Even if the Israeli/Palestinian crisis is solved, there will still be enough anger and resentment towards the United States to last another 30 years in Pakistan.
This, in my opinion, is the greatest national security threat to the United States.
If the United States truly wanted to solve the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, they could do it very easily over a 5 year time span, but that would also involve great sacrifice and a truth and reconciliation commission hosted by the United States, something I think will never happen.
The anger in Pakistan over American activities in Muslim countries is the real difficulty to overcome. There's plenty of negative American propaganda going around in the madrassas and the schools in Saudi Arabia and winning the war of ideas is a challenge far greater than winning a ground war in Iraq.
...and winning the war of ideas is a challenge far greater than winning a ground war in Iraq.
Sort of like 3.5 vs 4e?
...and winning the war of ideas is a challenge far greater than winning a ground war in Iraq.Sort of like 3.5 vs 4e?
Maybe we should send in Condi on that one. ;)
Even if the Israeli/Palestinian crisis is solved, there will still be enough anger and resentment towards the United States to last another 30 years in Pakistan.
This, in my opinion, is the greatest national security threat to the United States.
If the United States truly wanted to solve the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, they could do it very easily over a 5 year time span, but that would also involve great sacrifice and a truth and reconciliation commission hosted by the United States, something I think will never happen.
The anger in Pakistan over American activities in Muslim countries is the real difficulty to overcome. There's plenty of negative American propaganda going around in the madrassas and the schools in Saudi Arabia and winning the war of ideas is a challenge far greater than winning a ground war in Iraq.
Why? Because it's so much easier to hate. If you're poor hate those with more than you. If you're hungry hate those with food because they don't share enough. And so on.
Hate is the weapon of hopelessness. It's so much easier to destroy than to build. And quicker.
Maybe we should send in Condi on that one. ;)
Carter.
Maybe we should send in Condi on that one. ;)Carter.
Too biased. I'm sure he's a 3.5 diehard.
Clinton ;pMaybe we should send in Condi on that one. ;)Carter.
Dude... you know Clinton only plays 3.5 with the Erotic Fantasy supplement, why bother asking ;)
Why? Because it's so much easier to hate. If you're poor hate those with more than you. If you're hungry hate those with food because they don't share enough. And so on.
Hate is the weapon of hopelessness. It's so much easier to destroy than to build. And quicker.
But it's really not a hate of haves vs havenots. There are plenty of other countries that are 3rd world that don't hate us. It's just that in America's intention of assuring it will have access to foreign oil, which is one of the drivers of our economy, we haven't cared so much about how our policies affect people living in the countries we're dealing with.
These suicide bombers seem very much like a Jim Jones kind of movement to me. Next they'll be opening Kool-Aid stands.
|
Why? Because it's so much easier to hate. If you're poor hate those with more than you. If you're hungry hate those with food because they don't share enough. And so on.
*best Yoda impersonation*
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. The path to the dark side is that.*end Yoda impersonation*
The only real way to address the hate is to locate and deal with the causes of the fear. In Israel, one of the reason for the fear is the fact that many of the top leaders are Holocaust survivors. Much of the early retoric of Palestinian leaders talked about driving the Jews into the sea. For a people who had just experienced sumething as horrific as the Holocaust this must have been terrifying. Therefore they dug in their heels, taught the anger to their children, and the cycle began.
In Pakistan I can't say what the source of the fear is, because I am not terribly well versed on the region. However, until we can win the hearts and minds of the people and address the causes of their fear, they will continue to hold on to their hatred. That is what Madam Buto was attempting to do, and that is why I think that the forces of intolerance and hate had her killed.
You know unfortunately, one spawned the other. Many Muslims around the world feel as if they are part of one Ummah (literally "community" in Arabic. Usually it's meant to describe the global population of any who identify themselves as Muslim. It can also be used on a local sense to describe all the Muslims living in a certain area, such as the Boston Ummah) in which whatever happens to one happens to all.
So, follow this timeline:
- The Muslims lose out in a big way with the downfall of the Ottoman Caliphate after World War I. Their lands are taken over by Western countries. At the same time, India is under British control.
- Muslims in India gain independence from Britain and soon after form Pakistan/Bangladesh. At roughly the same time, under pressure from Jewish extremists (some would say terrorists) Britain and much of the western world promotes the creation of the state of Israel. This angers many Palestinians who are displaced as a result.
