Posts made by HortenFlyingWing

@marine36:

im scared, the amount of voter fraud is tremendous, in clevelend theres more registered voters than there is people living in the city!

really? link? i want to see

Badnarik

i’m sorry - how do you know that we do not have these laboratories?
Also it seems increasingly to me that you should not have seen an orthopod at all.

The method was recently invented in the year 2000 and enterolab, based in texas, are the only guys that do it as far as I know…on earth.

Furthermore, every single doctor reffered me to physical therapy and orthopedists. Most people don’t show gluten sensativity like I did/do. Therefore, I would have never recieved the help I needed.

it is true. i have the newspaper article in my recycling bin, and i referenced it in another thread. I think we supplied around 1.2 million doses of flu vaccine or so from a Canadian factory. You are wrong.

"The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working with Aventis Pasteur, the sole remaining manufacturer of flu vaccine for the United States, to ship Aventis’ remaining stocks to high-risk areas such as veterans’ hospitals, nursing homes, state health agencies and children’s vaccine programs.

Dr. Julie Gerberding, CDC director, said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that 20 million doses will soon be available for seniors.

The shortage became apparent Oct. 5 with news that Chiron Corp.'s British vaccine plant had been shut down by health authorities. British health officials suspended the manufacturer’s license because of contamination.

Because Chiron is one of only two flu vaccine makers to produce the drug for the United States, consumers were left with only half of the expected 100 million doses for this season. "
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1098187018136340.xml

So much flu vaccinations come from these companies where I already listed where there manufacturing comes from, I do not see how canada plays a role. Furthermore, if canada did truly send 1.2 million doses (about 1% of the vaccinations), it is a rare occurence in one year during a massive shortage. don’t delude yourself.

it was a general statement refering to your treatment of us with regards to softwood lumber, steal tarifs, beef, etc.

We are talking medicine.

And the majority of manufacturers are European.
and i thought that you did not have price ceillings in America (we do have them in Canada)

I don’t think so, I’m 99% confident we do not. Majority is a strong word. Several drug manufacturers are in america, the second largest on earth being pfizer. America, being one country, produces the most drugs for one country. however, for the most in a continent, i do not have the numbers.

“You are an idiot” - insult.
“You are wrong because you are an idiot” - ad hominem.
“You are an idiot because you are wrong” - possibly inappropriate observation.
The thing is, you confuse “insult” with “ad hominem” and observations.

What you do not seem to get is that ad hominem is not a simple “you are stupid” argument. Implying anything personal about the writer and not the premises of his argument is an ad hominem. Furthermore, “disproving” someone’s premise with vague references to my character or how I must be inherently wrong without reason are ad hominems.

Here is a philosophy link, don’t take my word for it: http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/adhominems.html

Ad hominem means “attacking the person”. Here is a simple definition of this fallacy : “[t]he person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself” (Stephen’s Guide to Logical Fallacies).

An ad hominem can attack evidence from the two sides of reality, which are :

(1) interior (consciousness-driven)
(2) exterior (outside of consciousness) - anything that is related to the person that has nothing to do with the argument

The difference here is critical : (2) can be conclusively disproven, but (1) cannot, by itself, be disproven. This is because the interior side of reality cannot be perceived by anyone else then the person whose interior is in question. Basically, the only evidence possible is the person’s word. This usually makes (1) usually open to disbelief by other people, because we usually want to impose the same standards of justification on interior evidence that we use on exterior evidence. But that is virtually impossible, that is, not with our current technology.

As explained on “argument from personal experience”, “[p]ersonal experience cannot be accepted as evidence of exterior entities, only interior ones”. But here the distinction is that someone attacking another about an interior fact does not try to provide evidence for exterior entities but rather tries to make an argument to attack the person’s intent or thought. Such an attack is impossible to support rationally since there is no way to disprove interior evidence in that respect.

the problem is that there are so many industry controls on medicine.
The main reason i do not wish to work in the US is because i do not wish to be subjected to the BS that HMO’s impose on their physicians.

