Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ben Wa who wrote (8076)	11/6/2001 7:17:59 AM
From: Andy Thomas	Respond to of 23908

--(germany) relentlessly bombed England -- the 1940 battle of britain was nothing compared to the air war over germany which came later (mostly 1943-45). in 1940 the luftwaffe was winning by bombing british airfields. then churchill attacked berlin and hitler had goering switch from airfields to cities as targets. that was when the battle was won for the british. prior to the change in targets (airfields to cities) the luftwaffe was about to break the back of the r.a.f. in southern england; when the city campaign took effect the r.a.f. was able to rebuild its bases. in any event the v2s of 1944 were much more terrifying and destructive than the bombs of 1940. the v1s were more of a novelty... they could be shot down by fighters and the 'buzz' gave civilians a warning. the v2 on the other hand could not be shot down and would just drop right in without warning, and had a 2000 pound payload. a b-17 usually carried about 20, 1000 pound bombs (that's why the b-52 is so impressive with a 70,000 pound payload). the 1944 cross-channel invasion was a good thing for the allies. if they had been a year later britain would have been hit hard by v2s in the meantime. but as for bombing in ww2; nothing compares to the allied campaigns over germany and japan. some of those raids were deadly. i can't believe they're going to do it again. i don't in any event see the taliban taking over europe; not against all of those other countries; russia; turkey; israel; u.s./u.k. (those two always do the same thing) for one thing i don't see shiite and sunni uniting any time soon. how many zoarastrians are currently in iran? one guy calling into art bell was thinking they should spray afghanistan with lsd... andy

To: Ben Wa who wrote (8076)	11/6/2001 3:40:04 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

LOL! The Jewish World Review - now there's a good source of rational thought. Tom

To: Ben Wa who wrote (8076)	11/6/2001 3:58:41 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

By late 2002, after Ariel Sharon had invaded most of Palestine, relentlessly bombed Lebanon and declared war on Iraq, the vexing question naturally arose: What's better, to fight back or to sit down and study the root causes of Israel's behavior? Some impetuous students simply rushed off campus to defend their homelands. But their professors knew that many semester hours of causal analysis lay ahead, especially since several very promising root-cause seminars in Poland and Belgium had been interrupted by Panzer divisions rolling through on their way to Beirut. The root-causists agreed that Israel had been badly misunderstood and that Palestine and Lebanon had brought the terror of war upon themselves. Some pointed to misguided policies -- not handing over the West Bank and South Lebanon to Sharon quickly enough, for example. Others thought the deepest roots of the root causes were 3000 years ago. That was when the Jews were treated discourteously, thus setting he stage for a perfectly understandable "religious war" between the Jews and majority Muslim nations 3 millennia later. One problem with the growing sympathy for Sharon was the unsettling news that the Israelis were herding the Palestinians into refugee camps. But the Episcopal bishops of the United States were able to put this in perspective. In a soothing formal statement titled "Wage Reconciliation, Not War," they said that while this is surely not a good thing, it is also true that these people are all genetically disposed to become terrorists. As if that weren't bad enough, the Allies had to confront the ticklish question of whether to suspend the bombing of Israel during Passover. The Zionists, in fact, had already killed several million people during previous Passovers, but they were known to be very much opposed to being shot at themselves during this culturally important period. "What's next? Bombing during Lent?" asked a New York Times editorial. It appeared under the headline "Let's Bomb, but Sensitively." Several papers ran daily photographs of dead Israeli children, helpfully provided by Tel Aviv. As a result, some columnists pronounced themselves shocked into second thoughts. Nobody had told them that children sometimes die in war. They had been led to believe that Allied bombs, though dropped from 30,000 feet, would fall only upon the heads of Zionist troops. Another problem was that Jewish saboteurs were known to be crawling all over America, but the FBI was reluctant to arrest any lest it be accused of anti-Semitism. Besides, if you start arresting Jewish-Americans, Jewish speakers all around the world and all students who have ever studied Judaism or visited Israel will hate Americans forever. National Public Radio weighed in with a 19-part series reporting widespread bias against Jewish-Americans. The series said Americans of Jewish descent had been targets of 100,000 hate crimes -- two had been shot at, three had suffered punches in the nose, one had been slapped with a bagel, and 99,994 had received hurtful sidelong glances or insincere hellos from neighbors. Somehow, however, America and Britain won the war and established the peace, probably because they ignored all the amazing nonsense around them and just fought the good fight. But then some people always prefer standing around with scented candles instead of attacking the darkness.