ABC News Blotter: Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

[twa]

Far as the Indians ,they control much more land than Israel could dream of.

Not that this is relevant to anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

The collective geographical area of all reservations is 55.7 million acres (225,410 km²), representing 2.3% of the area of the United States (2,379,400,204 acres; 9,629,091 km²).

There are 12 Indian reservations that are larger than the state of Rhode Island (776,960 acres; 3,144 km²) and nine reservations larger than Delaware (1,316,480 acres; 5,327 km²). Reservations are unevenly distributed throughout the country with some states having none.

[Larry]

The Native Americans, not Indians, did not own land. They lived amongst the land and did not own it. Israel is owned by the Jewish people and you will have to get used to it.

Ah, I understand.

When land is owned 2,000 years ago, then that land must, obviously, belong to someone who's sole relationship to the millenia-past owner is that the new owner is of a descendant of the "original" owner's religion.

Never mind those pesky folks who owned it 100 years ago. (Unless they're of the 2000-year-old owners religion.) Who cares what some guy 100 years ago owned? What matters is the religion of the owners 2000 years ago.

And I understand. The Indians didn't file a deed to the land in the county office, whereas Paleface (that's Hollywood Injun talk) did file the paperwork (although without that pesky "price paid" blank on the form, or that pesky "previous owner's signature") so it's his.

(Just out of curiosity, what's your explanation for why The Jew's Title In Perpetuity to that land didn't lapse when Pharaoh gave the land to himself? After all, I bet Pharaoh did write his deed down, so doesn't that mean that it would be OK if the UN just took a vote and decided that they're giving that land to anybody who shows up and wants it, as long as he's (whatever religion Pharaoh was), and too bad if there's somebody else living there right now?)

Yep. Obviously. Jerusalem, 2,000 years ago, was majority Jewish, and therefore, any person who's currently Jewish is entitled to own that land. 100-year-old claims of ownership don't count.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Don't worry, I'll be fine. I'm just glad to see that you're fighting the good fight on an NFL team's message board. Kudos sir! Wage peace!

It ain't the only place that I fight the good fight. I just like other Redskins fans, even though we disagree sometimes.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The Native Americans, not Indians, did not own land. They lived amongst the land and did not own it. Israel is owned by the Jewish people and you will have to get used to it.

How do you own the land might I ask? What because you have a piece of paper that says you do, or you can occupy certain real estate? Is this your idea of ownership of the land? Frankly, it seems a bit short sighted, because all you're really doing is at best paying someone else to rent the land while you're alive.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Far as the Indians ,they control much more land than Israel could dream of.

Yep, some of the best barren wasteland in the country! Gee what are they all complaining about.

[twa]

Yep, some of the best barren wasteland in the country! Gee what are they all complaining about.

Ain't no barren wasteland in the Piney Woods

Ever see Israel before they worked on it?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ah, I understand.

When land is owned 2,000 years ago, then that land must, obviously, belong to someone who's sole relationship to the millenia-past owner is that the new owner is of a descendant of the "original" owner's religion.

...

Yep. Obviously. Jerusalem, 2,000 years ago, was majority Jewish, and therefore, any person who's currently Jewish is entitled to own that land. 100-year-old claims of ownership don't count.

Nah, it should be given back to the Italians, after all Rome conquered Israel and destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D.

I'm still confused with this whole land ownership thing though, seems a bit arbitrary to me, and it seems like it really does benefit those who have the power and make the rules. Interesting how that works ain't it?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ain't no barren wasteland in the Piney Woods

Ever see Israel before they worked on it?

Well it certainly ain't the best land, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, aren't exactly known as the land of milk and honey, but then this is off topic.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/ResMAP.HTM

[twa]

Well it certainly ain't the best land, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, aren't exactly known as the land of milk and honey, but then this is off topic.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/ResMAP.HTM

You ever been there?

I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,but there's some dam fine country out there.imo

[AsburySkinsFan]

You ever been there?

