<ward.hard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 4, 6:35 am, ansermetniac <ansermetniac(AT)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> in 1948 the UN votes on a resolution to create the State of Israel

>You can blame a fair share of the Palestine/Israel problem on the
>British, who promised the land of Palestine to both the Jews and the
>Arabs during World War I, for aid in fighting the Ottoman Empire.
>It's the "Promised (by the Brits) Land" for the Arabs too!

>The Jewish god is claimed in myth as promising Canaan to the Jews,
>but there were already people living there.  The Hebrew god then
>started his people on a course of genocide against the indigenous
>peoples.

>> The Arabs tell the UN to go fuck themselves and pour their armies into
>> the new state from 5 sides. The UN does nothing

>Did the Israelis need help?  Their own terrorists did a pretty good
>job
>of blowing up things like the King David Hotel.

>> In 1950, the UN finally acts , but in a nation where there was no
>> resolution. They send an Army, which was really the US Army, to Korea.
>> Why was it not the Russian Army or the Chinese

>You should be able to answer that yourself.  Russia, China, and North
>Korea were all Communist regimes.  They wouldn't fight their own kind.
>Do you recall any wars between Commie regimes, except when one was
>trying to secede from the other and had a boundary dispute, as with
>Caucasian (not American!) Georgia.

>> Why did they allow the Arabs to piss and defecate on their resolution
>> but used military force where they had no resolution defied.

>> "History is lies agreed upon"

>> Napolean

>There is a legend that NapoleOn prepared a proclamation "declaring a
>Jewish state in Palestine" during the siege of Acre in 1799, but did
>not issue it after Acre did not fall.

>> "Ward Hardman believes and repaets those lies"

>I gave you quotes from Truman's memoirs, quoting may be "repaeting,"
>but it doesn't imply belief in the *truth* of the quote, just in the
>accuracy of the attribution.

>Have you been reading Daniel J. Goldhagen's new book "Worse Than War -
>Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity"?

> "Harry Truman, the thirty-third president of the United States, was
>  a mass murderer.  He twice ordered nuclear bombs dropped on Japanese
>  cities.  The first, a atomic bomb, exploded ove Hiroshima on
>  August 6, 1945, and the second, a nuclear bomb, detonated over
>  Nagasaki on August 9.  Truman knew that each would kill thousands of
>  Japanese civilians who had no direct bearing on any military
>  operation, and who posed no immediate threat to Americans.  In
>  effect, Truman chose to snuff out the lives of approximately
>  300,000 men, women, and children.  ...  It is hard to understand how
>  any right-thinking person could fail to call slaughtering
>  unthreatening Japanese MASS MURDER."

>   [I find his distinction between "atomic" and "nuclear" bombs odd.
>    The first bomb was an enriched uranium device and the second a
>    plutonium bomb.  The usual distinction is between "nuclear" and
>    "thermonuclear" (hydrogen) bombs.]

> "For many people, especially Americans, it just *feels* wrong, and
>  offensive, to speak of Truman in the same breath as Hitler, Joseph
>  Stalin, Mao Zhedong, and Pol Pot. Why?  The latter four killers were
>  certifiable monsters. ... When one looks at Truman, one sees an
>  otherwise conventional man who committed monstrous deeds."

>   [Truman may have been unnerved by the heavy "kamikaze" losses
>    incurred by US Navy vessels at Okinawa, and assumed that all
>    Japanese would resist as fanatically.]

> "The difficulty of keeping distinct the three tasks of definition,
>  explanation, and moral evaluation muddles considerations of mass
>  murder. ... We can, as a matter of fact, call Truman's annihilation
>  of Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder and the man a mass murderer,
>  putting Truman and his deeds in the same broad categories of
>  Hitler and the Holocaust, Stalin and the gulag, Pol Pot, Mao,
>  Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic and their victims, without
>  giving the same explanation for Truman's actions as we do for
>theirs,
>  and without judging them morally as being equivalent."

>The policy of scrupulous avoidance of injury to innocent noncombatants
>is impractical, because it gives rise to the use of "hostage shields."
>An example of this is the Al Qaeda loading a woman and a child into an
>SUV in which terrorist leaders will be ferried around.  To my mind,
>bombing or strafing the SUV and collaterally killing the hostages can
>be justified by blaming their deaths on the hostage takers.  Once this
>policy becomes known, hostage taking should come to an end.  I have
>mentioned this in discussions of remotely controlled unmanned
>aircraft.

>I haven't gotten very far into Goldhagen's book (597 pages get you to
>the Notes!).  He also discusses "eliminationism," which may take in
>Israel's confiscatory "settlements" in West Bank Palestinian areas.
>It will be interesting to see whether he can handle that issue even-
>handedly.

>Anyone interested in all the facets of "The Decision to Use the Atomic
>Bomb" can get an excellent exposition of the facts and issues in Gar
>Alperovitz's 1995 book by that title (Vintage Books).  (668 pages get
>you to the Appendix.   ;-)

>--Ward Hardman

>  "The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence,
>   just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
>                  - H.L. Mencken