patrick.net

Bush had no plans.

Mc Cain had no understanding of the problems, or plans, or intentions of changing the military actions.

Obama took a fairly safe approach, and has dropped troop levels within a short period of time.

I'm surprised that they were able to pull that many troops out of there, without completely creating devastating and destabilizing effects on the entire country. Most of the rest will work on the bases and training there. Much like US troops do around the world.

And I'm surprised you are still talking, like we've left!

150K to 50K. 2/3rds pull out already.

Yeah, but... but.. you said "Last US combat brigade exits Iraq" which suggests 3/3rds have left.

Wait a minute, I thought the official Obama "First 100 days in office" report the Liberal Propaganda Ministry, put out in '09, Claimed that Obama had already pulled out then. They even gave him an Early Nobel POS prize, early on the notion that he might.

You know for the next two years, folks like you and the news you hock, will make all of those...
"(insert Democrat name here) caught in another lie" commercials, that we will all no doubt have to suffer through, at least somewhat believable. Even when the guy or committee that paid for the advertisement will no doubt probably make my skin crawl.

Seriously, are you so inept that you would pull troops out like that? No one would do that. No one.

They pulled out the last combat troop. 3/3rds are gone.

There are maintenance and training troops there. Like in every other country around the world. I suspect the need for more in that country will remain high for awhile.

No but I wouldn't let the Red rag claim things that are not facts.
You're the one saying the troops left. This isn't about me, and what I want the troops to do, all of this dialog is about what the Propaganda Ministry is reporting, and you trying to sell it to me.

Ya Dig?

Combat troops left.

They left within a reasonable amount of time. Obama said they would be pulled out as quickly as possible. They were.

Pulling snippets out of the media to support a claim that he's lying or claiming a one liner from him supported his entire military position for the middle east is just you lying to everyone.

When he fully discussed the topic during compainging, explaining more in depth on what he would do, it was clear that they would be pulled out as quickly as possible. There is obviously no way he could repeat his entire mantra every time he went out, especially when it was one of many topics he was covering. I'm going to assume you understood this.

If you understood that pulling troops out on day 1 of his term wasn't feasible, then you either did more research or simply didn't care about it. I would have been *VERY* alarmed if I thought he was going to put everything on a plane day one of his term and ship it home. I listened to several of his campaign talks and that was never his stated plan. It was always get them out of there as fast as possible.

There are multiple ways to present this, each time you call it a lie when it's a stage.
1) He started pulling troops out on day one, look at the graph.
2) He announced a plan to get all of them out, probably touted as the troops are coming home
3) He has removed all combat troops (today)

4) All troops, other than the embassy and standard military troops required have come home (Probably not for quite awhile...)

Does it come in Cherry? No make mine Grape!

You know the truth, but because it doesn't suit you, you ignore it.

I'm sure any plan to pull troops out that you could come up with, would have been within the same time frame, yet you ridicule him as if he's lied to everyone about it. You know full well how long it would take, you probably even listened to his full speeches and understood what he said but choose to ignore it.

Let's put this in perspective:

Here are average troop levels in foreign countries where we aren't engaged in a war where we've stationed more than 10,000 troops between 1996-2000 according to the conservative Heritage Foundation:

Japan: 41,016
South Korea: 36,414
Germany: 62,667
Italy: 11,663
United Kingdom: 11,143

Everywhere the USA has fought a war, we leave troops behind as "advisors" or even "protectors of peace." I think that 56,000 troops in Iraq (who aren't combat troops, there is a difference, you know) is a very reasonable number to keep as a "presence" and it fits in with out historical foreign policy post-wars.

So, what was that about turning the fact that we have 56,000 troops in Iraq to advise, protect, and maintain a presence in a non-combat fashion "proving" that Obama has lied about removing all combat troops? Yeah, I thought so...

simchaland says

“proving” that Obama has lied about removing all combat troops?

Who said anything about Obama lying. Such a thought never, ever entered my mind that he would even be capable of such a thing.

Not fair. I didn't get to serve in-country. Oh well...

Volunteered for Gulf War I but was turned down ("we need you here in the States"). Retired in 1998 so I missed GW II.

pkennedy says

Bush had no plans.

Sure, except for the Status of Forces Agreement.....

pkennedy says

Obama took a fairly safe approach, and has dropped troop levels within a short period of time.

Sure, under the general framework of the Status of Forces Agreement....

