Join The Debate!

The Wages of Evil

Why don't we take the fight today to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to make them pay for their support of terrorism. Instead of nation-building, we need to destroy their militaries, kill their leadership, and confiscate their assets, including their oil and land.

Until Islam begins to pay a terrible price for its support and advocacy of terrorism and hatred, there will be no chance for peace.

Nothing would make me prouder to be an American than to see our Marines standing shoulder to shoulder with our Israeli brothers. It's long overdue.

Tanabear is sadly mistaken

It's not about killing Arabs or we'd have neutron bombed the whole frigging region. To CO-EXIST both sides must WANT to do so. The Islamofascists DO NOT want to co-exist with us peacefully, they want to dominate us or destroy us, whichever comes first. Hezbollah IS our enemy, from the time they killed 241 Marines to the present day, they'd nuke us in a NY nanosecond if they could. People like you deflect the issues and muddy the water so that the mission CAN'T be accomplished and thus, guarantee that we'll be dealing with these vermin forever. Think I'm wrong, take a trip to Iran and scream out that you're an American in downtown Tehran. If you're still alive, I'll reimburse your ticket costs.

Please some Muslin respond

GOOD QUESTION
>
> Can Muslims be Good Americans?
>
> Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?
>
> Consider this:
>
> Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of
> Arabia.
>
> Scriptural, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam
> and the Quran (Koran).
>
> Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns
> in prayer five times a day.
>
> Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends
> with Christians or Jews.
>
> Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual
> leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the
> great Satan.
>
> Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat
> and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
>
> Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah
> except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
>
> Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution
> since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be
> corrupt.
>
> Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow
> freedom of religion and expression.
>
> Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either
> dictatorial or autocratic.
>
> Spiritually, no, because when we declare "one nation under God," the
> Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
> our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99
> excellent names.
>
> Therefore after much study and deliberation . . . . perhaps we should be
> very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be
> both good Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish . . . it's
> still the truth. If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the
> above, perhaps you will share this with your friends.
>
> The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country. Pass
> it on. The war is bigger than we know
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> This is an excellent piece. I will add that we must be awake because the
> politicians are asleep . . . or even brain dead.
>

Geoff

I hate to be the one to tell you, but you're naive and foolish.

And obviously a member of the Blame-America-First crowd.

Reality check, bud. They don't hate us because of our past actions or our political stance or anything remotely like that.

They hate us because we're not Muslims. They hate us because they despise our way of life. They consider us debauched and profligate. They hate our freedom, our power, and our form of government. They hate us because we support our one true ally in the region, Israel.

I spent 5 years in Iran; my experience tells me they don't think like us. They are culturally VERY different, and so is the worldview and mindset.

Geoff- Isn't the way to go about it?

What you fail to understand is that the enemy is Islam. They are taught to hate. Even the so-called moderates danced in the streets when we lost 3,000 lives of innocents on 9/11. The world condemned Israel for the loss of 50 plus when a building collapsed that was not an intended target even though they were advised to leave. It is a known fact that there are sleeper cells here in America that will kill us when the time is right. I hope you are not one of them and yet many Americans blame our government for supporting Israel who have this common enemy. You see Geoff; they also have a democratic government who allow the Islamic faith to be practiced within their country. Let me dare you to try and build a church (not Mosque) in any Muslin country. No our real error is in buying their oil because without it they could not support these armies of infidels.
Thanks,
Nobody

Fatalism IS Islam

I remember years ago hearing a man speak who had been to Iritrea on the northeast coast of the African continent. He said that walking down the streets of villages he could tell by looking at the homes whether the people who lived there were Christian or Muslim. People laying starving in the streets, were shrugged off by the Muslims ["Ah, it is the will of Allah].
Can one imagine the Muslim world looking at their former colonial masters in Europe, or at the wealth and power of the West and shrugging it off with,"Ah, it is the will of Allah." I have seen no commentators talk about the fatalistic aspect of Islam. The Islamists cannot bring themselves to look at the West and see it as the will of Allah.
The Islamists want to destroy Israel. And we are next. They will use cease-fires to gin up their military and maybe wrangle consessions from the people they perceive as being weak and cowardly. We must destroy them now; they certainly mean to destroy us.

last days?

Can we be approaching those "last days" when the whole world will be turned against Israel? surrounded on all sides?

perhaps a suprise move by Russia? will Russia invade the Arab countries?
Israels help from the north?

