>For Paul, this would be a ridiculous discussion if we weren't literally > >staring into the > >face of WWIII. Iran aligning with Russia, possibly China; Israel with
AA: Okay, careful reader. I didn't say it was the start of it. I said we're staring into the face of it and our politicians are pushing for it.
>This actually maybe a war that is manufactured by the press.
AA: Yeah, all those pictures of that rubble are an art director's dream.
>How is this conflagration any different than all the others? Israel's > been in Beirut for 28 years. Big deal. They are protecting themselves.
Or they're the aggressor, depending on perspective. See the problem?
> Now I can hear you saying "What, you are more interested in a bike race > than a 'war'?!?" Basically, yeah, I am. I'm sick of hearing about the > Middle East. It IS ridiculous and I DON'T care about it.
If you sent 26 messages a day on this race, I wouldn't even notice let alone care. What part of delete don't people understand?
The point is... I wouldn't send 26 posts on a bike race to Lit-Ideas.
> I'm more concerned with the war at home. It's much more important to me. Just trying to
exist is hard enough, let alone trying to deal with all these religious maniacs
> around the world -- Bush included.
>
AA:I don't know what war you're referring to, but in issues we've talked
about, you're solidly on the side of pharma and the rest of it.
> But... The Palestinians have done nothing but scratch and claw and throw > stones for 50 years instead of actually trying to DO something to further > their position in the world. They are monolithically tunnel-visioned. > What do you expect them to do?
Israel is financed by the U.S. They have the military, etc. The Palestinians have nothing.
WHY NOT?
If Iran subsidizes them then gosh, they're looking for war.
If they're on their own, then they're monolithic rock throwers. Which one is it?
On the world stage, there is almost NOTHING good > about it happening -- unless of course you count the US's strategic > alliance with them to "maintain" a position in the M.E. And, well, that's > only good for US miliatary strategists.
AA: Maybe. Iraq didn't turn didn't out so well, did it?
> But, both sides are obviously to blame. The theocracies are to blame for > being vicious terrorists who have no value in life and are immersed in a > stone-age mentality out of which nothing [apparently] can drag them.
It was peaceful until ... see other posts.
I agree. Another perhaps incendiary thing I wrote but didn't send was this:
On top of which we invaded a country and expected to be loved. Any stone age mentality in that you
think? For that matter, any mentality at all?
I've got a sore neck from this segue. To which situation does this refer?
No, there is a middle way, but people have to get down from their high horses and stop convincing themselves that military solutions are the only solutions.
> Nah... unlike some third persons, I read everything. Then at least I know > what the hell I'm talking about when I talk about it. > Sniping at a third person invalidates any reading. It also invalidates the writing and the writer. That is not civilization at its finest.
Pot... Kettle.
> Of if you only could resist
AA:You don't say resist what. Okay, resist replying to your posts. If you insist.
I don't insist you resist. I insist that you cannot desist.
p
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