- A series of wars with Israel in which US and Western countries generally support Israel.
Because Muslims see something happening to them in one country as an affront to all Muslims everywhere, and also because of a general distrust of Western powers because of the history of colonialism and World War I, many Muslims feel like the west has yet to embrace them as equals and more like subjects to be dealt with.
|
|
The only real way to address the hate is to locate and deal with the causes of the fear. [SNIP] That is what Madam Buto was attempting to do, and that is why I think that the forces of intolerance and hate had her killed.
Fear comes from insecurity. People who feel that they have nothing to lose, and no hope of betterin their station are easily moved towards despair, frustration and violence against those they blame for the state of affairs that has them feeling helpless or disenfranchised.
People that I can only describe as 'evil' willingly prey on such people, whipping their discontent into violent action and creating 'scapegoats' for them to focus their anger upon. Such individuals often profit in a cold mercenary way from inciting those with no hope to violence, just as 'witch-hunters' would accuse widows who had no male relatives to protect them of being witches, and then buy up their property after having the mob they whipped up bring about their execution, or gangs steered the angry mobs around LA during the Rodney King riots to cover their own very precisely targetted looting. Some don't go this far, but are perfectly happy to preach hellfire and sow discord, if only to reap the benefits of large donations or expanded viewership (and thus, more commercial ratings and success). If somebody who listened to their radio show or read their books goes into a Unitarian church and opens fire on a bunch of children performing a play, or shoots doctors and nurses he believes to be abortionists in the back of the head while they are going to work, these people wash their hands of it and say, 'Wasn't me, officer! I can't be held responsible for some whacko doing what I encouraged him to do!'
This sort of thing happens in our country, where the vast majority of Americans aren't starving or living in fear of being shot by wandering gangs in the streets, and so, in countries where most people don't know where their next meal is coming from, where gangs of men with assault weapons and machetes prowl the streets looking for people who aren't dressed according to tradition or who have the wrong tribal affiliation, it's a hundred times easier to find fearful people to prey upon in this way, to whip into a murderous, or suicidal, frenzy.
The woman in the original post has been preyed upon by such people, who want her to make a statement for them, to sacrifice her own life to advance their agendas and further their goals, and the only benefit to her is that the fear and uncertainty that has ruled her life will finally end, no matter that the fear and uncertainty has only been stirred up and exaggerated by those who called her to jihad in the first place.
'You're in danger! The infidel will poison our lands and kill our children! Be afraid! Feel powerless, frustrated and angry! Red alert, red alert! Do something drastic and irreversible that would seem *CRAZY* if we didn't keep telling you how awful the world is, how everything is going to hell and feed you whatever *massively*-distorted statistics and 'facts' and 'news' we need to keep you in an easily-manipulated state of despair and confusion!'
We need, to end the threat of Middle Eastern violent extremism, the exact same thing that brought down the Soviet Union. We need their teenagers to start wearing our clothing, buying our music and watching our television. They need to be financially stable enough to not live in fear or despair or uncertainty. They need to be content in their lives, more focused on buying that new car next year or sending their kid to the prestigious school and not worrying about whether or not a gang of rivals are going to ethnically cleanse their neighborhood, or a cluster-bomb is going to land in their yard.
[more radical than normal, even for me, statement]
The abso-freaking-lutely *last* thing we need is economic sanctions. Desperate people who see us as starving their children and destroying their nations infrastructure and then leaving them to the mercy of rampaging gangs of lawless thugs are *never* going to learn to stop hating us.
|
The only real way to address the hate is to locate and deal with the causes of the fear. In Israel, one of the reason for the fear is the fact that many of the top leaders are Holocaust survivors. Much of the early retoric of Palestinian leaders talked about driving the Jews into the sea. For a people who had just experienced sumething as horrific as the Holocaust this must have been terrifying. Therefore they dug in their heels, taught the anger to their children, and the cycle began.
now, I assume you was talking out of ignorance, so I will not say what I really think about what you said, but you are wrong.