Poll

What that poll leaves one wondering about is the other 20 to 25 percent. Are they in favor of Hezbolah and terrorism or are they just Jew haters? In either case that is a lot of Americans on the side of the terrorists.

Judging by the posts here......

Guys,

Judging by the posts here I am sorry to say most of you haven't a clue. Other than blind and ignorant hatred of Arabs, Moslems, et. al., you don't even know your own country and its practices. Of course, there are a few sane postings, but they are quickly drowned out by blabber. Not that I want to engage you guys in a debate....for that you must at least show a passing knowledge of history and the oil politics of the 20th and 21st century....thought I'd drop in a line here to just say -- for America's sake, get an education! This applies to this Jeff Jacoby fella too.

BrianR your exactly right

Like most, I had basic knowledge and tolerance of Islam as just another religion in the world. But after 9/11 I bought a copy of the Qur'an and devoured the contents several times over. In addition I bought any book I could get my hands on about the subject. One that is very informative is-- Unveiling Islam. Written by two Muslim brothers that escaped the teachings and are now under a death sentence by the Mullahs.

I've come to one conclusion. Islam is a murderous cult period. Of course, Liberals will not accept this until just moments before their head is hacked off by the "Religion Of Peace."

Our War?

The existence of Isreal has no bearing on the long-term interests, prosperity, or happiness of the American people.

I hope Isreal does wipe out their terroist enemies; however, OUR enemy is al Quada. Rather than invading Iraq, I wish we'd invaded Pakistan so that we'd see bin Laden's body hanging from a gangplank over the Hudson River. Now our troops are stuck in the Middle East, "peacekeeping" in Iraq, rather than waging wars like they're trained to do.

Ideally, we'd pull all our troops out of the Middle East and Europe as well, drill for oil in Alaska, and buy oil from whomever gives us the best price be it from the most liberally democratice nation on earth or the greatest violator of "human rights." To hell with the Middle East, they can all kill each other.

My point:

BrianR asks: Well, what was the point of your post, other than some general criticism? Was there one?

The point is this....the discussion here is pretty ignorant. Other than hurling the usual cliches (e.g., neocons a code word for Jews, Prophet Mohammed getting his revealations in epileptic fits, lack of tolerance in Islam, Hezbollah equals terrorism, liberals.....etc. etc. etc.) and insults, nothing of substance is mentioned. And by conveniently labeling people terrorist, liberals, neocons, etc. any serious attempt for a meaningful dialog is compromised. There can be no genuine discussion since positions are already so entrenched.

For starters just consider the following facts:

1) For the last hundred years, most of the policies of the Western world are driven by its need to access cheap energy sources in various parts of the world;
2) Oil production in the US peaked in 1970 -- that is, for the past 35 years it is getting more and more expensive to take it out from the ground. This necessitates going after oil in other lands;
3) As luck would have it, Islam happens to be the dominant religion in the lands where it is thought there is plenty of cheap oil still available;
4) To remain a dominant power, America needs access to this resouce until such time alternatives can be developed;
5) We must ensure access to this oil and (preferably) deny our emerging adversaries (e.g., China, India, etc.) the same access;
6)This objective has primarily defined and is driving this country's foreign policy;
7)Any time there is even a perceived threat that our access to 'cheap' oil will be threatened, the noise machine cranks up, identifying villains and fanning the flames for intervention and/or war;
7) The CIA sponsored coup in Iran in the 50s was a direct result of that country's rulers nationalising their oil industry. It worked for us until 1979 when popular resentment against the puppet regime boiled over and now we see this radical Islamic entity that has become a pain in our ass;
8) It is now known that in 1974 -- at the request of the White House, Pentagon prepared a plan to invade and take control of Saudi Arabian oil fields. People like Henry Kissinger further advocated this seizure in an article he wrote under an assumed name;
9) Of all the middle eastern countries, experts have opined that the cheapest oil today is in the untapped fields of Iraq;
10) The plans to invade Iraq and "regime change" were laid out way before 9/11;
11) The casting of the "new" Middle East in "our" image was first clearly articulated by Richard Perle in paper he wrote for Nethanyahu (at the latter's request) in the early 90s;
12) Add to all that the fact that 40% to 50% of all Americans believe in the second coming of Christ! For that to happen there must be an Israel and the battle of Armegeddon!! These folks back mindless policies because wars and natural disasters are Biblically prescribed pre-cursors to this battle with Anti-Christ (see: http://www.raptureready.com);

Once you start by acknowledging these facts, you will perhaps begin to appreciate the complexities of the issues at hand. It is not about a handful of Jews or Moslems or Christians calling each other names, it is all about self interests and distorted World views. I would submit to you that Christianity historically has been just as intolerant of non-Christians as Islam is today of 'kafirs'. Read the history of inquisitions and the Crusades. And more recently the accounts of missionary activities in Asia and Africa.