You can't pull out too quick. There are issues:

-both parties are left unsatisfied
-there can be extensive mop-up operations involved
-there can still be long lasting ramifications, regardless of what people say
-there's often immediate coverup to avoid embarrassment, followed by denials and innuendo
-even after pulling out, getting away can be tricky depending upon the terrain to be navigated

You're welcome.

Lets be clear that Bush had no intention of pulling troops out. He simply allowed the military to do whatever. Obama went head to head with them and has canned a few of them. "Having a plan" and "Having a feasible plan" are two different things. Implementing a plan is far different than saying you've got a plan as well.

The countries surrounding Iraq would like nothing better than to now dismantle iraq and take their land and oil. Iraq itself would like nothing more than to break up into a half dozen countries. Every one of those countries would jump at the opportunity to take a chunk out of that country. A half dozen little iraqs will just become chum for the surrounding countries. If that country isn't a semi-stable state, it's going to a be a nightmare. Not only politically for that area, not only for wars that will be fought within that area, but for the complete destabilization of oil in the world.

I'm not exactly sure of the cost differences between having 150,000 and 50,000 troops, but I do know that temporary bases are extremely expensive vs a permanent base. Requiring massive amounts of resources including super expensive oil, water, electricity, and food supply chains. 50,000 might sound like a lot, but I'm betting that number will come down over the next couple of years, and many of those would be employed and deployed elsewhere in the world anyways. So it's not a cost that will go away, the costs that will go away with be logistics and all the reserves that won't be required.

Protecting an embassy will still require "combat" but protecting a city and it's citizens is a far cry different in terms of cost and loss of life.

We don't have to do anything, is the lamest excuse anyone could ever use. We don't have to eat, we don't have to shit, we don't have to breath either. None of those are viable options, but we don't have to do any of them either! WOO!

Why do we have to stay is very clear. We will be pulled back in when a war starts back up because it will choke off a huge amount of the world supply of oil at the same time. The humanitarian needs will be massive and the only stabilizing power will be the US. We will have to go back because we are the only power that can do anything. If you're going to say we're not, just look at Bosnia, genocide took place within a few hundred miles of many European countries, yet they couldn't do "anything" to help those people. They were locked in debates, with inaction.

What many people in the US don't realize is that the US is the only one who WILL take action when the world goes haywire. Many claim that the action isn't necessary, many claim it's unwanted, but when shit hits the fan people know the US is the only one there to offer up any hope. I'm not American, so this isn't based on some patriotic homage. I've traveled through several of these countries and I've learned that they love to bash America, but they also quickly admit that America is the only one who can solve these issues. Perhaps in another few decades there will be others, but not right now.

Pulling out from iraq now would mean a war with Turkey, Iran, Jordan, and Syria. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will quickly be disabled by Iran going wild, and the oil will end up being choked off quickly. That is an international disaster.

On top of that, oil being choked off will cause fear and panic around the world, that will quickly come back to bite everyone here. Countries that find themselves lacking resources become desperate. While every country in the world produces much of their oil requirements, cutting off a decent chunk would do great harm to many of them. The US only obtains about 15% of it's oil from the middle east, but the middle east is the only major excess supplier in the world, meaning everyone will feel the pinch.

This also doesn't mean the US needs to stabilize the entire region and solve all issues, only the minimum amount required to keep it from falling into absolute chaos. 50,000 troops is enough to stop all aggressors from an all out war and a small price to pay to give the country time to stabilize itself.

Your cries of we don't have to do anything is nothing more than ignorance and/or a desire to spread doubt to those who lack knowledge about the true effects of a destabilized middle east.

pkennedy says

This also doesn’t mean the US needs to stabilize the entire region and solve all issues, only the minimum amount required to keep it from falling into absolute chaos. 50,000 troops is enough to stop all aggressors from an all out war and a small price to pay to give the country time to stabilize itself.

You ignore the fact that having US troops in a Muslim country is hugely destabilizing in the first place. Bin Laden made his entire organization around the fact US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia (a huge policy mistake). The US invading Iraq created more terrorists than an event in history. The best thing would be for Iraq to go back to being Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regions like existed before the British decided to screw it up.

There is no minimum to prevent chaos. If the region is going to implode 50,000 troops will do nothing to stop it. Otherwise 50,000 troops will just be a constant source of irritation and a non stop target for small attacks and low level conflict.