That is true. They are extremely regulated and so you have two inefficient bureaucracies (one corporate and one government) over one large government bureaucracy (as in canada). Ideally, you cut out all the middle men.

i’m sorry, but how do you know this? i’m not even an orthopod, so i’m not sure how you know this would go on here. I think that prior to sending you to an orthopod your family doc/EMO would want to be assured that it is an orthopaedic injury. This is something that you would more likely be seen by a rheumatologist for. These people would not bounce you around so much, as their tests would be far more likely to have them consider referring you to an allergist if the problem was not something that they would pick up themselves.

Not one orthopedist saw any sign of allergy or “nerve damage”. Nerve tests they had administered shown no chance of nerve damage. The only man who admitted something was up that they could not even figure out was a physical therapist. Guessing I had a wheat allergy was a shot in the dark and luckily america has the proper labs to figure out my condition. if I had to get a lower grade blood testing showing in nothing, i would probably be in decades of pain. I resorted to giving my money to a lab and they found the problem. Such labs do no exist in Canada.

oh really? Is America the only country that produces chemicals/pharmaceuticals?

Certainly not only, but most.

Why then, is the US purchasing the flu shot from Canadian manufacturers?

That’s not true. America buys from American manufacturers as well (such as Chiron, which is American owned but made in great britain. Aventis, the only other flu vaccination company, is FRENCH, not canadian. Aventis has a factory in pennsylvania.

As for us “ripping off Americans” - i’m not sure how that is happening any more than Americans are ripping off Canadians. Keep in mind too that the largest pharma companies in the world are European and they fuel most of the innovative research in the world. Also there are many pharma companies that produce medications in Canada. (Keep in mind that i worked in the pharma industry for a few years - i know the inside of it quite well).

Wait, you blame America for ripping you off, but fail to explain how. Here’s the truth. the majority of drugs and manufacturers are american. I explained how with price ceilings in america, we are all screwed. They make, develop, and sell the most drugs. That’s the truth.

[quote[i don’t think so. Especially if i look at places north of us. Keep in mind too that nearly 90% of the population of Canada lives within 100 km of the US border - furthermore our most populated areas are well south of much of the US. I don’t see that this would contribute that much. [/quote]
your populated areas a well NORTH of the US.

all the lies i keep telling. And all so blatent.
ad hominem ad hominem. Hey everyone - there has to be a ad hominem in here SOMEWHERE by the HFW definition of “someone said something that makes me unhappy therefore its an ad hominem”.

Wait, you insult me instead of admitting I proved you wrong, because canada does not have a greater minority or immigrant population. Then every time I bring up the very definition of “ad hominem” you guys seems to fall back in your “slumber” and stop replying.

From dictionary.com: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents’ motives.

You just made fun of my personal use of ad hominem (“personal consideration”) rather than the logic or reason in my argument (all of those statistics). So you just performed the very thing I supposedly accuse people of “too much.” Because of this, I consider myself right and you wrong, because you fail to prove otherwise.

curious as to what you are referring to in terms of medical regulations. this term can refer to many things.

all government controls on medicine.

actually we do have the speciallists that America has. We have an excellent medical education system that is second to no other country.

the truth is that I would be bounced from orthopedist to orthopedist in canada and none would have sent me to an allergist. This is a fact. my wheat problem took its face in nerve damage, especially in my right elbow and now knee. both would have been considered orthpedic problems.

So I would have to go through years of orthopedists and still have none send me to an allergist. furthermore, being that I am young and not showing the wheat allergy in an outward fashion, a stool test would be the only working version, not the tests with pricking, blood, and what not. The limited labs that do this particular testing are in America.

you further bring up that there are long waiting lists. You get what you pay for.

No, what you pay for are HMOs which have to pay for advertising, additional layers of management, profit holders/dividend receivers, and astronomical litigation protection fees for doctors and hospitals, not to mention much higher prices for pharmaceuticals.

granted, government regulations are an impediment to good healthcare and they exist in america. that is a problem. ideally, government would not mess with healthcare at all.