If you are genuinely interested in understanding the issues defining our world today, suggest reading such American authors as Kevin Phillips, Tom Ricks, and Chalmers Johnson. They are neither 'left wing' nor 'liberals' per se. Then you might understand the entities you so readily and easily villify.

How is that for my point?

TANABEAR'S POINT CONTINUED

After my last posting, having a bite to eat, I just couldn't get some of the things I have read here today out of my mind.
Readers, before we mount barbed steeds and give throat to spirited war cries against the hordes of the Crescent, we are right now, as we sit here, being invaded from by a different horde from our southern hemisphere.
Our government at this very moment is talking about giving "amnesty" to these invaders! Let's do something about that!
And speaking of Iraq, as the years go by--SAY AGAIN-- as the YEARS go by, this situation is starting to remind me of a passage from "Dog Day Afternoon" wherin a bank teller chastises the Al Pacino charecter as follows but instead substitute for bank, invade a country:
" It's a whim. Invade a country. It's all a whim." Bush administration:" I HAD A PLAN. I HAD A PLAN."
What plan?
Why are we still there?
Where is this going?
In looking over the posts here today one reader posted about Israel and Armegeddon.
Maybe it is already Armegeddon. Dogs and cats living together.
I'm speaking up for a point made by Tanabear.

This IS Our Fight

The opinions of Messrs. Snow, Buchanan, and others notwithstanding, Hezbollah is our enemy as are Hamas, Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad, and all of the other Islamic groups. Yes, my omission of the modifying adjective "radical" was intended. And this IS our fight; we are somewhat shamefully letting the Israelis do our fighting for us in this case.

It only amazes and horrifies me that so many Americans -- more than 20% if we accept poll findings -- refuse to believe our self-proclaimed enemies. Would they ignore a mugger demanding their money or their life, would they pay up without a fuss, or would they die negotiating? I guess they'd give a friendly waive to a gang of thugs waving Uzis or StreetSweepers and say "They're not shooting at me (now) so I won't get involved".

The Japanese only needed to kill approximately 2,100 American servicemen in 1941 to convince us that they were, at that time, our mortal enemies. Islam couldn't do it by killing more than 3,000 civilians. How many is it going to take?

And before anyone objects to my refusal to limit my comments to "radical" Islam, you should realize that such objections will only be considered from "moderate" Muslims if there are any. Your silence in lieu of condemning Islamic terrorists speaks volumes.

Benjamin Netanyahu

"If you flee from terror, then terror continues to chase you."

Religion and war?

I do not believe that "religion" per se is necessarily responsible for wars, but instead, I believe it so called "religious leaders" who foment so much discord, strife and death. Often, self-appointed "priests", possibly with some charisma or often just brute force, use religion to obtain and sustain their own power. Much of the "Christian" bible, points to this. It was not Jews in general that Jesus criticized, but the religious leaders who has distorted the message to suit themselves.

These "leaders" were politicians who infused THEIR opinions into the religion not for easing the burdens of the people, but for enhancing their own positions of POWER. And like politicians, they make promises for someone else to keep -- even after death.

There is much historical proof how these "leaders" will claim "divine guidance", then spout a lot of scripture to support their positions by "cherry picking" just what "holy writing" they cite. People place trust in those who seem "smarter" or at least "with more 'schooling'" than they.

The Inquisition, as I understand it was more about power than religion as well. Those who were put to death were primarily those who disagreed with their "religious" rulers, who like most despots wanted to TELL the people what to believe, but did not want those people to be educated enough to read it for themselves. And if an educated person did read and draw different conclusions, they were immediately targets.

I truly believe that most religions could peacefully co-exist if the leaders did not fan hatred throughout their "congregations" causing them to be driven by politics instead of peace.

