Here's another thing on my list of, "why do we think the way we do and eat the B.S. we're fed."

Valid military targets. No, I'm not talking about the fact that we should consider Iraq a success when we bomb 55 hospitals, 85 schools, 42 kindergartens, 4 cemetaries, and other such vital military objectives.</sarc>

I'm talking the "leaders". The brass. The politicians. After all, it's these mental hospital esapees that are causing most of the world's problems.

Think about it--back before World War 1, when there were battle formations, et al--soldiers aimed at other soldiers--not the officeres leading them. Personally, I would have aimed for the officers. Would have solved the conficlt a whole lot quicker.

Same in World War 1 when the Brits and the Germans on Christmas eve in No-man's land, shared some cigarettes and sang christmas carols with each other. And when the brass protested, handed out punishments for doing so, the soldiers didn't rise up against them. Now granted--different time and mindset and all, but it seems to me that the problems was the warmongering leaders, not the guys in the other trenches. Further, looking at how innately wrong the reasons for that conflict were, my personal opinion is that there should have been more armed uprisings than the Bolshevik revolution.

Even to this day we're hamstrung by assassinations against government officials in other countries, and we even give these same leaders diplomatic immunity to flaunt our laws. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it seems as though all the leaders are looking out for each other to the detriment of us.

People think I'm nuts for wishing that Bush would have had the balls to meet Hussein for a duel. Now thing about this for a minute. If that would have happened, we would have had a few dead people on either--or both sides that quite frankly, have done their share of screwing things up for the rest of us--or you could have had how many soldiers on either side--plus how many civilians dead? Seems to me that even if we came out of it worse for wear--Bush, Cheny, et al is a fair price we should have paid as opposed to how many? Over 3000 US troops. And personally, i think, Saint was a much cooler person and deserved less to die than anyone in our--or the Iraqi government.

Now, don't get me wrong--I fully understand that the troops (well, most of them) signed on with the expectation that they would be dying for a cause they considered bigger than they are--and it get my highest respect for doing that. But if they're willing to die for it--why isn't Bush? Why wasn't Hussein? Why wasn't Bin Laden?

Personally, people who have a dream they believe in so much that they're willing have others die for lose all respect in my book, especially if they'll use others as gristle for the machine and not themselves. It seems to me that every so-called leader does this.

Any other people's thoughts on this?


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Why doesn't the CEO of Walmart head to a store and stock some shelves?

Why doesn't the football coach suite up and play?

Same reason the Pres doesn't pick up a M4 and head to Baghdad. That ultimately isn't their role.

Before WWI there are plenty of accounts where sharpshooters and snipers aimed to remove leadership on the battle field. Still goes on today.

Wasn't there an attempted assignation of G-dubs dad back in the day that was supported from Saddam's regime?

Essentially, there needs to be some sort of structure to control it all. The source for this need, I don't know. But there is a rare example in human life where there isn't some sort of leadership structure.

I do believe there is some sort of unspoken agreement where world leaders don't attack each other.

O noes!

The fighting forces are very hindered and very limited in what they can and cant attack.

me personally, and coming from a military background, i think that the whole geneva convention-kinder gentler machine gun man BS needs to be thrown out.

a war doesn't kill anyone who isn't a soldier (for the most part) in today's world. i think that's the problem. soldiers are supposed to realize that they may face their death on the job. if soldiers could kill civilians, loot, and plunder, it would affect the people that they put in power, ultimately; their fear of being killed will snap them in line and end the war eventually.

look to the roman legions for an example. when they took over the world; the soldiers killed civilians, looted, and in relatively short time spans, the conquered people accepted roman rule as opposed to revolution.

but why? sure, pax romana followed the legions and centurions wherever they went. but i think that because everyday people had to worry about being the target of military attack they would eventually depose a government that was getting them killed.

just a morbid feeling.

It's not so much the populace of places I mean--after all, the majority of the casualties of WWII were civilian.

I mean the government itself.