I do find it silly that you mention your cheaper prices on drugs because you have price ceilings. Those drugs are made in america and sold to canada cheaper than they sell it to americans. IF America would adopt price ceilings (and not allow the monopolization of drug developments like America) American drug companies would simply stop producing the drugs they usually would and advance would stop. This would lead to not only dramatic shortages in America, but then Canada would literally get a taste of its own medicine.

Essentially, lacking better words for it, Canada is holding up American drug companies because there is no incentive NOT to make at least some profit in Canada. However, the moment they stop ripping off Americans, Canada would face collasal drug shortages.

what does a cold country have to do with a higher life expectancy? There is no correllate between living in a cold country and health.

You might eb right now come to think of it. In the past, warmer climates spawned diseases and plagues from insects, scewing the statistics. I’m not sure if that is relevant today.

Just because northern European countries also have universal healthcare and have higher life expectancy rates does not have much to do with cold weather.
As for our “relatively unhealthy immigrant population” - this is an ignorant statement. Our aboriginal population is quite unhealthy with a massive amount of diabetes, HIV, CVD, etc. Also Canada has a very high proportion of immigrants - possibly as high or higher than that of the US.

Okay, let me clear up a few blatantly lies.

1. America has a very unhealthy/alcoholic Native American population. it is a sad but true fact.
2. 1% of America’s population is native American, 13% of it is black, and about 13% hispanic. All of these ethnicities on average have lower incomes than Asians and Whites. In America, 10% of its population is foreign born according to the 1990 census.

While America had 9 million legal immigrants (it probably actually has been double), which would account for anywhere from 3 to 6 % of America’s population.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/etoimm/tables/provs/immsh.cfm
^^^ Meanwhile in Canada, such immigrants are probably closer to 0.5% to 1.0% approximately.

3. Canada’s population is approximately 6.3 percent non-white and asian (http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/5thedition/peopleandsociety/population/mcr4189?l=5&r=0&c=2).

but you may have to. Not for anything that you have done, but simply because of bad luck. The thing is, as long as you have an insurance policy, you ARE paying for it, and you are paying more than in a country with universal healthcare.

If America ridded itself of its medical regulations, the stranglehold of lawyers and insurance companies would die. Smokers pay more for their insurance anyway.

you obviously did not get the second point, so i cannot respond to it. i said that if drugs are legal, that does nbot determine whether or not they become a societal plauge.

if the first part is true, then how come the US pays a higher percentage of its GDP (14%) without universal healthcare than Canada (8%)?

Canada simply does not have the specialists America has and the costs of seeing these people drives up costs all together. I highly doubt the universal healthcare in canada would have diagnosed my wheat allergy…i had to on my own accord send info to a texan lab. this lab would be out of business if there was universal healthcare unless it existed outside of it. if that is true, why have universal healthcare at all if it cannot cover all our health ailments?

Also i do not believe that the second part of your statement is true. For example our life expectancy is longer than yours.

Canada is colder and it is documented colder areas have greater life expectency. you also lack a relatively unhealthy immigrant population comparable to America’s. Furthermore, Americans crash their cars and shoot each other at higher rates, lowering the life expectancy.

People will live in an unhealthy matter regardless of the nature of the healthcare available. No one says “i will risk lung cancer because i can get the system to pay for it”. At least none of the people i’ve seen and diagnosed with lung cancer.

granted, but i don’t want to pay for it.

that’s why we don’t want a universal healthcare system. it increases costs and rewards those who live in an unhealthy manner.

Alcohol is part of our society. when the illegalized it, we still had alcoholics. thus it is legal again and we are used to the problems it puts forward.

Making drugs legal without doubt would lead to an explosion of drug use, because it is not socially accepted yet. However, once it is, I guarentee you the drug addicts would probably be the alcoholics/smoking peopulation of today. I do not find it coincidental that people with chemical vices are all generally smoker alcoholics.