Yes, humiliation is in order

Now you coward, crawl out of the Iranian embassy and come get a dose.

Just the Facts

injun writes:
For starters just consider the following facts:

1) For the last hundred years, most of the policies of the Western world are driven by its need to access cheap energy sources in various parts of the world;
--Actually, no. Exploration and exploitation of oil did not truly begin until after WWII, especially in the Middle East. The U.S. produced all its oil and gasoline requirements through the Second World War from its own reserves; the Germans were reliant on the Romanian oil fields and the Japanese captured French Indochina to ensure unrestricted access to oil. In the 1950s British, French, Dutch and American oil companies competed for access to the areas of the Middle East in search of oil reserves and paid what constituted local governments for the right to develop those fields. After the initial outlay of capital many of these companies found themselves having to pay again for access to the same fields after many of the local governments nationalized these assets in the 1960s.

2) Oil production in the US peaked in 1970 -- that is, for the past 35 years it is getting more and more expensive to take it out from the ground. This necessitates going after oil in other lands;
--Oil production peaked in the U.S. because a very vocal minority of environmentally "friendly" groups convinced the states and federal governments to pass legislation making further development of oil rich fields either illegal or financially unsound. We have large, confirmed reserves off the Florida and California coasts that could provide us with all our oil needs for up to 50 years at the current rate of consumption or up to 100 years if we can decrease our consumption through improved, fuel-efficiency and conservation.
3) As luck would have it, Islam happens to be the dominant religion in the lands where it is thought there is plenty of cheap oil still available;
--Sorry, no. Russia currently is sitting on the largest, untapped reserve of oil in the world. It could be accessed as easily as that of the Middle East except they have the same problem as the Middle East, too much corruption. So, technically, Russian Orthodox is the dominant religion where there is plenty of cheap oil still available.
4) To remain a dominant power, America needs access to this resouce until such time alternatives can be developed;
--Yes and no. If dominance is determined by how much oil and oil-based products we can consume then yes. One of the founders of Greenpeace recently advocated the building of nuclear power plants throught the U.S. to provide for our energy needs. This same individual admits that 30 years ago he was dead-set against nuclear power and thought it should be banned. But, because of improvements in the technology for handling nuclear power, he now feels, after much research into the issue, that nuclear power is the way to go to free the U.S. from dependence on oil.
5) We must ensure access to this oil and (preferably) deny our emerging adversaries (e.g., China, India, etc.) the same access;
--Again, no is the real answer here, we don't need to ensure anything. There are plenty of countries worldwide that export oil for profit. In fact, China is the 5th largest producer of oil and stands poised to increase their output capacity as their demands rise. The issue of denying China or India (or anybody else) access to oil is a misrepresentation by the media. The real issue is that China is willing to do business with countries who are governed by regimes that we have issues with (Iran and Venezuela). The mindset of the current administration seems to be "If we won't do business with them, then neither should you."
6)This objective has primarily defined and is driving this country's foreign policy;
--See answers to all of the above.
7)Any time there is even a perceived threat that our access to 'cheap' oil will be threatened, the noise machine cranks up, identifying villains and fanning the flames for intervention and/or war;
--This is more of an indictment of the media than anything else. They are quick to play to people's emotions in order to drum up viewer ratings.
7) The CIA sponsored coup in Iran in the 50s was a direct result of that country's rulers nationalising their oil industry. It worked for us until 1979 when popular resentment against the puppet regime boiled over and now we see this radical Islamic entity that has become a pain in our ass;
--For the umptenth time, the answer is "No, it wasn't." The CIA-sponsored coup in Iran during the 1950s was part of the paranoia of Communist "containment." The fear was that the Soviet Union, which had had cross border skirmishes with Iran immediately following WWII, and at one point had actually occupied parts of norther Iran, was looking for access to warm-water ports in the Persian Gulf. The government that was elected into office (yes, democratic elections) had Socialist leanings and appeared to be pro-Soviet. This was seen as a threat at the time--Iran would become another satellite state like all of eastern Europe. This would provide them with the access they so desired to year-round warm water ports. It would also give them another Arab-state under their sway (don't forget, Egypt and Syria had strong ties with the Soviet Union).
8) It is now known that in 1974 -- at the request of the White House, Pentagon prepared a plan to invade and take control of Saudi Arabian oil fields. People like Henry Kissinger further advocated this seizure in an article he wrote under an assumed name;
--Okay, you got me. I don't know about this. It sound like a likely scenario should something go awry in that region. Probably a contigency plan should Saudi Arabia see a violent regime change that would place a pro-Soviet, or at least very anti-American, government in power.
9) Of all the middle eastern countries, experts have opined that the cheapest oil today is in the untapped fields of Iraq;
--Iraq's oil fields aren't untapped. They may not be developed to their full potential but they certainly aren't untapped. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil fields in the Middle East.
10) The plans to invade Iraq and "regime change" were laid out way before 9/11;
--Yep, all you have to do is read Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."
11) The casting of the "new" Middle East in "our" image was first clearly articulated by Richard Perle in paper he wrote for Nethanyahu (at the latter's request) in the early 90s;