Maybe I'd be unfit as a leader (not that I'd want the job), but it just occurs to me that the easiest way to stop a war from breaking out is to prevent a war from happening in the first place. Further, when one is started to have it over as quickly as possible. Now, would any leader be so anxious to send their own people to kill some other leader's people and have them die if they themselves were a target? I'd hope not.

As for whether or not there was an assasination attempt, i'm not sure. I'm almost amazed that there wasn't more attempts. After all, (and i mean this only in the theoretical), if it was easy for 9-11 and Oklahoma city--amongst other acts of terrorism--why couldn't some more targets be put up as going after the leader's and their own?

Smokey: you hit the nail on the head right there. Imagine, for a moment, if there wasn't that "unspoken agreement". Obviously, the law of unintended consequences would drasticly change "civilization" as it is today, but if we consider it more towards what we could extrapolate--how would that change what wars were fought? If we go back to WWII--where it was really the first war in which there was easy access to the interior of a large country (by airplanes), we have to wonder why certain capitals weren't razed. Would Korea have even happened? Vietnam? Falklands--especially since it would have been possible for Argentina to take out Parliament? To me, the problem with the way war is fought now is because even if civilians are valid targets, the leads seem to not be--and like you said, take out the kead, the rest of the structure comes crashing down.

The way i see it--when the possibility looms that you are a target, you choose your actions accordingly.

Kevin P. I don't necessarily mean it to be thrown out--but several things concerning international laws need to be fixed. First off, for diplomates and ambassadors--no more immunity. if you reach the level of ambassador or diplmat, you should already know the custyoms and laws of the countries your in. However, the humane tratment of prisoners of war should be kept. We shouldn't target the average person who, quite frankly, just wants to go on with their life and not mess with others. So, if a person pulls an arm onto a soldier of some country, then ditches the arm and dives into a house--they can be taken as a prisoner of war--as well as any civillian openly aiding them. But i think that a lot of stuff based on "culture" and whatnot have to go. I don't think any soldier should be hamstrung from blowing up a bridge that can help the enemy if it's a "landmark."

I personally think we're at our best when we just do our own thing and not screw with others, but i don't think we as a species arew evolved enough for that. Still, it just sickens me that, anyone that would send someone to die can do so from out of harm's way.

I think it's even more sick that people accept that.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Before the outbreak of WW 1, the wild west sharpshooter, Annie Oakley, was invited by the young Kaiser of Prussia. The trick she performed was to shoot a cigarette out of his mouth. Imagine if she had missed....

I used to be a big supporter of the "War on Terrorism". Although, for the most part, I am for our President, I think no one, including him, had any idea how screwed up the Middle East is. If one didn't know any better, one might think those people like living under Islamic terror-backed government. That they preferred living in the 1700's. If you were to believe their rhetoric, you would walk around talking about " If Israel were to be obliterated, and every Jew liquidated, if the United States were to remove the soles of their feet from Arabic lands, and never interfere with their peaceful agenda....well....they'd be happier than a flea family reunion in the armpit of the fattest camel.

I believe now, that it is illogical to wage war on terror. Terror is an ideology. It would fall under the same category as waging war on happiness, anger, or meanness.

Feel-gooders like to point the finger of blame at religions as a whole. (well at least as it isn't their preferred flavor). In the last 33 years that I've been alive, I've heard of three major ongoing "religious" wars still active today.

1) Protestant Vs. Catholics in Ireland. Anyone with even a chow mien noodle for a brain, knows this isn't about religion anymore. It is about turf-rights, insults, revenge, and power. Believing it is actually over theological differences would be like saying a gang-war between the Cobras and the Dragons is actually about snakes being at odds with mythical fire-breathing lizards.

2.) Hindus vs. Muslims in India. While this may have its roots in religious disputes, we know of course, that it is about political power and revenging perceived insults. No one on either side actually cares if one the the 3000 hindu gods are insulted, or what glorious allah might have taken offense at.