and how can I know? simple: I live there. I am from Isreal, and things there work really defrently than what you guys imgine.first, about the whole "Holucst-phobia" thing - wrong. there are now only severl thousands of holcust survivors in isreal, most of them very poor and lonely. the survivors were, throughout Israliean history, broken man. most of them barely managed to form new famalies, let alone find a job. those few who actually menaged to rebuild their lives and reach a high position in the govermant, are trully outstanding folk, and are experts of rational thinking. hence, the origen of fear is not in them, but in small grops on bouth sides of the conflict.
the Jewish group is, of course, the religeous fanatics. thankfully, there are very small numbers of them, so they can do realtivley little. they do try however - as I am writing, ongoing gang wars are taking place in a city named Acho - it began a few days ago. there was a Jewish holiday, and by tradition it is forbidden to drive cars in that day (most of the non religeous Jewish cmmounity, myself among them, still uses the oprtunity to go around driving on bycicles at the middle of highways in this day, though this is supposed to forbiden too). one arabian resident of the city drove his car on that day. he was immdiatly lynched by some Jewish idiots and barley survived. the arabians got really angry and sent a mob of their on, and so the tiny war began.
anyhow, to the main topic. as we all know, the arabic opposition to us Jews is led by much stronger organiastions of terror. the pepole of Palstin and Lebanon are the greatest victims. they are abused by the Hammas and Hysballhe to fight us - and we are forced to fight back. since for months now the Hammas is bombarding our southren citys, we are forced into increasingly drastic actions as the time passes. many times civilians are hurt by our raids... but mostly they are aimed against the terrorists. with children and civilains suffring so much from our attacks, it is no wonder they hate and fear us. the fear, the evil, the wrongness is centerd in the terror organaistions, led by selfish, fanatic man. when playing D&D, I often remained my players that there is no such thing as true evil... but sometimes I think that to see such a thing, I need only watch Nassrela or one of hes allies on TV.
one last thing, about women terrorists. they are among the most potent wepons in the terror's disposel. you see, with all the trdisonal robes and layrs of clothing, it is very hard to tell if they carrie any extra whight... such as a bomb. and of course, males are forbidden to touch them. since it will only increase the hatred if we did defrantly,we do our best to respect the muslims even in times of high alert. so only women are alowed to inspect them. in many cases, there is no female soldier\officer in the area, and that leades to fear. most of the sucide bombing attacks done in malls and shops and places like that are performed by woman.
Any and all religions can and will be perverted by those who are ethically challenged, and those individuals will use anyone they can to further their own misguided agendas. That said, we mustn't confuse the message with the messengers. Messengers are fallible and will always be so. The message itself is constant. It falls to us as individuals to study the message and apply it to our own lives, and not just rely on the messengers. Trust but verify, as the old saying goes.
With that in mind, I'd like to clarify an earlier point: the Bible doesn't actually describe Hell other than to liken it to a lake of fire, which fits with the 'Sheol' (or Gehenna - they were used interchangeably) image. If you're trying to describe utter destruction to the uneducated masses, the valley where refuse was burned would be a good start. As for the accuracy of biblical translation, I've learned through my studies that the Bible is actually far more historically reliable than any secular text. Bible manuscripts (copies) were written much closer (chronologically speaking) to the autographs (original texts) than any secular example, and the autographs were written (generally) much closer to the events depicted. Additionally, biblical translations are consistently more accurate than secular examples - comes from having an entire social class earning their living by handwriting copies. Please understand that there are nuances - our word 'love' has multiple possible translations in the greek. It's kind of like our word 'love' being used in multiple ways, depending on the context: "I love playing Pathfinder" or "I love my dog" etc...
Let me make sure I understand you correctly, Set. Are you suggesting we send $700 billion dollars to struggling Muslims?
Honestly, I think it would make more sense than giving it to the very people who put us in the economic situation we are in now.
We allready do. It's called filling up the tank.
Your connection to reality is tenuous at best.
We allready do. It's called filling up the tank.Let me make sure I understand you correctly, Set. Are you suggesting we send $700 billion dollars to struggling Muslims?
Honestly, I think it would make more sense than giving it to the very people who put us in the economic situation we are in now.
Much of that goes to the foreign governments of the countries we buy oil from. Unfortunately, telling a foreign country how they should spend that money is like telling a mother how she should take care of her child.