@Lizardbaby:

Look at China in it’s Opium war days. Not a pretty site. I would not want to enable that here. BTW, the Brits had their less than great moments Eh?

why are none of us at work right now?

regardless, i find it hard to believe an educated populace would all of the sudden become opium addicts. such dangerous drugs should be highly taxed and regulated until people become immune to the idea of being responsible with their own bodies.

most of us have smoked pot, but if we didn’t do any harder drugs, we are against their legalization.

people are only harming themselves and that’s their right. legalize everything.

if you think bush won that debate, you are a complete moron. no way did he win it.

@marine36:

HFW, it was Hienz Guderian not Hanz. and Patton could beat him anyday

its been a while. sorry

these people didn’t make strategy and when they did, they only screwed it up.

hans guderian was the best commander.

@Yanny:

Agnostic.

Add it

agree 100%

if you voted yes, you are stupid

Why is nothing uncaused?

because anything without cause requires faith to believe in and this is inherently the problem of atheism and theism.

Everything has reason and cause. The reason we are not flying into outerspace is because of gravity (the reason.) Everything works with reason and cause. However, you conveniently suggest the only expection to this rule is existence itself, and wouldn’t that be funny to say “everything that exists has a cause but existence…” that logically makes absolutely no sense.

Therefore, there must be a first cause/reason that explains it all, not an infinite regress. We can go infinitely into the future, but not the past.

I know, in everyday live, everything (seems to have) has a cause.
If you go to quantum mechanics, the causality suddenly becomes a questionable thing: In the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, they showed that wuantum mechanics is non-local and/or non-causal. “Effects” can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, meaning they happen before the cause.

however, there’s a reason for being. For example, if there’s a scientific REASOn that stuff just suddenly exsited, than the intial cause demand is satisfied. However, there needs to be REASON and CAUSE. Einstein never said, “if I don’t understand this, it is because there’s no reason for it”, that’s ridiculous.

So, that is what our nowadays physics allows. We have no idea what happens in singularities, and todays theories suggest strongly that our universe started from one. The question then is: what was the cause for (a) that singularity to come into being and (b) to let it expand into what we now know as space-time.
This leads to the more fundamental question: how can you talk of “before” when time doesn’t exist (like in “before the big bang”) ?

You can’t, thats beyond our knowledge. However, our understanding of existence does necessitate cause and reason. All of this, everything, was not ALWAYS there. There must be a cause or reason for it, and that opens up the possibility of some sort of god.

I do agree with your reasoning except for the point that “everything needs to have a cause”.
I will accept that for a moment, and i agree that the infinite regression is not logical. Then i come to the point ofa first cause. This one can’t be uncaused, as the “everything doesn’t allow for exceptions”. Then we either come back to the regression approach, or we have to make an exception from the above rule, saying “at least one thing is allowed to happen uncaused”. … And that is what i can agree: Not everything needs to have a cause.

As I already said that our understanding allows us to know there must be a first cause, but now you say the first cause is the exception to the rule. that may be, but if the first cause was God with it’s infinite powers, it can logically be beyond the rules it sets.

However, this explanation to me is far too simple. I think the only explanation is that the initial cause or reason only makes sense if we have an above human understanding of this subject.

Some physicists believe that electrons don’t go real fast, they literally change position by going in and out of existence . Now, if this is true, I’m sure there is some sort of equation or understanding that makes this possible. If so, this can easily be applied to the first cause. Then we can always ask, “where do the laws of physics come from”, but again, it is our mortal understanding that is fallible. For all we know there can be math to explain math.

However, that could be false and the uncaused first cause can indeed be God. I don’t know, nor we never could. However, I find the infinite regress and illogical explanation for the existence of our universe, because it would be contrary to the mass historical record.

@F_alk:

@HortenFlyingWing:

You tell me, what made existence because surely it did not make itself. Everything requires cause, and I do not believe we can go infinitely back into a cause for a cause, because unless there was a first cause there would be no “Casual support” for every other cause.

