"Hobbit" <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:c4719r$hh$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Yeah MkIII is right, apart from the Native American Indians, who were,
and
> still are, treated really badly, the rest of you are all immigrants
> (including us Brits) so your arguement is full of holes. They're just
trying
> to earn a living like you. A polite "No thank you" and then blocking the
> caller ID is far better than just hanging up.
> Flame away boyos. Show me what you've got.
>
My impression is that the "Native American Indians" were also immigrants,
and that they came over from Asia a very long time ago. They were here
before we were though. In some ways it has similarity to what we now
see in Israel/Palestine The Israelites consider the whole thing to be
Israel,
and that the Palestinians will be lucky to get their own state (no
religious
or
ethnic group has their own state in the US, England, France, or any other
country that comes immediately to mind. Part of the reason for the wall is
to
set a border for Palestine. Palestine has little interest in becoming a
"state"
of Israel, because there is no such thing as Israel. It is all still
Palestine, and
that the Jews should go back to Germany, or where-ever they came from
(of course the Jews have been persecuted in that part of the world for
1000s
of years).
When the United States was being created, imperialism was the order of
the day. France, Spain, ****tugal, Italy, actually, just about everybody
was
seeking out lands to add to their empires. AFAIK, even the so-called
"Native American Indians" often went to war against each other, and were
often pretty brutal about it.
Things are a little different now. Sure we took over Iraq, but we really
want
to give it back as soon as possible (a major step in that direction is
supposed
to happen this June). Some say that it is just so we can make profits from
Iraq, but I was always taught that profits come from the money that is
left
over after your expenses are taken out. AFAIK we have a long way to go
before we even hit a break-even point. Likely we, as a nation, will never
see
a penny of profit after the billions we have sunk into this "invasion".
The
gains
are mostly political, and it's likely that they will wind up with another
dictator
before long, because that is all they have known for thousands of years.
The same holds true for Afghanistan.
I'm in the camp that says "yes the world is a slightly better place
without
Sadam",
but I still missed what it was that made us think we had the "right" to
invade
either of those countries. With, or without, the United Nations.
David
|