I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,but there's some dam fine country out there.imo

I'm sure there is, but it's not on the reservations. The government gave the native Americans the worst portions of land and saved the rest for the paying customers. IMO not a bright shining time in our nation's past.

[PeterMP]

I'm sure there is, but it's not on the reservations. The government gave the native Americans the worst portions of land and saved the rest for the paying customers. IMO not a bright shining time in our nation's past.

Look, I don't think anybody will argue that they are proud of what was done, and real efforts have been made to correct it, and there have been real attempts made to fix it. Just as one example, there are numerous scholarships for Native Americans:

http://www.phx.devry.edu/financial_info/native_american_scholarships.asp

[AsburySkinsFan]

Look, I don't think anybody will argue that they are proud of what was done, and real efforts have been made to correct it, and there have been real attempts made to fix it. Just as one example, there are numerous scholarships for Native Americans:

http://www.phx.devry.edu/financial_info/native_american_scholarships.asp

This really is beside the point, because the whole reason that I brought this up was to illustrate that many in the US would be seriously outraged if the UN decided to take the stretch of land from South Carolina through Florida in order to create a region of land whereby the Native Americans could have for themselves independent states for each tribal nation. My guess is that many Americans would be outraged and continually struggle against this foreign imposed state. Yet for some reason we in the West are completely surprised when only a generation later the people in the Middle East are still P.O'd.

[Sarge]

Oh, BTW, did I say ABC should lose it's broadcasting license for this, and that the person that leaked it should be shot?

[Ax]

I'm sure there is, but it's not on the reservations. The government gave the native Americans the worst portions of land and saved the rest for the paying customers. IMO not a bright shining time in our nation's past.

Question: In the Bible, wasn't the saying "To the victor go the spoils" the way things were? Including, besides the land, the taking of women and children to do with what they chose? (In the cases where they weren't all ordered to be killed along with the men, of course)

Just asking.

As far as the original topic? This has been, and will continue to be, the way things are. (Covert Operations) We do it. They do it. Everybody does it.

There will be a war with Iran if they continue to pursue nukes, and Middle Eastern domination. Everybody else in the world wants us to stop them. They just won't say so publicly. They want to be able to criticize us on camera, while praying we succeed in the privacy of their fear.

If my image is to be burned into the concrete by a nuke, I don't want it to be a shadow of me with my thumb up my ass. :2cents:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Question: In the Bible, wasn't the saying "To the victor go the spoils" the way things were? Including, besides the land, the taking of women and children to do with what they chose? (In the cases where they weren't all ordered to be killed along with the men, of course)

When I mentioned the Progressive Revelation of God this was part of it. Many theologians understand the way God worked in the Old Testament, in the same way that a parent works with a child who does not yet fully understand the mind of the parent. One of the ways that this is argued is that the Law allows for divorce, but as Jesus said this allowance was made because the heart of the people were hard.

If my image is to be burned into the concrete by a nuke, I don't want it to be a shadow of me with my thumb up my ass. :2cents:

I pray that my image will be a shadow of me working and praying for peace.

[Burgold]

Coming to this thread very late. I am very displeased with ABC for releasing this. Any covert action authorized by the U.S. against another nation needs to be kept covert. It is not our need to know and it is certainly not in Iran's best interest to know. The importance of disseminating information is very high, but there are lines that should not be crossed.

Some producers and reporters need to face a judge for this and be asked to reveal their sources. This is very bad in my opinion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Coming to this thread very late. I am very displeased with ABC for releasing this. Any covert action authorized by the U.S. against another nation needs to be kept covert. It is not our need to know and it is certainly not in Iran's best interest to know. The importance of disseminating information is very high, but there are lines that should not be crossed.

Some producers and reporters need to face a judge for this and be asked to reveal their sources. This is very bad in my opinion.