I agree that an iterative approach is probably not the best. I disagree though on the “surely” that existance did not make itself. How can a cuase exist when no existance exists? Or else, who created the creator?
I don’t think that a first cause has to be there. If you allow eternal and extra-reality-existance for one, why not for a second, a third or something completely different?

Therefore, the first cause can be a creator or something else we cannot understand. however, there IS a first cause and that leaves the possibility there is a creator or God.

Well, so what caused the first cause to act?
That would be the zeroth cause…

I am just not a fan of mono-causal thinking. Usually things have more than one cause, or none.
I liked your agument on the christian god though.

Nothing is uncaused so that leaves two things:
an infinite regress of causes

or

a first cause

now, whatever that first cause may be, it is unexplainable and unfathomable. However, I find an infinite regress backwards as ridiculous, because everything inherently started from somewhere. For the universe to be the one exception to this rule would be an udder blow to the mass historical record, so I find it far more likely for their to be some unexplainable first cause than an infinite regress of causes without a first cause (because such a notion is ridiculous according to what I said and the prinicipal of sufficient reason.)

Now, does that answer your question? I am a man of probabilities. I believe it is more probable that there is no man caused global warming for example. I also believe it is more probable there was a first cause (which would be in accordance to the historical record) than no first cause (which would be the one and only exception.) Because I have faith in nothing, I go with probability. You show me how it is more probable there’s an infinite regress and then we will talk.

To Yanny:

I do not selectively believe anything. I’m an agnostic, however, I do subscribe to the cosmological argument.

You tell me, what made existence because surely it did not make itself. Everything requires cause, and I do not believe we can go infinitely back into a cause for a cause, because unless there was a first cause there would be no “Casual support” for every other cause.

Therefore, the first cause can be a creator or something else we cannot understand. however, there IS a first cause and that leaves the possibility there is a creator or God.

Apparantly you haven’t talked alot ot Janus… He says statements like that and then doesn’t back them up…

I’ll answer this for you easily.

You believe in an infinitely great god, correct? Well, to put it simply, why? Do you say it arbitrarily exists, because you being finite cannot possibly fathom something infinitely greater than you. You can never udnerstand an God that is infinitely greater. However, the christian God is understandable. It dispenses infinite justice, yet it is powerless to stop a finite amount of evil. It has infinite wisdom, but its creation is not infinitely great. If there is a God, we simply do not understand it, and the God of the bible contradicts itself and its attributes so much it cannot possibly exist.

3. God does not exist

Can you prove this?

I’m am confident to say that the Christian God does not exist. However, God itself has not been proven wrong.

@marine36:

look around you, how can anyone not believe that god created all these things that work in harmony.

However, what we see as harmony is only opinion. I can fathom a universe more harmonious, can an all powerful God therefore make something mroe harmonious than I a mortal can fathom.

im not taking any chances. id much rather go to heaven.

1. This is PAscal’s wager

2. If you have looked at the logic of what you put forth, its bull. Yuo have faith in the bible and god, faith is not evidence, nor should you claim it to be. Therefore, it is just as possible that God does not CARE if you believe in it or actually WANTS you not to believe in it. How do you know what pleases God? God might only reward psycotic murderers for all you know. If God rewards anyone based upon beleif, wouldn’t it be most likely that it reward the non-mentally lazy that refuse to use faith as justification and say they just don’t know, the agnostics?

Something as infinitely great as God cannot be comprehended and its will cannot be known. Don’t try to pretend you know it or how to please it for that matter.

I’m an agnostic, and i definitately do not believe in a god most believe in, because it is logically impossible.

I believe there is some sort of creator…exactly what my mortal mind cannot know.

A total utopia would probably be communist, but that’s not possible.

Gas is stilll cheap. it is 2.30 where I live and my driving habits are yet to change. At least suv sales are down 20%.

“And F_alk you goddamn moron, there was no joke or pun inteneded from what I wrote. I take it as a warning, only because I already see pieces falling into place. End of story.”

Strong language, sorry about me saying that. I was in a bad mood.