3) Fundamental Islam. For as long as I can remember, I've seen daily reports of strikes carried out by Islamic terrorists. I will not call them extremists, because that is unfair. They are simply taking a literal active approach to the teachings of the blessed prophet. If the prophet said "kill all infidels" (that's everyone not Islamic or under Islamic caste-rule) then yi yi yeee, bombs a weeeee. Cutting off people's heads on camera and posting it on the internet? Blowing up planes. Slaughtering olympic teams in Munich.
With these clowns, its about 2 things. Destroying the favored seed of Abraham (jews), and bringing the rest of the world under the dominion of glorious allah and his followers.

I know there are the Christians kiling black people in Jesus name, witch burnings in Salem, etc etc. I'm talking about my living memory, and the few years preceding it.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

theyre leaders for a reason: to lead. sure you can say it would be better to just have the leaders duel each other to solve a conflict, but we both know that wouldnt work. i think we should do what kevinP said and do away with the friendlier war machine. war isnt pretty and never will be....but we need to stop limiting our troops and making them ask questions first and shoot later. i think we should take a harder, meaner stance when it comes to protection. now that doesnt nec. mean a proactive stance on foreign policy, but once we get in somewhere we need to do everything in our power to win quickly and efficiently. fight dirty. thats the sort of @!#$ that makes other people think twice about messing with you...

(tabs) wrote:fight dirty. thats the sort of @!#$ that makes other people think twice about messing with you...

Tell that to Israel. That is EXACTLY how they have always fought since we helped re-establish them. People still want to mess with them. Doesn't always work so nicely in reality, does it? Acting like that only leads to cries for revenge. That is exactly why Israel is in their current never-ending mess.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Bastardking3000 couldn't be more wrong about the Israel bit. Bottom line here. Israel traces their lineage back to one man, Abraham of the Old Testament. So do the Arab nations. The problem goes back to Abraham's first two sons. Son #1, His name was Ishmael, the bastard son born of Hagar, a slave girl belonging to Abraham. Ishmael was born first, about 13 yrs prior to Abraham's second son, Isaac. Isaac was Abrahams legitimate son born of his wife Sara. As soon as Isaac came along, Sara pressured Abraham to drive Ishmael from the family along with his mother. You see, Sara didn't want Ishmael to have any part in Isaac's inheritance. This was a common practice in ancient middle eastern cultures. (concubines and the like) The Bible account says that God spoke to Hagar, Ishmael's mother and promised that Ismael would become a great nation, and his hand would be against every man.

BIG POINT HERE: If one refuses to aknowledge the Bible account of what God promised to Abraham (basically all of Palestine and a good portion of land around it) that He was giving it to Abraham for his posession forever, and that of his seed. In short, that land was given to Israel by God forever. If one says Bullcrap, it belongs to the Palestinians. Then read on.

Actually shouldn't the land belong to the original Canaanites that inhabited the land before the Israelites invaded and took over, following their exodus from Egypt? If you want a strictly historical, non religious approach, then the land is the ancient one's. Even the Arabs trace their lineage back to Ishmael.

Bottom line. The problems in Israel date back to the dawn of time. Many Arab groups in the Middle East (including the recently deceased Yasar Arafat) have stated that they will settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel as a state. Who shot first? Can anyone prove anything? Hamaas will not reign in their little peckerwood mortar lobber punks, and Israel lets it go on for a while and then blows up a carload of the dilly-whackers on their way to work. The media is all over it, (including the video shots of the wailing howler monkey women in the streets, crying)

There will be no peace Nor solution to the problem in the Middle East.




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

ScottaWhite wrote:Bastardking3000 couldn't be more wrong about the Israel bit. Bottom line here. Israel traces their lineage back to one man, Abraham of the Old Testament. So do the Arab nations. The problem goes back to Abraham's first two sons. Son #1, His name was Ishmael, the bastard son born of Hagar, a slave girl belonging to Abraham. Ishmael was born first, about 13 yrs prior to Abraham's second son, Isaac. Isaac was Abrahams legitimate son born of his wife Sara. As soon as Isaac came along, Sara pressured Abraham to drive Ishmael from the family along with his mother. You see, Sara didn't want Ishmael to have any part in Isaac's inheritance. This was a common practice in ancient middle eastern cultures. (concubines and the like) The Bible account says that God spoke to Hagar, Ishmael's mother and promised that Ismael would become a great nation, and his hand would be against every man.

