Lawry, I'm sorry. When you referred to several European countries and their history, I assumed you meant misdeeds in the distant past.
Apparently, you meant the establishment of Israel. In similar fashion, you apparently didn't really mean looking back in history - but what is happening now. Of course Palestinians know about Israel. From early school time, the need to drive the Israelis into the sea is constantly drummed into them. As you know, their geography doesn't show Israel - simply Palestine down to the sea. As we know, the Arabs have tried on several occasions to make reality fit their map. In my ignorance, I once thought that Israel would be a tremendous benefit to the Palestinians with its great resource of European educated and trained people - but, sadly, that hasn't come to pass as I thought it might - though the 4-5 million Arabs in Israel no doubt do better than they could in Palestine. You really must stop the ad hominem stuff. You called me ignorant over the political bias of the Iraq Civilian Casualties, then when I showed you that you were wrong (including the acceptance of bias by the team leader) you didn't admit you were wrong - you hit at me. Also, I gave you an easy way to test the John Hopkins hypothesis about casualties. Unfortunately it cast serious doubt on their figures so you refused to address it. Thus, in this bit, you said: " I understand that in your world things like "right, or acceptable, or intelligent" don't count for much . . . . " Where on earth did you get that impression - it's completely untrue and you know it. Stay with the subject, which isn't me. As when you said: " You live in a world, I guess you are saying, where the sole measure of a thing is if it is effective; what confuses me then is how out of sync with reality your judgments are about the Middle East and Iraq. You are the one who keeps telling us how things are getting better, month after month." Try to remember that I am not the subject. It's difficult in Iraq, but things are getting better. If we can get the next election completed on time. If the army and police can achieve viability. If the utilities and other services can be sustained. If the situation doesn't descend into civil war - there is a chance that Iraq will emerge into the 20th century as a free and advanced nation. Lots of if's - but the situation looks, if hardly rosy, at least hopeful. But then, you agree with that. According to the JH study which you wholly accept without apparent reservation, the civilian death rate was 180 a day. Now, the weekly civilian death rate is usually no-where near 180 a week, despite the best efforts of the terrorists. So, we agree that things are getting better. Now let's get back to your discussion of - oops! Me! You said: "And yet even your friends in the administration are now admitting that things have been getting far worse." As far as I know, I have no friends in the administration. In fact, my ideas are far more dangerous to the administration than the simplistic "ant-Bush" nonsense that otherwise sensible people seem to expound. Bush will be gone in 3 years or so. In the meantime, we have a project for world peace to complete. In fact, if it's successful it will send a message to corrupt, ineffective, and often very dangerous, heads-of-state, across the world. Yet, most Democrats are still fighting the political war rather than the real one. If Karl Rove is a genius (as everyone suggests) - someone who correctly advises Bush on many subjects - it would be crazy to oust him. Yet, the hounds are baying . . . ! Perhaps his ouster would be good for the Democrats, but not very good for the country. Actually, I suppose the mid-terms loom large in professional Democrat eyes - a chance to get some of the bribes and other perks now going to Republicans. So the tempo of "anti-Bushism" will increase for purely self-serving purposes. I'm glad I'm apolitical. Oh, with regard to my assessing things. Have a look at the Iraq Body Count - and check out where the civilian casualties occur. You'll find they are in and around Baghdad - except for a flurry in Mosul. Basra recently had a death, but overwhelmingly the rest of Iraq is almost casualty free. (On occasion, a kind of "London bombing" - that is by silly but dangerous idiots - kills a woman or child - but mostly Iraq is at peace.) Don't accept propaganda material force-fed out of the Internet. A possibility today will become a probability in a few days and a certainty next week though absent anything factual. Remember: " But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results." Harry ******************************* Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ******************************* > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence deBivort > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Cordell, Arthur: ECOM'; > [email protected] > Cc: 'Keith Hudson' > Subject: RE: [Futurework] London Undercover Police were > Trained in Israel (wasLondon Assassins were Trained in Israel) > > The average Palestinian is intimately knowledgeable about the > seizure of > their land by the Israelis, and they have not forgotten. As are the > Iraqis > of what we are doing to them currently. I don't think the Iraqis are > 'going > back in history' as I think you are implying, if I understood your > comment > correctly. > > Harry, I understand that in your world things like "right, or > acceptable, or > intelligent" don't count for much, but in my world they do, as does > 'effectiveness.' You live in a world, I guess you are saying, where > the sole > measure of a thing is if it is effective; what confuses me then is how > out > of sync with reality your judgments are about the Middle East and > Iraq. You > are the one who keeps telling us how things are getting better, > month after > month. And yet even your friends in the administration are now > admitting > that things have been getting far worse. So if you criterion for > assessing > things is effectiveness, shouldn't you be evaluating things on that > basis > with a clear and open minded understanding of what is actually > going on? > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