But it's really not a hate of haves vs havenots. There are plenty of other countries that are 3rd world that don't hate us. It's just that in America's intention of assuring it will have access to foreign oil, which is one of the drivers of our economy, we haven't cared so much about how our policies affect people living in the countries we're dealing with.Why? Because it's so much easier to hate. If you're poor hate those with more than you. If you're hungry hate those with food because they don't share enough. And so on.
Hate is the weapon of hopelessness. It's so much easier to destroy than to build. And quicker.
True. I didn't go into all the drivers or forms of hate. It's certainly a lot more complex than the haves vs have-nots. I was trying to illustrate how much easier it is to manipulate a hopeless person into an angry one.
This is a truly depressing story and as to the larger issues ... On the Israeli/Palestinian conflict it really is the fanatics on BOTH sides who are pushing things trying to get their view realized without any consideration that reality will leave disastrous consequences. On the Israeli side, demographically, the Jewish population is largely plateauing, while the Palestinian population continues to grow leading to this concern: sooner (if the Palestinian territories are folded into Israel) or later (if Palestine becomes its own state) Jews will no longer be the majority in Israel, while on the Palestinian side, the two parts of the Palestinian territories are diverging in values with the West Bank (largely) becoming more cosmopolitan, secular and friendly to both Israel and the West, while Gaza remains insular, religious, and hateful. Ultimately more change is needed on the Palestinian side than the Israeli one but change is needed on both.
In Afghanistan (another problem area), the Soviets in the 80s and the West now are finding that the cities can be held relatively easily; the countryside is another matter. Some negotiations with less radical warlords or other elements could potentially find rifts in the anti-Western coalition and get some of those elements on our side to help us finally crush the diehard anti-Western elements.
In the larger context one problem for the west has been that the governments we've backed in the muslim world have not always had the people's best interests at heart: the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein up to 1990 or so, Musharraf in Pakistan after Sept 11, the ruling families across much of the arabian peninsula, Fatah in Palestine despite the party's notorious corruption, some of the military governments in Turkey over the years. There are many lies and mistaken propaganda campaigns about the west in these areas, but some of those we've backed haven't helped our reputation.
Interestingly, on Pakistan, in 1970 when Bangladesh declared its independence, the US backed China which backed then West Pakistans attempt to retain control over Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) although this was largely to forge closer ties with Beijing (Peking, then) to isolate Moscow. The Soviets backed India and by extension Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan, to strengthen India and weaken China. Bangladesh was the only India Pakistan war NOT fought over Jammu and Kashmir. Hopefully the steps toward peace across the Muslim world (talks between Israel and Fatah and possibly even less radical elements of Hamas, talks between Israel and Syria through Turkey, improved communications between India and Pakistan) will move us forward to more peaceful, prosperous and democratic era in human history.
|
Much of that goes to the foreign governments of the countries we buy oil from. Unfortunately, telling a foreign country how they should spend that money is like telling a mother how she should take care of her child.We allready do. It's called filling up the tank.Let me make sure I understand you correctly, Set. Are you suggesting we send $700 billion dollars to struggling Muslims?
Honestly, I think it would make more sense than giving it to the very people who put us in the economic situation we are in now.
True. It's also where too much of the foreign aid seems to go.
True. It's also where too much of the foreign aid seems to go.Much of that goes to the foreign governments of the countries we buy oil from. Unfortunately, telling a foreign country how they should spend that money is like telling a mother how she should take care of her child.We allready do. It's called filling up the tank.Let me make sure I understand you correctly, Set. Are you suggesting we send $700 billion dollars to struggling Muslims?
Honestly, I think it would make more sense than giving it to the very people who put us in the economic situation we are in now.
One other point Heathy. A significant fraction of the money the US spends on oil goes North, to Canada, rather than East, to OPEC members. So thanks to the US for helping the Canadian economy with your immense thirst for black gold. ;-)
|
|
now, I assume you was talking out of ignorance, so I will not say what I really think about what you said, but you are wrong.