BIG POINT HERE: If one refuses to aknowledge the Bible account of what God promised to Abraham (basically all of Palestine and a good portion of land around it) that He was giving it to Abraham for his posession forever, and that of his seed. In short, that land was given to Israel by God forever. If one says Bullcrap, it belongs to the Palestinians. Then read on.

Actually shouldn't the land belong to the original Canaanites that inhabited the land before the Israelites invaded and took over, following their exodus from Egypt? If you want a strictly historical, non religious approach, then the land is the ancient one's. Even the Arabs trace their lineage back to Ishmael.

Bottom line. The problems in Israel date back to the dawn of time. Many Arab groups in the Middle East (including the recently deceased Yasar Arafat) have stated that they will settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel as a state. Who shot first? Can anyone prove anything? Hamaas will not reign in their little peckerwood mortar lobber punks, and Israel lets it go on for a while and then blows up a carload of the dilly-whackers on their way to work. The media is all over it, (including the video shots of the wailing howler monkey women in the streets, crying)

There will be no peace Nor solution to the problem in the Middle East.

You 100% missed my point. I'm not talking about ancient the ancient history of Israel - of which I'm quite informed already - I'm talking 20th century and beyond. I was replying solely to "fight dirty. thats the sort of @!#$ that makes other people think twice about messing with you..." and how that way of doing things doesn't always work out the way you think it would - Using Israel as an example. I used them, because that is exactly what they've been doing for a long time and it hasn't exactly settled matter either. Strategies like that only work if you're facing a cowardly opponent with no inclinations of revenge. So while that might work in a fight against modern day France, its not such a great strategy to use elsewhere. And you loose any claim or sense of moral high ground in the process.

So yeah, using a strategy like that to promote peace, you'd better be talking total genocide or nothing.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Bastardking3000 wrote:

(tabs) wrote:fight dirty. thats the sort of @!#$ that makes other people think twice about messing with you...

Tell that to Israel. That is EXACTLY how they have always fought since we helped re-establish them. People still want to mess with them. Doesn't always work so nicely in reality, does it? Acting like that only leads to cries for revenge. That is exactly why Israel is in their current never-ending mess.

other nations are going to try to kill israel regardless of how they fight. but their "eye for an eye" mentality has allowed them to survive this long. had they done it any other way, they would have been rolled decades ago. their "fight dirty" tactics only help them out. there never has been peace in the middle east throughout human history and there wont ever be in my opinion. so while it might not exactly solve the problem, it allows them to still be around. i mean how long has it been since another country actually attacked israel? sure they do the hit and run terrorist @!#$ now....but no full fledged invasions recently and i feel thats because the other arab nations know better.

israel is a mean ass mother @!#$ that doesnt take any @!#$ from anyone. ive got nothing but love and respect for that. they dont play the political game. if someone @!#$ with them, they @!#$ them right back. they dont go out of their way and attack other people....they only do it in retribution.

Back on topic...

I was more making a comment on how any non-leader with a brain would realize that it's the leaders they sould be after, not the opposing army's fellow soldiers.

Now, let's think about WW1 for a moment. Early in the war, over christmas, both the germans and the french/english, on the western front, came out of the trenches, exhchaned cigarettes, and ended up singing carold together. The leaders made sure this wouldn't happen again.

Now, let's change history for a moment. Imagine if, when the leaders tried that, the soldiers on both sides, who before and after then we basically gristle for the meat grinder, imagine of they all rose up and put down the leaders?

Now that would have changed the course of history for the better IMHO.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

ehh....any more if given a choice of shooting a grunt or a commissioned officer, they take the officer. the problem is that officers rarely see battle anymore. they sent the grunts and nco's out and so thats all you will see on the front lines. so the opportunity just isnt there

i think thats what youre saying.

I think KOTL is also trying to say - why don't our missiles just hit enemy leaders? Why is assassination such a dirty word? Better yes, why don't the leaders get out there themselves and have a duel? They're really the only ones with something to gain so they should also be the only ones with something to loose.