debishop writes: Injun's points a little dull...
and Juxta-poised writes: Just the Facts

And then both proceed to give a lengthy yet lame rebuttal to the facts I provided in my post. This argument for the sake of argument. For instance, debishop's characterization of the American authors that I recommended people read as, "....but Phillips, Ricks, and Johnson are about as neutral towards the Bush Administration as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." clearly underscores this point. Essentially, what he is saying is that unless someone is "neutral towards the Bush Administration", they are not worth taking seriously. Even though most of their scholarship transcends the current Bush administration, he is of the opinion that their failing this litmus test, they cannot be worth anything. Debating with such a mindset is foolish. It is like trying to convince the Creationist crowd of Evolution. It is so because the Bibles says so! And, if you challenge that based on all available facts, you become a (pick a label)!

Anyway, I should at least address a few glaring idiocies in their lengthy rebuttals:

-- To my point that one of the main drivers of foreign policies of Western nations for the past 100 years has been their access to cheap energy resources.....Mr. Debishop has the following gem:

* Accept [sic] we can't seek it in our own country; the process is closed off by the eco-lobby. And, by “access” you do mean “buy,” don’t you? You are aware that we purchase the oil that comes into our country, aren’t you? If we didn't buy it, then how could all those Arab sheiks afford all those Rolls Royces?

Wow!! Dude, I am talking about the last 100 years. The 'eco-lobby' is a relatively recent phenomenon. Yes, sometimes "access" means "buy" at prevailing market rates. Sometimes NOT. Do you think Hitler's push in 1941-1942 towards the oil fields of Baku/Azerbaijan were to "buy" their oil? Did Anglo-French division of Mesopotamia after the first World War was to transact fair trade with the colonies? Or our plan to seize SA oil fields in 1974 was to make it easier for us to transfer money from the Treasury at the going market rate? Maybe, a quick course in history will clear things up for you.

To my same point Juxta-poised offers this explanation:

--Actually, no. Exploration and exploitation of oil did not truly begin until after WWII, especially in the Middle East.

Again, a short course in history won't hurt him. One of the first oil well was drilled/dug by a Russian in Azerbaijan in 1840. That is a hundred years before WWII! Oil was actively explored throughout the second half of the 1800s, and it started becoming Global business from 1890s with vast reserves discovered in the Middle East! May I suggest you bone up on the politics behind the division of 'Iraq' between the Brits and the French immediately following the first World War?

To my point that oil production in the US peaked in 1970.....juxta-poised had this to offer:

--Oil production peaked in the U.S. because a very vocal minority of environmentally "friendly" groups convinced the states and federal governments to pass legislation making further development of oil rich fields either illegal or financially unsound.

Incredible! Clearly, he does not understand what "peaked" here means. Let me explain. Oil is a finite non-renewable resource. As it is consumed and the available reserves depleted, a point is reached from which it is all downhill. Cost of extracting each additional barrel of oil and finding/drilling new wells start increasing proportionately to time. That point was predicted for the US to be in 1967 but reached in 1970. It has NOTHING to do with the 'environmental' movements! It seems you think that all we have to do is keep drilling until and we will keep finding oil for ever! There are some very telling numbers that show the trend since 1970 onwards. One key indicator is how many wells that have to be drilled on average to find a live one, and how deep one has to go before striking oil. These are objective markers and not figment of someone's imagination. Data to date is consistent with the peaking conclusion reached by our geologists.

Hopefully, now you see why I thought the debate raging here is fairly ignorant?