I've gotta President, who can do know wrong.
thunderlips11 says

We “had” to go into Vietnam and lose 60,000 men. Why? Look back, and all the Media was full of “We HAVE to go to Vietnam - or it’ll be a Domino effect! We’ll lose Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines to the Commies!” stories starting as early as the late 50s. None of that happened. Despite “Vietnamization”, the corrupt and unrepresentative (in religion as well as democracy) regime fell faster than Wile E Coyote with a jet pack. What happened? The Vietnamese got rid of Pol Pot, despite the US not allowing the new Cambodian government to sit at the UN, and then we ended up buying Nikes from Hanoi. Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines never became Communist, not even close.

I met a couple from Burma in Malaysia while I was there.
They have UN cards, and are Political Refugees. God bless them they were genuine people, that whole country made me realize what we were fighting for. Will Iraqi's appreciate us, in 3 or 4 decades from now, as much as those peoples in Indochina islands and countries do today?

I look at those Vietnam movies where the Platoon leader goes out of his way to save the villagers, differently now. There was always something about those people that the soldier hero puts his arse on the line for.
I use to look at those movies as touchy freely horse crap.
I now understand what the writers of those stories were trying to say. And now see those movies in a whole different light.

They were worth the effort.
The sick part was, we didn't do it, to save those people from an oppressive fate, they so ill deserved. We were only there to put the shit back on the Ruskies and Reds. We could have gave a rats ass about those Villagers, as a peoples or a whole.

And they still revere us in high esteem.

You're comparing all aspects of wars including the starting of wars with a 50,000 troops stabilizing aspect. You're including our support for Israel and other topics. Siding with Israel has nothing to do with stabilizing either but you're combining lots of issues here and then stating that they're all negative, therefore we can't ever do something useful.

You follow up with "What about these people who figured it out, shouldn't we send troops there too?" what kind of statement is that? no of course not. I showed you genocide in Bosnia, and how the US had to step in. Clinton waited for Europe to do something, because politically he shouldn't be stepping in their back yard but they did nothing. Nato was just a deadlock on the issue, the UN was next to useless, in fact hindering things. Not until the US got in there, did things stop. *THAT* was a fantastic intervention.

The statement is simple. What will happen at this point if every US troop evacuates Iraq. We have already seen Turkey attack iraq kurds, trying to move troops into the northern oil fields. We've seen the many factions tearing away at each other. The nation will be torn apart through many wars internally, learning it ripe for external forces to jump on the pieces left behind. Iran might not have started a war, but they've been involved in many shady deals to encourage them. They were in an unsettled war with Iraq that only came to a draw and was left there. Turkey already tried to invade iraq and take the northern oil fields WITH the US still there.

There was a good book I read on Afghanistan. A journalist goes over there, the tribe she ends up siding with offers her "protection" she wants to get some proper protection but is forced to hire one of their guys. She gets some kid barely able to hold a gun. She later learned that whoever was protecting her had no chance of keeping her alive if someone wanted her dead. The key was, the kid was part of this clan and they *ALL* knew if he died, there would be counter blood shed for THAT act.

Same with the US trooops over there. 50,000 or whatever the number ends up being is enough of a deterrent that no one is going to come in with guns blazing and try and take over. Regardless of what the US will do, they understand that the US will have to do something to protect them. Minor skirmishes, bloodshed, bombs will be part of daily life but absolute collapse will not, as long as there is a big kid sitting there.

The 50,000 troops is nothing more than giving Iraq a full arsenal of nukes. Others know they'll be obliterated if they start a war with the US, which will happen if they try and invade the country.

Side notes: Turkey plays both sides. They aren't pulling out of nato because they *SO* badly want into the EU. They've been given the carrot and stick treatment, I've told my friends over there that they won't be getting in any time soon because the EU needs their cheap labor with zero social security liabilities, just like the US needs mexicans with their zero social security liabilities.

Every one of those countries with that area could help out Palestine. None of them do. They all hate each other, they only help when it irritates the Israelis. Every one of them could offer up land and citizenship to those displaced but they don't. Go take a look at how much land each of those countries took from Palestine, and how they treat the Palestinians that were left in those lands. The amount of land taken is shocking, compared with the amount of land Israel itself ended up taking. Many of those countries could ship over the necessary food and other requirements, but Hamas won't let it in, unless everything comes in. They would rather starve the population than settle for just food, without the ability to make weapons. Israel does many things on it's own, but Hamas and the other countries around there do their own fair damage to the Palestinians.

pkennedy says

Lets be clear that Bush had no intention of pulling troops out. He simply allowed the military to do whatever. Obama went head to head with them and has canned a few of them. “Having a plan” and “Having a feasible plan” are two different things. Implementing a plan is far different than saying you’ve got a plan as well.