And for tabs - how do you know if Israel wouldn't still be around if they didn't behave the way they did. There is honestly a difference between self defense and what they often do. They go a bit further than "not taking @!#$ from anyone."

For example, a few terrorist kidnap a soldier or two and they nearly level all of Lebanon. Lebanon itself had nothing to do with the whole thing except - The terrorists where hiding out in Lebanon. Lebanon is NOT a state sponsor of terror. They still found themselves on the ass side of an ass kicking though. @!#$ like that did little to hurt terrorists based in that nation and IIRC they did not even get their own soldiers back from the deal(I could be mistaken about that one). But when someone comes in and burns your country to the ground for what someone else did... well that only inspires more and more young men to become terrorists. All they're really doing is fanning the flames.

Still, if you where right and those tactics could really solve everything, then wouldn't they be in the clear now?




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Thank you bastard, that was part of what i was trying to say.

A man can fight without an arm, a leg, or his digits, but lop off his head and he's deader than disco.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

And btw, nobody in Lebanon knew those terrorists were there holed up with their soldier captive? Yeah. Betcha next time a truckload of those turds come rollin in for a place to hide, someone somewhere will turn them in.

I've had a great solution to the suicide bomber problem world wide. Oh Israel bulldozes their houses and kills the cell-leaders...

How's this: Let it be known that if you carry out a suicide bombing, not only will we level your house, but we will capture your family, and torture them to death...your sisters and mother....on various internet sites like BarnyardAnimalsAndYourSister.com Yeah, you enjoy heaven with glorious allah and your virgins and nubile boys, but your sisters....

How could you carry out your mission knowing that after you are dead, your dad is dead...slowly. Your mother is dead, little brother castrated and then blinded....and your sisters become romantically involved with pigs on a webcam. Kinda takes the glory out of it.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

keeper: if you were suggesting assassinations as a healthy alternative to full fledged war, then i will agree. but the idea of rulers dueling each other...? well i mean that should be obvious. they want to save their own asses so they'll never put them on the line.

bastard: the tactic that israel generally employs is to give full retribution and then a little more. up the ante, just like in poker. doing this leads to two paths: eventually the other person (or nation) will fold. israel wins. or the other will re-raise making israel also re-raise (as they are in a position that they cannot fold) and sooner or later both sides go all in. one side wins or they both destroy themselves. its their game so they call the shots.

if both sides are willing to employ mutual annihilation, then so be it. but i dont believe israel really has any other choice. the whole middle east is gunning for israel. they have been from the very first day they were formed. think of israel as the new kid at school.....or maybe fresh fish in prison. to protect their ass they have to strike back as hard and as fast as possible any and every time they are attacked. they have no choice. any hesitation is seen as weakness and only encourages the aggressors. so sure, maybe they hit the wrong person from time to time. that sucks. but what else can they do? if someone throws something at them while their back is turned what do you think will happen? they turn around and hit the first and closest thing.

i believe that at this point they are in the most base level survival mode.....if anyone or anything gets too close they strike. it just makes sense and i dont think you really cant blame them for it. i mean, what else can they do? maybe it hasnt solved the problem, but they are the ones being attacked....they are the ones being victimized. if you want to solve the situation then you need to make the attackers and aggressors stop. but that isnt going to happen any other way than what i proposed in my poker analogy. eventually these other nations and terrorists need to stop attacking israel and israel, in turn, will also leave all of them alone.

im curious what you think israel should do. play the political game? lobby the UN to make their bully neighbors stop? try to buy them off? i mean seriously, israel has their back against a wall.

(tabs) of course they won't. I find most leaders are high on charisma and low on testicular or mammarian fortitude.

As much as I loath him, I have to give Saddam some credit--he had the carbones to challenge Bush to a duel. Now, by extension, imagine if we made that the main event on pay per view--the proceeds go to the economy of the country that wins. You cannot honestly tell me that anyone who hasn't been brainwashed wouldn't want to watch that to see two political suckholes duke it out in, say, a Hell in the Cell match.