Please, feel free to say what you really think. I freely admit that I have never been to Israel and so only know what other people have told me. That number includes several Palestinean friends have have come here from the West Bank. However I do find it interesting that you characterize the Holocaust survivors in Israel as a few thousand lonly old men mostly living in poverty when other reports I have read, including in the English version of Haaretz and from the U.N. place the number at 400,000 (which is about 18% of Israel's current population) and less than half live in poverty. Don't get me wrong, I trust you know what you are talking about, but we here in the U.S. are being given a much different picture than you are painting.
|
|
now, I assume you was talking out of ignorance, so I will not say what I really think about what you said, but you are wrong.
a.Please, feel free to say what you really think.
b. However I do find it interesting that you characterize the Holocaust survivors in Israel as a few thousand lonly old men mostly living in poverty when other reports I have read, including in the English version of Haaretz and from the U.N. place the number at 400,000 (which is about 18% of Israel's current population) and less than half live in poverty. Don't get me wrong, I trust you know what you are talking about, but we here in the U.S. are being given a much different picture than you are painting.
a. the first ward that came to my mind when I read your poast was "Bullshit", but I consider it unfair to say such a thing.
b. well, I don't now about english news papers, but I used to volenteer in the local house for holocaust survivors, and they were old, and poor and treated unfarily.also, my own grandmother have passed it. she is quite a happy woman and doing well for her age- but she was only a child when it happened, and she herself everted the worst of it (her father did not, and his fate is unknown).I now live in another area of the country and from what Iv'e seen, it's the same here. I don't know - maybe the defanition you read includes the family members of the survivors? because there are a lot of those...
anyway, I thought about the thing a little bit tonight (which is now-diffrent time area), and concloded that maybe we Israely are a bit holocaust paranoids... but not because of the 1942. we fear beacause we are living on the brink of defeat ever since we won against overwhlming odds in 1951, when we finally achived indipendance.
talking about the wider spectrum of this issiue (religeon and all this)- I think you all are using a wrong name for this human phenomenon. the correct one is ideolgy. you only need to take a brief glance at a history book of the 20th century to see that. the Fascism, for example. one of their fameos motos was: "you must respact God-but remember that Mosolini is the god of Italy". clearly this shows how closly realetd religeon and totilarism are. in fact, I belive religeon to be a specific, albiet wildly encounterd manifstition of ideolgy. it is both a showcase of human insanty and of the best aspects of human culture. I use to think that only mankind could destroy such a beautyfull ideal.
|
|
I don't know - maybe the defanition you read includes the family members of the survivors? because there are a lot of those...
The Haaretz article I read did not define what they meant by "survivor." It was covering riots that occured in 2005 because "40% of the 400,000 Israeli Holocaust survivors lived below the poverty line." Those are their words, and they did not clarify the statement. The U.N. report covered survivors benefits and cited the same number, but did not state where they got those numbers from, at least not that I could find. I agree the numbers can be misleading. it is much like here in the United States. I had a chance to volunteer at a nursing home in Mississippi and met a woman who was a "Civil War widow." As I got to know her i found out that her family had married her off to a 50 year old man when she was 14 so that they could have the prestige of being a "Confederate" family. But because her husband was a Civil War veteran, she still got survivors benefits. It was kind of sad when I was informed that she passed away a couple of years ago, she was a really nice lady.
|
|
Let me make sure I understand you correctly, Set. Are you suggesting we send $700 billion dollars to struggling Muslims?
Hell no. Not any more than we sent $700 billion dollars to struggling Soviets to end the threat of communism.
The object is to encourage them to spend less time hating us and more time wanting to BE us. Less meddling in their affairs. More rewarding good behavior from the nations in the area that *aren't* being dicks to their people and do allow their kids to listen to rock music and their women to wear blue jeans (like, uh, Iraq used to be, when the secularists were in charge, and Iran was turning into, under moderate Karzai, before the entire Middle East became convinced that we were going to stomp in and wreck them as some 'holy mission against Islam,' creating a climate of fear and persecution that only breeds yet another generation of enemies of America and further endangers the American people).
Instead we're all buddy-buddy with our 'good friend Saudi Arabia,' who sentence women to death for the heinous crime of *being gang-raped* and who supplied 15 of the 19 WTC hijackers and all of the money. We should be spending more time working with more progressive countries who don't smile to our faces and then continue blatantly working against us, like Jordan or Turkey or (occassionally) Indonesia, and reveal as liars anyone who claims that the US is 'anti-Islam.'
Instead we're all buddy-buddy with our 'good friend Saudi Arabia,' who sentence women to death for the heinous crime of *being gang-raped* and who supplied 15 of the 19 WTC hijackers and all of the money. We should be spending more time working with more progressive countries who don't smile to our faces and then continue blatantly working against us, like Jordan or Turkey or (occassionally) Indonesia, and reveal as liars anyone who claims that the US is 'anti-Islam.'