So the Status of Forces Agreement, put in place before Obama took office, was Obama's feasible plan?

thunderlips11 says

The Holocaust wasn’t organized by Palestinians, or Arabs, or any Muslim - so why are Palestinians paying for it?
160 years ago vs. 1900+ years ago. How long ago was the last Israeli state?

Why is it that some people on the left don't understand history?

The Palestinians weren't even a people until they went through the Arab/Israeli war in 1948. Palestine didn't ever exist as a separate country. It started as a British Mandate that included Jordan, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Originally Jordan annexed the West Bank when it split off to form its own country.

Today's "Palestinians" are really simply Arabs who lived in areas in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and along the coast along side of Jews who have always owned land and have lived in the lands of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and along the coast in the Levant. Some people act like Jews entirely abandoned these lands. That simply isn't the case. Yes there have been more Jews in the diaspora than in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and along the coast in the Levant since the Romans. And it's also true that the Jewish communities were small and very poor in the Levant by the dawn of the 20th Century. And it is a mistake to believe that there simply weren't any Jews living in the Levant after that time.

In point of fact, the Jews who remained in the Levant are known as Sephardic Jews. They have some ethnic/cultural/religious differences with Eastern and Centeral European Jews (Ashkenazim).

Arabs and Jews lived peacefully side by side in the Levant under various rulers, the most recent being the Ottoman Turks and the British. The Levant has always been a diverse area culturally and religiously. Muslims didn't kick out the Jews who were left in the Levant when they arrived and converted the Arabs in the area. They simply co-existed for centuries (actually for over 1000 years).

Even during the Crusades, local Jews fought with local Arabs against the Crusaders.

What changed was that Great Britain via the UN Resolution 181 promised the Jews an independent state while promising the Arabs an independent state too. The Jews were given lands they already owned in and around the Galilee, the Tel Aviv coastal area, and the Negev Desert. The Arabs were given the rest. The Jews were happy to get these small slivers of land to build an independent state on lands they already owned. What happened? Well, Jordan annexed the West Bank. Egypt annexed Gaza. Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia joined these countries in declaring war on the newly formed Jewish State.

There was and never has been an independent "Palestinian" State. The Egyptians and Jordanians saw to that when they annexed the lands that the local arab population was supposed to use to create an independent state. As a side note, Jordan was part of the British Mandate of Palestine/Transjordan.

When the 5 armies invaded, the local Arabs were told to flee so that the 5 armies could wipe the lands with Jewish blood and drive the surviving Jews into the sea. To everyone's surprise (even the Jews who were now Israelis) Israel won the war. And they didn't allow all of these local Arabs who fled so that the 5 armies could massacre the Jews back into the newly annexed lands the Jews won as spoils of war that connected the lands they were promised around the Galilee, the coastal area around Tel Aviv, and the Negev.

Egypt in Gaza, Jordan in the West Bank, and Syria in the Golan Heights and Lebanon, all places to where many Arabs fled, didn't allow any of the local Arabs citizenship. They forced the local Arabs to move into refugee camps in Gaza, Jordan, the West Bank, Lebanon, and the Golan Heights. None of these countries would accept any of these local Arabs as citizens or provide any services to them.

The Israelis felt no obligation to provide services to Arabs outside of their new borders and chose to give citizenship and provide services to the local Arabs now left inside their new borders.

But, this thread isn't about the Israeli/Arab conflict.

This is about the mess that we created in Iraq because we wanted the oil and decided that we didn't like Saddam Hussein anymore now that the war between Iran and Iraq was over. During that war, we armed both sides and treated Saddam Hussein like a buddy.

We have done more to destabilize the region than any other country has, including Israel. The Arabs equate the USA with the former colonialism that created the current ridiculous boundaries because of our meddling and treating them like colonies.

All of the countries in the Middle East including Israel have suffered from the heavy handed influence of ignorant foreign powers that came in to interfere with the natural development of nation states. The problem lies with the old European powers, the UN, and the USA, not with Israel.