My feelings are mixed, 1) I understand the expressed need for secrecy, but 2) IMO people also have the obligagtion to report unlawful actions and orders that are given by their superiors, both in civilian life and in the military. Combine that with the repeated failure and dishonesty of this administration and I don't think that the choice is as clear as you would like it to be. After all would you suggest that secret the President should be allowed to act with impunity through the CIA? For me it comes down to a "whistleblower" issue, because its not as if anyone in the adminstration was going to take any action over their concerns.

[PeterMP]

This really is beside the point, because the whole reason that I brought this up was to illustrate that many in the US would be seriously outraged if the UN decided to take the stretch of land from South Carolina through Florida in order to create a region of land whereby the Native Americans could have for themselves independent states for each tribal nation. My guess is that many Americans would be outraged and continually struggle against this foreign imposed state. Yet for some reason we in the West are completely surprised when only a generation later the people in the Middle East are still P.O'd.

The fact of the matter is the US goverment has done just that. Land (I guess not the specific land you are talking about) has been given back to the Native Americans through out the years for them to self govern. Try reading about the "Indian New Deal" and nobody is protesting much less attacking the Indian reservations.

And actually, it is the point. Many people have been wronged over the centuries, and you can't fix one persons or groups problems w/o sometimes inflicting issues on another group. You are the one that wants to make the world a better place. Israel was an attempt to do that.

The Jews throughout history had been persecuted. To "make up" for that, they were given a country, and it wasn't really like they were given it. Jews themselves started returning to the region pre-WWII due to persecution in Europe, but really independently of any western authority (the British in fact tried to prevent it). Try reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_%28mandate%29#The_Holocaust_and_Jewish_immigration

The real question after WWII was how to divide the land. The decision was made to take the Jews that were there and displaced European Jews (that had been wrong and lost property due to the actions of Hitler) and make a Jewish state in the ME, but it is important point there were already Jews living in the region. It isn't like WE are going to retransplant this whole ethnic group and give them a country in a region they had not been living in for thousands of years. The worl Palestanian once referred to Jews and Arabs living in the region. More Arab Palestanians were displaced as the result of wars started by the ARABS.

As a result of the actions and the fact that the Arab Palestanians have been wronged and to try to make up for it, we have been trying to make up for it just like we have tried to make up for what was done to the Native Americans. Until recently, we have sent millions of dollars of aid directly to the Palestanian Authority, and even w/ that being cut off we are still sending large amounts of aid through other means:

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-04/2006-04-07-voa72.cfm?CFID=76897798&CFTOKEN=21803028

Look, essentially even good people do the wrong thing sometimes. There are very bad people that do very many bad things. In an effort to try and make up for that and do a good thing in the complex world, we do something that makes a certain situation worse, but we also try to make up for it. In general, when somebody does something wrong there is no real way the grievance can be made up for and when somebody like Hitler carries out large scale injustices there is no way those injustices can even start to be made up for w/o inflicting some pain on some other people In this case, it was the Arab Palestanians, and we've tried to make up for their pain by giving them money.

How do you stop this cycle? You identify people that are going to create mass injustices and stop them before they get a chance. That normally requires military action though.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Look, essentially even good people do the wrong thing sometimes. There are very bad people that do very many bad things. In an effort to try and make up for that and do a good thing in the complex world, we do something that makes a certain situation worse, but we also try to make up for it. In general, when somebody does something wrong there is no real way the grievance can be made up for and when somebody like Hitler carries out large scale injustices there is no way those injustices can even start to be made up for w/o inflicting some pain on some other people In this case, it was the Arab Palestanians, and we've tried to make up for their pain by giving them money.

Ok, I can agree with this, but is all too often presented as if the Palestinians have no reason to be upset about being displaced by the UN for the formation of the state of Israel. This was made evident in this thread when someone claimed that I was blaming Israel, that approach simply tries to ignore this displacement, and the fact that Israel is often allowed to act with impunity and many times support from Western nations (read U.S.).