Anyway, I could rebut each of the infantile arguments messrs. 'Debishop' and 'juxta-poised' put forth. But to what end? It seems their minds are already made up and, for them everything boils down to Bush vs. Clinton, Liberal vs. Conservative, and the infallibility of American exceptionalism. My hope is that perhaps other fair minded readers might be motivated to do their own research before drawing conclusions that transcend entrenched prejudices. Dare to think for yourself and not be 'Limbaughed'!

Injun gets dull and duller...

Injun says: “For instance, debishop's characterization of the American authors that I recommended people read as, "....but Phillips, Ricks, and Johnson are about as neutral towards the Bush Administration as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." clearly underscores this point. Essentially, what he is saying is that unless someone is "neutral towards the Bush Administration", they are not worth taking seriously.”

*Wrong. I didn’t say they weren’t worth reading, or that they couldn’t be taken seriously--which they obviously are by the left--I just said these guys weren’t politically neutral as you implied with your editorial comment that, “They are neither 'left wing' nor 'liberals' per se.” You were the one trying to portray them as “honest brokers” of information—when even a cursory look at their work reveals your characterization (of them) to be misleading, at best.

Injun said, “Even though most of their scholarship transcends the current Bush administration...”

*So, are we to take this comment as Injun fact or Injun opinion? I’m curious; because you seem intent on claiming that everything you say is a “fact.”

Injun said, [debishop] “is of the opinion that their failing this litmus test, they cannot be worth anything.

*Wrong. I never said these authors were worthless, just that they weren’t unbiased. You seem to have a problem reading what people actually write.

Injun says, “Debating with such a mindset is foolish. It is like trying to convince the Creationist crowd of Evolution. It is so because the Bibles says so! And, if you challenge that based on all available facts, you become a (pick a label)!”

*Debating? I didn’t know we were debating. I thought this was an Injun lecture. And trying to convince Injun of anything is like trying to convince the Evolution crowd to believe in Creationism. Debating such a mindset is foolish. It is so, because Injun says it’s so! Because if you dare challenge Injun with any opposing facts you become a (pick a label)!

In my rebuttal post I never used one derogatory adjective regarding Injun’s initial post. Yet, here’s Injun--master debater and fact disseminator--accusing me of attaching negative “labels” to him because he dared “challenge” my closed-mindedness; while he freely, and without any sense of its irony, uses such adjectives as foolish, idiotic, infantile, lame, prejudiced, and ignorant to describe me and others. Really, dude, if you’re going to be a master debater you should try to rise above that sort of thing.

Injun says, “Anyway, I should at least address a few glaring idiocies in their lengthy rebuttals.”

*My rebuttals were only lengthy because I included most of the overstuffed verbiage from your post.

Injun says, “Wow!! Dude…Do you think Hitler's push in 1941-1942 towards the oil fields of Baku/Azerbaijan were to "buy" their oil? Did Anglo-French division of Mesopotamia after the first World War was to transact fair trade with the colonies? [sic] Or our plan to seize SA oil fields in 1974 was to make it easier for us to transfer money from the Treasury at the going market rate? Maybe, a quick course in history will clear things up for you.”

*Wow! Dude, I’m impressed with your marshalling of historical facts. So, in Injun’s world, our having had a “plan” to seize the SA oil fields in ’74 (a plan that was never carried out) is equivalent to Hitler’s real push to the Baku/Azerbaijan oil fields. We no doubt have a “plan” to go to Mars, but if it never happens then it’s nothing more than an idea whose time never came. I’m also sure we had “plans” to rain nukes down on the Soviet Union, but they weren’t implemented either. Yet, apparently, Injun believes that what Hitler actually did during WWII was no different than our having had an unused “plan” to seize the SA oil fields in ’74. Maybe a quick course in common sense would clear things up for him.

Funny how liberals automatically view you as closed-minded, and worthy of infantile epithets, when you don’t immediately grasp the supreme wisdom of their arguments, and instantly recant your positions/beliefs.

And, yes, Injun, we now know why you thought the debate raging here was fairly ignorant--because you were leading it.

Dare to think for yourself, Injun, and try not to be “AlFranken-steined.”

Injun says, No mas!

More name calling, junior? I’m not surprised. It’s the last refuge of an
immature and uninspired mind—a perfect fit in your case. I see you’ve
taken a page from the French school of debating, and hoisted the white flag. A wise move.