight loss, which are common in acute poisoning. Other associated effects are anemia, kidney problems, and reproductive problems.

In humans, lead toxicity sometimes causes the formation of a bluish line along the gums, which is known as the "Burton's line", although this is very uncommon in young children. Blood film examination may reveal "basophilic stippling" of red blood cells, as well as the changes normally associated with iron deficiency anemia (microcytosis and hypochromia).

Now here is a passage from Lead Poisoning: A Historical Perspective by Jack Lewis.

The first century A.D. was a time of unbridled gluttony and drunkenness among the ruling oligarchs of Rome.

Note that this habit of "unbridled gluttony and drunkenness" is not something that just goes away. I see nothing in what I read on lead poisoning that states that it induces urges to partake of "unbridled gluttony and drunkenness." On the contrary, it appears that the person gets sick over time. The symptoms indicate that he would lose his appetite, not gain one.

I do see where a habit of "unbridled gluttony and drunkenness," even if it has been tempered over the years to be more "bridled," could lead to lack of seriousness in governing an empire. I think that is another reason just as strong if not stronger than lead poisoning.

So long as you are quoting Wikipedia, here is a series of differing theories of the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Empire from a Wikipedia article.

Decline of the Roman Empire

The sources of the differing theories are: Vegetius, Edward Gibbon, Henri Pirenne, J. B. Bury, William Carroll Bark, Radovan Richta, Lucien Musset, Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke, Michael Rostovtzeff, Ludwig von Mises, and Bruce Bartlett, William H. McNeill, Peter Heather, Bryan Ward-Perkins and Adrian Goldsworthy.

These gentlemen often disagree and I would not call any one of them stupid. So you can see, the causes for something so big are never one, otherwise there would not be such disagreement among the intelligent over centuries. The causes are varied. This is the reason for my strong reaction against oversimplification and it always will be incredulity. (This goes for Objectivist oversimplification, also.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

So saying that "philosophy determines history," implying that it is the main cause, is an oversimplification. Saying that "philosophy does not determine history" is also an oversimplification.

Michael

Philosophy is one factor among several. It is not clear how heavily it weighs in comparison to other factors, such as climate, food, technology and hygiene. Naturally philosophy maven will make philosophy the chief factor. Religious mavens will make religion the chief factor. Notice how Christian moralists make debauchery the cause of the fall of Rome. In fact Rome when down the tubes -after- Constantine made Rome Christian.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Hussein's idea is intriguing. He states that to the extent one of the four parameters is altered or becomes predominant, it in turn impacts the other three to a proportional extent. More later. I prefer to let him say.

For now, let's just say that I found this approach to understanding civilization (history) as vastly superior to DIM. It can even incorporate DIM for some measurements.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

My Germanic ancestors destroyed the Roman Empire. Heh. They made Roman women laminate.

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

For those living in North America where we have control we will need less destructive and more subtle means, such as rounding up and deportation to a killing zone.

I sat here for the longest time, pondering what to say about this.

W.

So did I, Wolf. Some statements are so grotesque that one is tempted to respond in Biblical terms and speak of blasphemy, of evil, øf mortal sin. And for a Jew in particular to sanction "killing zones" -- meaning death camps -- is more than I can quite assimilate. Good God, has mankind not had enough of this? What happened to "Never again!" Does it apply only to Jews? If so, we are surely beyond redemption.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

For those living in North America where we have control we will need less destructive and more subtle means, such as rounding up and deportation to a killing zone.

I sat here for the longest time, pondering what to say about this.

W.

So did I, Wolf. Some statements are so grotesque that one is tempted to respond in Biblical terms and speak of blasphemy, of evil, øf mortal sin. And for a Jew in particular to sanction "killing zones" -- meaning death camps -- is more than I can quite assimilate. Good God, has mankind not had enough of this? What happened to "Never again!" Does it apply only to Jews? If so, we are surely beyond redemption.

Barbara

The only thing I can think of is that Bob is a Romanphile who imagines he is Emperor and thus--well, if it worked for Rome, why not the US? I can't imagine he's ever actually been in a war; I've never heard a combat veteran talk the way he talks. I do think the US should be armed to the teeth and very aggressive about protecting its interests in various ways, Iraq not being one of them. That was a mistake that followed the mistake of the first Iraq war. In the meantime, Bob serves as a point of reference.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

For those living in North America where we have control we will need less destructive and more subtle means, such as rounding up and deportation to a killing zone.

I sat here for the longest time, pondering what to say about this.

W.

So did I, Wolf. Some statements are so grotesque that one is tempted to respond in Biblical terms and speak of blasphemy, of evil, øf mortal sin. And for a Jew in particular to sanction "killing zones" -- meaning death camps -- is more than I can quite assimilate. Good God, has mankind not had enough of this? What happened to "Never again!" Does it apply only to Jews? If so, we are surely beyond redemption.

Barbara

I assume you read the word "deport". That means sent out of the country.

Overseas areas which are free fire zones. No death camps in North America. We send foreign born fifth columnists abroad where they will be killed eventually.

Native born Muslims will present a bit of a legal problem. They will have to be watched very closely and excluded from certain critical occupations.

I know this sounds unpleasant but we are currently at war, de facto. In a war one does what one must do to survive and observing niceties and legalities can be counter-productive.

During WW2 Native born folk with Japanese parents were shipped out to Utah and Colorado and interned in camps. Eventually the government folk were convinced these people weren't dangerous and they were let out bit by bit. Initially it was not known just how dangerous these folk were going to be so no chances were taken. A smaller number of ethnic Germans and Italians were also interned during WW2 especially members of the Bundt and their families.

Ba'al Chartzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Keeeeriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiist!

Bob,

The objection is to "killing zone," not to where it is.

Nice try.

In the meantime, Bob serves as a point of reference.

Brant,

Not too much reference. He's sidestepping.

Michael