I'm all for reducing the hypocrisy of the United States. What I really want to see is the United States show that Islam and democracy can coexist and what that government looks like. If Iraq does indeed become a successful state, that could serve as a model, as much as I hate how it became a democracy.
|
|
I don't know - maybe the defanition you read includes the family members of the survivors? because there are a lot of those...
1.The Haaretz article I read did not define what they meant by "survivor." It was covering riots that occured in 2005 because "40% of the 400,000 Israeli Holocaust survivors lived below the poverty line." Those are their words, and they did not clarify the statement. The U.N. report covered survivors benefits and cited the same number, but did not state where they got those numbers from, at least not that I could find. I agree the numbers can be misleading. it is much like here in the United States.
2. I had a chance to volunteer at a nursing home in Mississippi and met a woman who was a "Civil War widow." As I got to know her i found out that her family had married her off to a 50 year old man when she was 14 so that they could have the prestige of being a "Confederate" family. But because her husband was a Civil War veteran, she still got survivors benefits. It was kind of sad when I was informed that she passed away a couple of years ago, she was a really nice lady.
1. I checked the internet, and found that there sould be around 200K survivors - but the defenition for them is way wider then mine. it seems to include evreyone that lived in germany between 1933-1945, any one who took part in the world war (and the spanish civil war that came before), anyone who was bunished from his home (mostly russians, but the veriety is huge)and even those who boarded a shup to get to Isreal. I only talked about those who actually survived a geto or one of the others inventive was the natsiz call their death camp.
2. you now, this story is rather sad. I didn't think people still did things like that in america for the last century.
I had a chance to volunteer at a nursing home in Mississippi and met a woman who was a "Civil War widow." As I got to know her i found out that her family had married her off to a 50 year old man when she was 14 so that they could have the prestige of being a "Confederate" family. But because her husband was a Civil War veteran, she still got survivors benefits. It was kind of sad when I was informed that she passed away a couple of years ago, she was a really nice lady.
Wait, something is wrong with those numbers.
The civil war ended in 1865.Let's assume that this guy was 16 in 1865 (just got in on the tail end).
This means he would have been born in 1849.
So he was 50 years old in 1899.
If she was 14 then she would have been born in 1885.
Which means she would have to be 110 years old in 1995 or 120 years old in 2005.
When you say a "couple of years" ago, what do you mean? 20 years ago, maybe. 10 years ago, doubtful. 2 years ago, no way.
Wait, something is wrong with those numbers.
The civil war ended in 1865.
Let's assume that this guy was 16 in 1865 (just got in on the tail end).
This means he would have been born in 1849.
So he was 50 years old in 1899.
If she was 14 then she would have been born in 1885.
Which means she would have to be 110 years old in 1995 or 120 years old in 2005.When you say a "couple of years" ago, what do you mean? 20 years ago, maybe. 10 years ago, doubtful. 2 years ago, no way.
Ticksy but possible. Depending on the couple of years ago figure.
One of my other hobbies is geneaology. A lot of games were played with ages on records. The guy may have been 60, and they shaved the info so it wouldn't look so bad. It also can go the other way, where they tried to be older to collect pension benefits sooner.
Kinda hinges on the couple of years ago item, and the great unknown about the other facts.
I just wanted to say how impressed I am that this thread has gone on for as long as it has, and yet, everyone has managed to remain intelligent, articulate, and civil even as some of the most volatile topics of our time (faith, atheism, politics, Islam, American foreign policy, the Middle-Eastern situation)are discussed at length.
Not only does this discussion continue to take the high ground, there's even room made for humor.
You could certainly teach the rest of the internet, and what passes for the media these days, a thing or ten.
|
|
I had a chance to volunteer at a nursing home in Mississippi and met a woman who was a "Civil War widow." As I got to know her i found out that her family had married her off to a 50 year old man when she was 14 so that they could have the prestige of being a "Confederate" family. But because her husband was a Civil War veteran, she still got survivors benefits. It was kind of sad when I was informed that she passed away a couple of years ago, she was a really nice lady.Wait, something is wrong with those numbers.
The civil war ended in 1865.
Let's assume that this guy was 16 in 1865 (just got in on the tail end).