"You take it as a warning, i take it as a cheap and blind excuse to go on and send soldiers against civilians….-it looks like you want to sell a serious point on a funny and ‘thoughtful’ way.
Let me tell you, you failed in both. I have never read a worse piece of propaganda. "

How is it funny or thoughtful? That response is close to psychotic with its random accusations. I don’t want a war in Iraq. NONE. Bush blew it. But now, the UN security council is working on denouncing Israel and the “palestinians” again…woop-ee-doo. All those countries damn well know trying to protect Saddam’s “soveirgnty” and talking that out is yet another stalling tactic. Either no questions asked weapons inspections (what i want), or war. If the UN cannot comply, Bahrain, Qutar, Turkey, GHreat Britain, and the US can.

Your stalling tactic will cost lives. Make a stand and demand that iraq be subjected to toal weapons inspection.

“Well, at least we use rethoric to cover our domestic failures and don’t start wars that kill people to do that. I prefer the first way i must admit.
Anyway: the comment of Herta Däubler-Gmelin is not excusable, and she stepped back before she could get fired (which would have happened effectively, as in her not being announced as “new minister of justice”).”

She resigned, because she said such a stupid thing. And we did not yet fight iraq. That is up to the security council to get its ass in gear and accept the british resolution. Destroying the taliban decentralized al-qaeda, and that helped save many lives…especially the fact that there were planned terrorist attacks in Germany too.

“Btw, are your last sentences quotes or your own opinion (the last quotation mark confuses me)?
I guess we started to feel superior the moment that you started to think that you are always right.”

We’re not always right, but by hell you are not. “Politics as usual.” I meant every country uses these political tactics with war and such (and the explotion of it.) That does nothing with the fact if a war is necessary or not. Do you catch my drift?

I don’t have the time to respond to all of the leftist messages being posted on this board wiht my absence, so you win this time.

Take this story as a warning, already in the making.

PEACE AT LAST

by Steven Plaut

June 12, 2002

It was in the year 2006. The Israelis at long last gave up their attempts to resist the pressures of the world. They elected a new government headed by Prime Minister Yossi Beilin, the original promoter of the Oslo Peace Process, in coalition with the Jewish and Arab parties of the Left. They announced that Israel was willing to accept the unanimous proposal for peace supported by every single country in the world, and would return to its pre-1967 borders, remove all Jewish settlements from the territories of the new state of Palestine, recognize Palestine and grant Palestine all of East Jerusalem, that is, all of the city located east of a line running north-south through Zion Square, renamed Jihad Square.

The world had not seen celebration like that which greeted the Israeli decision since the fall of the Berlin Wall or the transferal of power in South Africa to the black majority. All-night celebrations were held in every city on the planet, but none so enthusiastic as the party held in Tel Aviv in Rabin Square. Speaker after speaker appeared under a banner “Liberation at Last” and praised the decision to agree to the terms of the accord as the ultimate completion of the work and dreams of Yitzhak Rabin.

The settlers were marched out of the lands of Palestine at bayonet point, with crowds of jeering Israeli leftists pelting them with garbage as they moved into their temporary transit camps inside Green Line Israel. Liberal Jews in the United States organized a million man march in Washington together with Arabs and the Nation of Islam to celebrate the breaking out of peace and the final settlement of the conflict. “Peace at Last” was the number one pop single. The State Department sent out a message urging Israel and Palestine to conduct good-faith negotiations and round-the-clock talks on all outstanding issues of disagreement still separating the two sovereign states. At long last, there were two states for two peoples. Land had been exchanged for peace. Peace had at long last broken out in the world´s most troubled region.