How do you stop this cycle? You identify people that are going to create mass injustices and stop them before they get a chance. That normally requires military action though.

You'll understand if I disagree with your conclusion of how we should normally be stopping those people.

[Burgold]

My feelings are mixed, 1) I understand the expressed need for secrecy, but 2) IMO people also have the obligagtion to report unlawful actions and orders that are given by their superiors, both in civilian life and in the military. Combine that with the repeated failure and dishonesty of this administration and I don't think that the choice is as clear as you would like it to be. After all would you suggest that secret the President should be allowed to act with impunity through the CIA? For me it comes down to a "whistleblower" issue, because its not as if anyone in the adminstration was going to take any action over their concerns.

I with you on the disonnace for the need to trust and the want to trust. In this case, I think we need to trust our government and things need to go on below our radar as far as hashing out if this is the right course of action. I don't think that a lot of good can come from outing this operation in terms of World opinion, Iranian action or inaction, or our own response. Should it be wrestled with internally. Yes. I have qualms with this being brought to the public by the media as just an informational piece. Regardless of my opinion of the President or DOD or CIA policy, I think it's a dangerous path to go.

Edit: I do think it's essential that we know the motivations for doing somethign and any chicanery or wrongdoing our government is engaged on. Like everything these days, it's a high wire act. It is still important that we trust our government in some areas, even though recent bad experience is screaming in our ears.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I with you on the disonnace for the need to trust and the want to trust. In this case, I think we need to trust our government and things need to go on below our radar as far as hashing out if this is the right course of action. I don't think that a lot of good can come from outing this operation in terms of World opinion, Iranian action or inaction, or our own response. Should it be wrestled with internally. Yes. I have qualms with this being brought to the public by the media as just an informational piece. Regardless of my opinion of the President or DOD or CIA policy, I think it's a dangerous path to go.

I agree I too think that the whole thing is dangerous, but I tend to advocate for transperancy in our government and its actions, and not obscurity.

[PeterMP]

You'll understand if I disagree with your conclusion of how we should normally be stopping those people.

Okay, then how would have prevented Hitler?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Okay, then how would have prevented Hitler?

By not creating him in the first place. It was from the Treaty of Versailles that crippled the German people and gave birth to the atmosphere where Hitler and his cronies could assume power. If not for the desperate situation that was created in Germany post WWI, Hitler would have been just an angry racist, but instead he was given an ear by a desperate people seeking someone to blame, and they found someone; the Jews. This is why we should act justly even with our enemies.

However, realizing that hindsight is 20/20, and given the rise of Hitler, I also understand that there are times when the imperfect may need to be done, thus I would have probably done the same thing as the pacifist Dietrich Bonhoeffer as he reluctantly participated in the assassination attempt on Hitler. He understood it to be a failure to do so, but still never advocated all out war. My own position is one where I affirm a police force that seeks to value all life even the lives of the perpetrators, and that in certain extreme circumstances leathal force may be authorized, but only after serious debate and consternation, and in the end realizing that the use of such leathal force is in the end a failure on behalf of all parties.

The problem is that today, military force is all too readily accepted as a viable alternative.

[Air Force Cane]

Pacifists believe themselves to be moral people.

But all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

That is the definition of the left today- stand around and complain while better men go out and battle for what is good and decent in the world.

Who is going to defend the United States from Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad? Hippies like Asbury?!!

Who is TODAY protecting your children from being blown up in schools- something that happens in other parts of the world? Think hard about that..

[Burgold]

ASF,

I agree with you ASF that pacifists are moral people. The choice to become a pacifist is by definition a moral decision and actually not an easy one.

In this thread, I think the media was wrong and that we need to trust our leaders, even though trust is a difficult commodity.The choice between the types of action taken: reason, economic, peer-associative, military, etc. is a very complex equation. All of them are needed at some point. We just hope and pray that there is an equally good combination of wisdom and sense to choose which to use when.