This means he would have been born in 1849.
So he was 50 years old in 1899.
If she was 14 then she would have been born in 1885.
Which means she would have to be 110 years old in 1995 or 120 years old in 2005.When you say a "couple of years" ago, what do you mean? 20 years ago, maybe. 10 years ago, doubtful. 2 years ago, no way.
16 years ago is when she passed away. And actually her husband was a drummer in the Confederate army and was eight when he enlisted at the tail end of the war. That means that he would have been 50 in 1907 and sh would have been born in 1893. She had just had her 99th birthday when I met her in 1992, so the numbers fit.
16 years ago is when she passed away. And actually her husband was a drummer in the Confederate army and was eight when he enlisted at the tail end of the war.I had a chance to volunteer at a nursing home in Mississippi and met a woman who was a "Civil War widow." As I got to know her i found out that her family had married her off to a 50 year old man when she was 14 so that they could have the prestige of being a "Confederate" family. But because her husband was a Civil War veteran, she still got survivors benefits. It was kind of sad when I was informed that she passed away a couple of years ago, she was a really nice lady.Wait, something is wrong with those numbers.
The civil war ended in 1865.
Let's assume that this guy was 16 in 1865 (just got in on the tail end).
This means he would have been born in 1849.
So he was 50 years old in 1899.
If she was 14 then she would have been born in 1885.
Which means she would have to be 110 years old in 1995 or 120 years old in 2005.When you say a "couple of years" ago, what do you mean? 20 years ago, maybe. 10 years ago, doubtful. 2 years ago, no way.
Ok, that makes a bit more sense. 16 years ago and he was 8 years younger than I had assumed, would put her in about the 100 year range at the time of her death.
|
That article was sad.
A few years ago, I read another article in which the author proposed (half-jokingly) that we move the entire Jewish population of Israel to Baja California. He pointed out how the climates were simliar, and a few other things. At the time it was pretty funny, but these days, I find myself reflecting on it more and more.
Sadly, I cannot remember who wrote it, or where I read it (probably National Review). I may try to find it, if I have the time.
A few years ago, I read another article in which the author proposed (half-jokingly) that we move the entire Jewish population of Israel to Baja California. He pointed out how the climates were simliar, and a few other things. At the time it was pretty funny, but these days, I find myself reflecting on it more and more.
If anyone had a time machine and wanted to solve the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, if you go back in time to just after WWII, what could you possibly change?
I mean, you have to be respectful of the fact that you had millions of Jewish families who were displaced, decimated by the Holocaust, and, on the whole, seen as less desirable by many countries. Where could they have gone? Locating them to Palestine was a decision by the British government in concert with what other Jewish leaders wanted. It gained momentum with other western powers.
What's central to the conflict is that there was not as much effort to reconcile the immigrants with the indigenous population, the Palestinians. If this had been done, instead of the British government single handedly deciding the issue, much of the conflict could have been averted. Jews and Muslims were living side-by-side for many years, if you just had them sit down at the table in the beginning and negotiate land deals, I feel a lot could have been accomplished.
|
|
A few years ago, I read another article in which the author proposed (half-jokingly) that we move the entire Jewish population of Israel to Baja California. He pointed out how the climates were simliar, and a few other things. At the time it was pretty funny, but these days, I find myself reflecting on it more and more.If anyone had a time machine and wanted to solve the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, if you go back in time to just after WWII, what could you possibly change?
I mean, you have to be respectful of the fact that you had millions of Jewish families who were displaced, decimated by the Holocaust, and, on the whole, seen as less desirable by many countries. Where could they have gone? Locating them to Palestine was a decision by the British government in concert with what other Jewish leaders wanted. It gained momentum with other western powers.
What's central to the conflict is that there was not as much effort to reconcile the immigrants with the indigenous population, the Palestinians. If this had been done, instead of the British government single handedly deciding the issue, much of the conflict could have been averted. Jews and Muslims were living side-by-side for many years, if you just had them sit down at the table in the beginning and negotiate land deals, I feel a lot could have been accomplished.
I would actually go back to the end of World War I and establish another Muslim government to replace the Ottomans rather than breaking the Ottoman Empire up into European colonies. To me, that seems to me where the real problems began.
|
I would actually go back to the end of World War I and establish another Muslim government to replace the Ottomans rather than breaking the Ottoman Empire up into European colonies. To me, that seems to me where the real problems began.