The morning after the Palestine Independence Celebrations, the message arrived in the Israeli parliament, brought in by special messenger. The newly formed government of Palestine had only a small number of issues it would like to discuss with Israel. It proposed that peaceful relations be officially consummated, as soon as Israel turned over the Galilee and the Negev to Palestine. Israeli cabinet ministers were nonplussed. We thought we had settled all outstanding territorial issues by giving the Palestinians everything, they protested. The spokesman for the Palestine War Ministry explained: the Galilee was obviously part of the Arab homeland. It was filled with many Arabs and in many areas had an Arab population majority. Israel was holding 100% of the Galilee territory, and Palestine none at all, and surely that was unfair. As for the Negev, it too has large areas with Arab majorities, but is in fact needed so that Palestine can settle the many Palestinian refugees from around the world in lands and new homes.

Israel´s government preferred not to give offense and sour the new relations, and so offered to take the proposal under consideration. Within weeks, endorsements of the Palestinian proposal were coming from a variety of sources. The Arab League endorsed it. The EU approved a French proposal that the Galilee and Negev be transferred to Palestine in stages over 3 years. Within Israel, many voices were heard in favor of the proposal. Large rallies were held on the universities. The Israeli press endorsed the idea almost in full unison, with only some regional weeklies from the north and south dissenting. Israeli film producers began turning out documentaries on the sufferings of Galilee and Negev Arabs under Israeli rule. Sociologists from around the world produced studies showing that these Arabs were victims of horrible discrimination and that Israel is characterized by institutional racism. Israeli poets and novelists wrote passionate appeals for support of the Galilee and Negev ‘Others’.

When Israel´s cabinet rejected the proposal, the pressures mounted. A Galilee and Negev Liberation Organization was founded and immediately granted recognition by the UN General Assembly. It established consulate facilities in 143 countries. Weeks later, the infiltrations began. Squads of terrorists infiltrated the borders between Palestine and Israel, and suicide bombers produced a carnage of 75 murdered Jews a day. The border fences were reinforced, but to no avail. The US State Department proposed that Israel defuse the situation by considering compromise on the matters of the Galilee and Negev.

Six months later, the ‘victims of Jewish discrimination’ in the Galilee and Negev decided to escalate their protests. Gangs of Arabs lynched Jews throughout the disputed territories. Roadblocks were set up, and entire families of Jews were dragged from their cars by the activists and beaten to death or doused with flames. The EU sent in observers, but warned Israel that there is no military solution to the problems of terrorism and violence. When Israel arrested gang leaders from the riots, the General Assembly denounced Israeli state terrorism against Galilee and Negev Arabs. French universities gave the pogrom leaders, Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bashara, honorary doctorates.

Meanwhile, boycotts of Israel arose throughout Europe. Professors at the US Ivy League colleges demanded a total embargo and divestment from ties with Israel until it ended its racist apartheid regime. The leaders of the Reform synagogue movement supported the State Department and demanded that Israel end its obstinacy.

Israel´s own leftists launched a Movement against Apartheid, and the foreign press reported that 400,000 protested attended a rally by the Movement in Rabin Square. Cars around Israel had bumper stickers that read “My Son Will Not Die for Nazareth” and “Peace Now”. The Israeli Left urged people to refuse to do army service outside metropolitan Tel Aviv. The Israeli Labor Party proposed erecting a series of separating barriers throughout the Galilee under the slogan “Good Fences Make Good Neighbors”.

But Palestine could not sit idly by. Barrages of rockets and mortars drenched Israeli cities. The death toll rose to 7,000 Israelis per month. The White House and State Department threatened to cut off all supplies from Israel if it dared to launch reprisal raids against independent Palestine. Large cargo ships from Egypt laden with advanced arms entered the port of Gaza. Thousands of volunteers streamed into Palestine to assist in the campaign to rescue the Galilee and Negev Arabs from Israeli oppression.

On the afternoon of Yom Kippur, tank columns cut Israel in two just north of Tul Karem. Palestine offered to withdraw in exchange for transferring the Negev and Galilee to its control. An Israeli newspaper and the Israeli Peace Movement proposed transferring the disputed areas to EU control until things could be settled.

Synagogues in Belgium and France were torched. Teach-ins for Palestine were held on US campuses. A new conference was called in Durban to denounce Israeli apartheid. The White House insisted that Israel not expel the invading Palestine troops who had divided the country, for it was a matter for negotiations and dialogue. The President invited both sides to Camp David, with observers from the Negev and Galilee militias present.