Wow, it's amazing the propaganda and lies that anti-semites have gathered about the founding of the State of Israel. This isn't a case of the poor Cherokees being driven out of their homeland. Not by a long shot.

Yes, Zionist Jews came to Israel joining an existing Jewish population that numbered 1000 families roughly who had remained in the land living along side their Arab neighbors. That is a fact. And yes, the Jews who were there already weren't the majority. That is a fact. And so what? They still were living there and had claims to the land just like their Arab neighbors.

During the Crusades local Jews fought with local Arabs against the Crusaders. They weren't immigrants. That is a fact.

The local Arab population in the Levant didn't call themselves Palestinians until the 1948 war. That is a fact.

And it's nice that a non-Jew can define what a Jew is since Jews argue amongst ourselves. Judaism is the religion. We Jews are a nation, people, and members of a religion called Judaism. Being a Jew involves having a cultural heritage and even matrilineal descent. We are a people. We haven't always been called "Jews." We've been called "Jews" since we adopted Judaism as our religion. There aren't any Jews in the Torah until well after Joshua. Before that, we were called "Hebrews." That is our cultural heritage. We also have a religious heritage. So, you, a non-Jew can't redefine what it means to be a Jew just because you don't like the implications. Most of us (besides converts) share common genes that bind us physically with one another. That is unlike the members of the religions known as Christianity and Islam. Being a Jew is also being part of a people, a nation, and a member of a religion whether you like it or not. (And for that matter whether I like it or not.)

And we Jews have never given up on Jerusalem or Israel. It's part of our stories as a people. We have always and still call ourselves Am Yisrael (People of Israel). That is a fact. You can find this in our earliest cultural stories and our earliest religious rituals.

And, you really don't understand the Middle East if you don't understand the negative effects of Colonialism by the Europeans and now we Americans. Yes many European Jews emmigrated to Israel because we actually have never given up on that land as our ancestral home. And you can claim that they are also "colonists." That depends on a political philosophy and point of view though. The fact is that the European Jews who joined the few Sephardic Jews who have been living in the Levant since there were Jews were promised a state at the same time the local Arabs were promised a state. It is a fact that there has never been an independent land called "Palestine" ever. UN resolution 181 intended to create the first independent Arab State called Palestine along side an independent Jewish State called Israel. That is a fact.

And it is a fact that the Arabs were allied with Nazi Germany because they wanted to stop European Jews from coming to the Levant. There were Arab leaders who regularly visited Nazi Germany during WWII. That is a fact. Many Arabs thought the Nazis were their salvation from this influx of European Jews. Read into this what you will.

Again, this problem was caused by European and American Colonialism. That is the source. That is a fact.

And, I don't believe that Israel or Israelis are entirely innocent. Both sides have blood on their hands as I've said many times. The problem with many on the left (and I'm a leftie) is that they tend to forget that the Palestinian Arabs have committed and continue to commit horrible atrocities against Israeli Jews too. It takes at least two to create an armed conflict that lasts over 60 years. Israelis and Palestinian Arabs aren't saints.

And now we've hijacked this thread to address your political agenda of slandering Jews and Israelis by rewriting history.

Let's get back to the topic at hand: The removal of the last US combat brigade from Iraq. I won't respond to anything else in this thread but that topic in respect for the OP.

simchaland says

Many Arabs thought the Nazis were their salvation from this influx of European Jews. Read into this what you will.

there were pretty prescient, LOL. If I were "Palestinian" I'd certainly have wished that Hitler's regime had finished the job.

This "let's not bicker and argue over who killed who . . ." schtick is understandable, but doesn't really concern us. The Israeli's problem of national survival will hopefully be Israel's to solve and not ours. I sure as hell wouldn't ask any US serviceman to die for Israel.

Tenouncetrout says

I met a couple from Burma in Malaysia while I was there.
They have UN cards, and are Political Refugees. God bless them they were genuine people, that whole country made me realize what we were fighting for. Will Iraqi’s appreciate us, in 3 or 4 decades from now, as much as those peoples in Indochina islands and countries do today?

What are you talking about? Burma isn't Indochina or even all that close. Why would refugee's from Burma care about the US fighting in Indochina 40 years ago? What people in Indochina islands and countries appreciate the American involvement in Indochina? The majority weren't even born yet. Since when is Indochina an island anyway? Have you been drinking?