Anything would be better than what the British and French did in the area back then...
I would actually go back to the end of World War I and establish another Muslim government to replace the Ottomans rather than breaking the Ottoman Empire up into European colonies. To me, that seems to me where the real problems began.Anything would be better than what the British and French did in the area back then...
You know it may seem weird, but I would venture to say that the airplane and global communications technologies have done more to bring about a more peaceful world than any military technology.
You know it may seem weird, but I would venture to say that the airplane and global communications technologies have done more to bring about a more peaceful world than any military technology.I would actually go back to the end of World War I and establish another Muslim government to replace the Ottomans rather than breaking the Ottoman Empire up into European colonies. To me, that seems to me where the real problems began.Anything would be better than what the British and French did in the area back then...
The funny thing is, those two (the airplane and global communications technologies) were most likely pushed harder due to the consideration as them being "military technology".
I would actually go back to the end of World War I and establish another Muslim government to replace the Ottomans rather than breaking the Ottoman Empire up into European colonies. To me, that seems to me where the real problems began.Anything would be better than what the British and French did in the area back then...You know it may seem weird, but I would venture to say that the airplane and global communications technologies have done more to bring about a more peaceful world than any military technology.
Actually, I believe it's been a growing global economy that has caused peace. The more we're economically tied to one another, the less chance of war. Do you think China and the U.S. will ever go to war? I doubt it.
|
|
You know it may seem weird, but I would venture to say that the airplane and global communications technologies have done more to bring about a more peaceful world than any military technology.
My thoughts exactly.
Back in college, when there was such a thing as a 'Soviet Union,' friends would brag about going to Russia (through eastern europe, as there were no direct flights) with backpacks stuffed with blue jeans they'd picked up for a few dollars from Goodwill, which they would sell to Russians for the equivalent of $100 or more, paying for their entire european / russian vacation abroad by selling the clothes off of their backs, literally.
The 'commies' *children* were yearning to be just like us. The same thing is happening, slowly, in China. Hard-liners grow old and die, and only their favored few rise to appreciate (and benefit from) the hard-line they've drawn, while the other 99% of the people in those countries look at every image that makes it past the censors and wonders, 'why can't we live like this?'
The great promise of communism, of equal benefit for equal contribution, of a classless society, of a 'workers paradise,' has never appeared, co-opted and corrupted by the ruling class which was supposed to be demolished by that system. (The cold truth being that there is no system of government that cannot be corrupted by selfish and greedy people.) The people are sick of being lied to, and sold a false bill of goods by a group of old men who still operate out of palaces, after all this so-called revolution and change.
The Middle Eastern countries that have the greatest amount of international tourism, such as Dubai, are the least 'extreme' and intolerant. We aren't scared of people we see every day. It's the strangely colored people over yonder, speaking funny words that we don't understand. Are they talking about us? Why are they dressed like that?
While old sayings are as much bupkiss as 'wise,' there's one that says, 'the best way to defeat an enemy, is to make him a friend.' If everyone in every country had neighbors who looked and acted nothing like them, on both sides, we'd probably be, as a race, more tolerant of dark-skinned or heavily tattooed or foreign-speaking people.
The more insular and homogeneous a people, the less outside media it views and the less 'alien' people it encounters, it becomes easier and easier for their citizens to develop (or be indoctrinated with) false conclusions or generalizations about 'the other' until 'everybody knows' that Muslims are crazy scary jihadists or 'everybody knows' that San Franciscans are teh ghey or 'everybody knows' that southerners are all racists, even if, most often, what 'everybody knows' is just plain false.
Actually, I believe it's been a growing global economy that has caused peace. The more we're economically tied to one another, the less chance of war. Do you think China and the U.S. will ever go to war? I doubt it.I would actually go back to the end of World War I and establish another Muslim government to replace the Ottomans rather than breaking the Ottoman Empire up into European colonies. To me, that seems to me where the real problems began.Anything would be better than what the British and French did in the area back then...You know it may seem weird, but I would venture to say that the airplane and global communications technologies have done more to bring about a more peaceful world than any military technology.
No. They'll just poison our food supply to the point that we're sterile, wait for the population to disappear, and move in. Errr...wait, that was a Stargate episode.