Granted, my philosphy is more of do what you will short of being a blatant @!#$ and leave everyone else alone. Why my mindframe doesn't fit in with the rest of society's.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

i could agree with seeing leaders fight each other in a duel. i would definitely have much more respect for one if they actually did that. but i could never agree with a pay per view televised event. doing so would just feed too much into the corporate/entertainment machine that i despise so much. but yeah, i know what youre sayin....

That's why you do it right:

You set up the pay-per-view event so all of the PPV proceeds go towards the economy of the winning country.

You allow the corporate bastards sponsorship, but you cap it to XXX about of dollars, to be evenly split evenly by each participating company. They go to putting the event on, and advertising, any leftover money goes into the pot to be won by the economies--which I think should be tax relief to the people to be honest.

Personally, i think not only could we get this to work, but we could solve the world budgetary problem with it, and at the same time remove a lot of the "old guard" leaders that have to hide behind their big bad militaries like a bunch of mewling pantywaists.

But, we should also vary the contests...Say this spat with Russia. Have Bush vs Putin in an Absinthe-drinking contest, Himilayan-style. First one declared dead loses.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

[quote=Keeper Of The Light™ (Strazca)]But, we should also vary the contests...Say this spat with Russia. Have Bush vs Putin in an Absinthe-drinking contest, Himilayan-style. First one declared dead loses.
now you might be onto something there. make it a gladiator olympics of sorts.....different types of to-the-death events. losing side loses the argument, border dispute, or whatever else they were arguing about in the first place.

^^^Bingo. it should either be a event that both parties would excel at, or something that they would absolutely suck at.

IE: the leaders of Palestine and Israel in a sled-dog race across Antarctica in their skivvies.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Seriously though, some social anthropologists believe that we've done just that. That every football, soccer, hockey and baseball game is the human race getting venting it's desire for war and to dominate an opponent in a healthy way. Makes sense, just look at soccer games in poor countries. They take that sh*t REAL seriously.

It's like Iraq, know how a lot of the country is saying they wanna pull out and quit, even some formally pro-war Conservatives? I don't think it's because they think it's an pointless war built on a lie or any hippy-ish belief like that. I think, literally, it's because they feel America is losing and they don't wanna play if they can't win. As insane as that sounds, I really believe that subconsciously that's what they're thinking.

also see: Robot Jox

not a bad idea.


Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”

Knoxfire wrote:Seriously though, some social anthropologists believe that we've done just that. That every football, soccer, hockey and baseball game is the human race getting venting it's desire for war and to dominate an opponent in a healthy way. Makes sense, just look at soccer games in poor countries. They take that sh*t REAL seriously.

It's like Iraq, know how a lot of the country is saying they wanna pull out and quit, even some formally pro-war Conservatives? I don't think it's because they think it's an pointless war built on a lie or any hippy-ish belief like that. I think, literally, it's because they feel America is losing and they don't wanna play if they can't win. As insane as that sounds, I really believe that subconsciously that's what they're thinking.

wow, thats a damn good analogy. and I have to agree

i dont believe in the bible, or god, or jesus, or any of that religion crap...im an atheist...

now in saying that...what i think of the whole israel thing is this...

the palestinians where there, and then magically in 1948 america decides to give land to the jews...
as we all know they took the palestine and turned it to israel...

actually half was israel and half was palestine..

well the jews took more and more land from the palestines because they are dirty rats like that...

(im not racist i just hate politics because when people speak of it, they usually dont really think of what they say, including myself...but anyway)

no that solves that...if the jews didnt have palestine guess how much better this world would be? alot better...

now about wars and world leaders...

there is a unspoken bond between them, they wont attack other world leaders, especially if they are of bigger nations...

for example you wont see china attack russia, or vice versa.

the 1st world is all in this pact to not attack each other, but when it comes to 3rd world nations, they dont give a @!#$...

even if they did what would they do, ex. russia and cheychna (sp)
many times has america told russia what they are doing is wrong, and basically russia says shut the @!#$ up because we dont give a @!#$ what you think

so you cant change that...look at it this way though

soon it will be all over and it wont matter anymore

2012 is alot closer than you think