Tenouncetrout says

The sick part was, we didn’t do it, to save those people from an oppressive fate, they so ill deserved. We were only there to put the shit back on the Ruskies and Reds. We could have gave a rats ass about those Villagers, as a peoples or a whole.

The core problem with Vietnam was we were trying to save the Vietnamese from themselves. You may think Communism is oppressive, but prior to their revolution the South had one of the highest tenancy % in the entire world.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30171297

summarizes the situation as it was. We finally helped the Saigon regime implement the comprehensive "Land to the Tiller" land reform in 1970-1973, ten years too late perhaps but it did in fact help reduce what residual pro-VC sentiment existed in SVN in the 1970s.

I disagree with you that we didn't care about the Vietnamese themselves. Granted, we cared more about ourselves first, but my understanding is that we did what we could for the people of SVN, especially the 'Yards who got shat on by everyone.

The problem going in was that 40% of the population of SVN rather actively preferred the Hanoi regime over the Diem/Khan/Ky/Thieu regimes -- that was plenty to get a get a rebellion going. Just imagine if the Tea Party twirps had 40% support -- we'd be in coast-to-coast Ruby Ridge, OKC bombing, and Waco situations weekly (assuming Obama had banned the Tea Party like Diem & Thieu banned the non-nationalists in SVN, of course).

We could have won in Vietnam, but it was a tough board position that Kennedy started from in '61. As a quasi-client state of both Russia and China, NVN had immense -- bottomless, really -- resources at its call to meet our escalations head-on. The best strategy would have been to stay the f--- out of their civil war, but the bizarre geography of SVN and total ineptitude of the GVN demanded that we move in to help secure the various outlying regions (especially Hue, Danang, Qui Nhon, Pleiku) from outright VC takeover.

That we did, but the more we moved into the South, the more regulars the NVN deployed South to match us. We needed to interdict this movement, but logistically we just didn't have the resources to both fight in the interior and establish and man a proper DMZ in the north, to and through Laos.

Nobody wants foreign troops rooting through their shit, so the more we deployed, the weaker our strategic messaging became. We looked like the French, and ARVN was run by mostly French-trained officers, so it didn't take much propaganda to convince the average Joe that the VC was fighting for true national independence, the same fight they had thought they won in 1954.

Convincing Vietnamese farmboys to die for the Saigon regime was a non-starter, really. The townspeople were more GVN-oriented, but they were also the comfortable middle class and thus preferred dodging their military duties and letting someone else fight their war for them.

Vietnam was a real f---ed up war. I've read linear feet of histories on it, but I know I don't know anything about it, just some facts and the general flow of events.

Nomograph says

Give him a break. Being wrong is difficult to accept, and denial is actually the first step toward acceptance.

Agreed. Despite nothing actually changing, it will take the Democrats a while to realize that their dear leaders are making the exact same mistakes as the Republicans before them. But you know, anyone who says Obama is making mistakes must be a redneck, bible thumping, white sheet wearing, inbred, truck-driving, racist. If not, why would the news keep showing pictures of all those crazy tea-partiers?

Nomo, you drink the Democrat propoganda koollade, then try to point out when others aren't thinking rationally--all while pulling the self-rightous routine regarding your rational reasoning skills. Your ego is standing squarely in the way of your brain functioning properly.

simchaland says

We Jews are a nation, people, and members of a religion called Judaism.

The gene's of the average Jew shouldn't be part of the discussion, but unfortunately the Israelis (the Arabs do the same thing) try to gain their legitimacy from such nonsensical discussion so...
No one is denying that Jews are part of an international Jewish community. There is some direct Hebrew lineage amongst the Sephardic jews. Do recall that the Arabs are also directly related to the Hebrews. The Arabs and Sephardics are both semites, and most likely have incredibly similar gene pools. The Ashkenazi jews, however, are of a different lineage. They are the "converts" you speak of. Roughly 80% of the world's Jews are Ashkenazi.

simchaland says

We have always and still call ourselves Am Yisrael (People of Israel).

That's a self-serving translation of Yisrael, which is typically considered to refer to the Jewish people in diaspora, rather than in relation to any country. Besides, I think Thunder is on to something. The Lacota have a more reasonable claim to South Dakota than the Israeli's have to Israel.

simchaland says

And we Jews have never given up on Jerusalem or Israel. It’s part of our stories as a people.