Increasing numbers of Israeli politicians urged that Israel respond to the situation by granting limited autonomy to the Negev and the Galilee. When the government proposed to withdraw from Safed, Arutz Sheva radio broadcast non-stop protests against the move. The government then passed a bill that shut down the opposition radio station. Adir Zik and the owners of Arutz Sheva were thrown in jail as inciters against peace. The Americans offered to send in ground troops to protect the remaining Israeli territories, if Israel decided to accept the proposal to give up the Negev and Galilee. Let´s at long last have peace in the hills that Jesus roamed, suggested the President.

Jews living in the Galilee and Negev were under siege everywhere and the roads were unsafe. The road through the Negev to Eilat was cut by Arab gangs in four places. Leftist Israeli professors officially joined the Arab militias fighting for liberation. Two of them blew themselves up on a Jewish school bus to show their solidarity with the oppressed Arabs. Ahmed Tibi, head of the largest militia, insisted he was doing everything possible to stop the suicide attacks on Tel Aviv and Haifa from the Galilee, but the Americans demanded that he do more. The UK demanded 100% effort to stop the violence. The PLO proposed, as a compromise, that instead of being annexed by Palestine, the Negev and Galilee be allowed to form a separate state. The Arab League endorsed the idea.

CNN broadcast a series of specials on the plight of the Negev and Galilee Arabs, and the BBC started referring to Tel Aviv as illegally-occupied Arab Jaffa. Netanya and Beer Sheba were described by them as illegal colonial settlements. When the carnage exceeded 10,000 a month, the New York Times, for the first time, expressed regret in having promoted the peace process and ran as its lead headline “Oops”. The Washington Post, however, urged more Israeli flexibility and concessions.

The Negev and Galilee liberation organizations raised their flags over their towns and proposed that the Jews living in their territories be resettled elsewhere. The Palestine War Ministry was shipping them guns and explosives. The first word came of a detention camp north of Nazareth in which Jews expelled from their Galilee homes were being concentrated, with a second camp opened in the Negev near Rahat.

Strange black smoke rose from the chimneys…

@Yanny:

I’m getting fed up watching President W. Bush infringe upon my civil rights. He is acting like a Hypocrit, a Dictator, and is not abiding by our Country’s laws. If I could make the choice, I’d impeach him, but I can’t.

President Bush somehow got it into his head that he needs to attack Iraq. At this point, if we do attack it looks like it will take place around Late October early November, election time. Any analyst will tell you attacking Iraq is a political issue, and is not important to our national security.

Congress, except for a minority of Republican busch supporters, completely opposes attacking Iraq. Our Allies, even such names as Turkey and Britain, are against attacking Iraq. In fact, if we do attack Iraq we’re unlikely to have a decent bombing base.

Ousting Saddam would destabilize the entire Mid East. The Countries of Iran and Israel would become the regional powers. Without Iraq’s military in the picture, there is no one to threaten Israel. Israel could attack Lebanon, Syria, and Jorden without any trouble. Iran would likely seize up a large portion of the former Iraq. This will set in place a powerful country, more ruthless than Iraq itself.

In Iraq itself, its likely 3 groups, maybe even independant states, will arise. The Southern Islaamic Fundalmentalists are willing to rise up and attack Saddam, but doing so would require the US to arm these people. This will create another Taliban. In the North, the Kurds will likely become part of Turkey, no big deal there. As I have already mentioned, Iran is likely to seize a large portion of Middle Iraq, including important Oil wells.

This is not 1991. Saddam has not made any aggressive action toward the United States. We do not have the Military Force, nor the Allies we did back then. Our Economy is much worse. Busch needs to forget about stupid Politics like this.

Bush is dropping “the ball” like his father. You don’t give advanced warning of an attack.

And Yanny, thanks to Israel, Saddam didn’t have a nuclear deturrent which could of made Saddam king of Arabia in 1991.