Sure, but neither have about a dozen other cultural groups. The original terrorists groups that later became the IDF forced the local Arabs out of their homes at gunpoint, stole their lands, and literally gave their houses, farms, business, and communities away to any Jew willing to move to Israel--all in an attempt to gain a demographic advantage. The arabs who lived there are justifiably pissed off. Just like the Jews have not given up on Jerusalem, neither will the Palestinians.

CBOEtrader says

Agreed. Despite nothing actually changing, it will take the Democrats a while to realize that their dear leaders are making the exact same mistakes as the Republicans before them. But you know, anyone who says Obama is making mistakes must be a redneck, bible thumping, white sheet wearing, inbred, truck-driving, racist. If not, why would the news keep showing pictures of all those crazy tea-partiers?
Nomo, you drink the Democrat propoganda koollade, then try to point out when others aren’t thinking rationally–all while pulling the self-rightous routine regarding your rational reasoning skills. Your ego is standing squarely in the way of your brain functioning properly.

That is utter and complete nonsense. Krugman criticizes Obama in at least every other article. Nomo has criticized Obama many times on this forum. Obama gets criticized from both the left and right--really, who isn't criticizing him???

Tea partiers are in the news precisely because/when they are crazy. Crazy people are always newsworthy. That gets ratings.

tatupu70 says

Nomo has criticized Obama many times on this forum.

I've been reading these threads for years, and have never read Nomo criticizing any democrat. He will quickly jump in to show when a right leaning poster is logically incorrect. He doesn't hold the left leaning tards to the same standard.

The old forum used to allow a user to search through an individual's posts. I once searched through Nomo's posts for the word "AM". Turns out, he used the term "AM talk radio" a few HUNDRED times, in well over 20% of his thousands of posts--every one of them coming after someone criticized a democrat. Only a few weeks ago I read him praise Obama as the most successful President at 1.5 years into his first term in US history. (This in itself is fine, as long as he can support the thesis.) Nomo quickly followed up with a handwaiving "all Obama critics are racist" remark.

Unfortunately, this is the norm for those who support the democrats. Marcus recently started a thread about racism, aimed at the racists in his head, who he labeled the Republican old white people. In well performed Pavlovian behavior, Marcus also accused me of being a bad Republican stereotype when I criticised Obama (anyone who has read more than 3 of my posts knows I hate Republicans/Democrats pretty equally.) Again, this is unfortunately the norm--and is also my current pet peeve with the democrats.

tatupu70 says

Tea partiers are in the news precisely because/when they are crazy. Crazy people are always newsworthy. That gets ratings.

Sure, and the democratic propoganda machine is loving every minute of it. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that at least some of the craziest Teapartiers have been democrats in disguise.

CBOEtrader says

He will quickly jump in to show when a right leaning poster is logically incorrect. He doesn’t hold the left leaning tards to the same standard.

Isn't it obvious ? That's because the left leaning posts are correct, and the right leaning ones aren't.

What, you think that's not possible ? Your insistence that the left and right are equally bad, equally wrong, is what is leading you to an incorrect conclusion here. Logically, you are only correct here if they are equally bad.

Get it ? You have a position too. The cool thing about your position is it makes you right (correct) and EVERYONE else wrong.

marcus says

Get it ? You have a position too.

Of course I have a position.

marcus says

Logically, you are only correct here if they are equally bad.

I do see them both as disgustingly bad, though not equally bad. The group that is in power is the one that is the worst at the moment. Right now, that is the Democrats.

marcus says

That’s because the left leaning posts are correct, and the right leaning ones aren’t.

Is this a joke?

You don't have to agree with me, but the Democrats are bad for the working class, bad for the poor, bad for the indigent. So are the republicans, for only slightly different reasons.

marcus says

The cool thing about your position is it makes you right (correct) and EVERYONE else wrong.

I agree with the people that dislike both parties...which is quickly becoming a larger minority.

Nomograph says

*highly* recommend

Are you advocating marijuana ?

Nomograph says

I also drink alcohol on occasion, and yet I *highly* recommend certain people avoid alcohol entirely. For whatever reason, they just can’t handle it.

Typical...
Ladies, Gentlemen, and sexually confused Miscreants!
I give you the Democrats.

Do what him say, not what him do.

marcus says

Nomograph says

*highly* recommend

Are you advocating marijuana ?

Would it matter if he were? I find many of Nomo's posts interesting & funny, but his position on the use of marijuana doesn't matter.

Unless, of course, he advocates it. I can then claim that 100% of doctors polled advocate the use of marijuana.
(if he doesn't recommend marijuana, he's merely ill-informed...)
:)

Nomo has Chided me on numerous occasions not because of the health ramifications, but for the moral reasons of breaking federal laws for doing so.

Don't you guys follow each other?

marcus says

Forgetting how little connection there is between ideology (or platforms if you prefer) and what politicians actually do, are you going to tell me that you actually have no preference ?

The vast majority of what I find repulsive happens within both parties. As a party, I could never support either. Not even a little bit.

Since I do vote, I will sometimes vote for an individual that seems to break the mold of his party affiliations. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinic are obvious examples--though I disagree with both on certain topics, nor do I live in the proper disctricts to vote for these guys. I try to vote for someone that has a history of voting against most proposal, places a high priority on decreasing the size/scope of government, balancing budgets, decreasing taxes (especially income taxes--which are the root of all evil), and eliminating any infringement on individual liberty. These rare types tend to be libertarians, who call themselves republicans, or perhaps independants, but almost never democrats.

Since most races are a typical R v D, I often will vote for someone who's views I disagree with, IF they have a noticeable % of the vote combined with no actual chance of winning AND they are a third party candidate. In slowly breaking down the two party monopoly I am hoping that little by little, people will stop acting out the tired "don't throw your vote away" cliche.

I will also often vote against the guy in power, especially if his party holds too much power at that time. I voted for Gore and Kerry, then wrote in Ron Paul in the last election. Since I live in a democratic city and generally democratic state, this means I will vote for republicans quite a bit. This next election, I will probably vote republican, because the dems have WAY too much power right now.

I think we agree entirely that our government needs a major overhaul.

What we have now is the worst of all worlds. Two steps away from corporatism aka fascism.

What I want to see here is that everyone has a decent chance to become, and remain, a productive member of society.

I don't care how this comes about but am not a free market fundamentalist so I do not think anarchy will get us there. The eurosocialists, eg. Norway, Canada, and others, seem to have their ecosocial act together, but the central challenge to that is it's easier for a relatively homogenous nation of 5 or 30M to structure itself thusly than a heterogenous nation of 300M+.

America started becoming a centrifugal system -- a banana republic -- in 1980 or so. The current Republicans have greatly benefitted from the ~25M Know Nothings that make up the conservative Religious Right to destructure the US into a higher and higher Gini system consisting of a rentier minority and a screwed middle class and below.

Such critical mistakes were made 2003-2006 that I think we are running on fumes now and lack the political clarity or even bare economic understanding to right this ship. We're gefukt, right out of 1931 or Japan 1991.

Gini in the farm states isn't bad

http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2007/10/us-gini-coefficient-map.html

but we all 200M+ of us can't be corporate farmers with a productive 3000 acres and several million in working capital.

Non-pension gov't spending is $5.5T this year. Divided by $90K/job, that's SIXTY million people directly on the gov't teat, and another NINETY million people or so directly dependent on gov't employee spending. HALF the country is directly or indirectly dependent on gov't spending! Incredible!

Meanwhile the demographic tidal wave is turned 55 this year, and the medical sector is licking its lips at the prospect of getting its future piece of the senior care pie, since we've promised tens of trillions of gov't benefits to the baby boomers and the rest of America is going to have to pay the man, ie them for these goods and services.

Then we've got a defense sector that has tripled in nominal terms from 2000 to now, now notionally directly employing TEN million people ($900B/$90K), a rather healthy chunk of the skilled labor in this country. This is almost Sovietesque in its misallocation of capital and I think is going to really screw us down the road, just like the Soviet example of the 1980s.

Troy says

Very interesting that this index has China and the US ranked equally.

As I understand it, Gini is kinda bogus because it measures relative wealth not absolute wealth. I'd rather be a poor person in the US than a middle class person in China.

And if we were running a balanced budget I wouldn't care what our Gini was. But I think the rising Gini has come at the expense of running these huge deficits, perhaps we're over-incentizing rentierism by undertaxing it, either directly or indirectly.

Regarding Gini index, thanks for alerting me to it's existence.

Read the pros and cons on wikipedia. You can't do the same computation for different countries, because some have non-cash benefits such as health care and free higher education that are significant. Also, for example when immigrants are allowed in to this country ( or come illegally), it raises our coefficient.

Still, interesting.