Bill T at end of his response to me (fine post it was) said this: 'An impartial observer, one trained in history, politics, and economics as well as military operations, would at this point concede a genuine strategic advantage to the Umma, if not to the Palestinians themselves. That, at any rate, is how I see it.'

Bill, I'm about as impartial towards Israel as anyone, IMO. The way I see it, human wave type assaults don't work in the modern combat arena. Especially in the desert. The NVA would have found it much rougher going against us in Vietnam if they hadn't had the huge jungle canopy to operate under.

Israel has the best armor in the region, the best tacticians, and that air armada I mentioned. Unless they get into American Civil War style battles of attrition, I don't forsee any problems for them, militarily.

That's one of the main reasons I'm so down on them (Israel). They have this wonderful military, yet it is our military doing all the fighting & dying for them. I get the impression that they think it is great: having the goyim do all the grunt work. They also are laughing their asses off at these stupid 'Christian Millenialists' who think that if Israel becomes 'Greater Israel' that it will bring Jesus back (I laugh at them myself, but nobody is trying to improve my lot with my tax dollars so Jesus will return).

Bill T. responded to a post of mine: 'You're missing the point, I think -- at least you're missing my point. Is Israel Sparta? Are we? Human wave assaults are irrelevant because they're unnecessary. The attitudes of Israeli soldiers, and of the residents of Ashkelon are not irrelevant'

Every able-bodied male is conscripted into the Israeli military (many of their women also serve). Based on what I see propagandawise over here, I'm sure the Israeli leaders can convince their people that killing huge numbers of Arabs is the way to go, if they are attacked.

They could probably BS their troops if they wanted to implement the Likud wet dream of 'Eretz Israel' & drive all Palestinians out of occupied territories.

If you were saying that massive civil disobedience on part of Israeli military would stop them from doing what the govermnet wants, then you would have a different view of the average Israeli soldier than I.

Bucky1 quote: 'Israel could destroy Italy or France; we have no business "defending" them.'

Truer words were never spoken (or written ;-)).

for your last post to me. Always appreciate your input. I don't really agree with your conjecture here, but I certainly hope you are correct (and I am wrong about this).

P.S. I don't think 'Electro Robot' is Sugarman. I think he's the individual who used to post as 'Realname'. If it is Sugarman, he's diabolically using capital letters to disguise himself.

For me personally, it would be nice to have a transcript as the sound on my PC has been permanently disabled.

Sounds like a very interesting interview, Glen. I'm glad Mr. Brown sat down with you. Shows he's not a chickenshit like some of the others.

with an engagement ring is to return it. Once the marriage has occurred, it is OK to keep the wedding ring/engagement ring as it is part of the marital assets (assuming the woman would want to keep the rings as part of her 50%).

The one caveat would be if the person you were engaged to told you to keep it. In that case, I say keep it (or sell it).

for the link to the transcript.

would be about how much of a dumbfuck you are, Anahadwolves. I vote for 'very much of a dumbfuck', myself. In your dumbass post you listed:

'1) Many/most black people think that racism is a one-way street: whites hate blacks. I've been on the receiving end of some of the most virulent and undeserved racism possible; I'm white and the offenders black. Seems hypocritical to me.'

Based on some of your previous posts, I'd say either the racism was deserved or they were just reacting to you being a dipshit & you thought it was racism.

'2) There are "traditional black colleges" or "historically black colleges"...said with pride; however, "traditional white colleges" or "historically white colleges" are racist and must be desegregated...immediately. Seems hypocritical to me.'

It seems hypocritical to you, because you are an idiot. Up until the mid 50s, no black could enroll at any college in the South. Up until the late 19th century every college was TRADITIONALLY WHITE.

'3) There is the NAACP...which is a worthy organization; however, a NAAWP would be called "racist". Seems hypocritical to me.'

Jesus, what a maroon. If you had been unfortunate enough to try and join, say the Chamber of Commerce in Selma AL circa 1962 (being black, of course), you'd need the NAACP (and a hospital to boot). I'm surprised you weren't a member in good standing of the White Citizen's Council (they certainly weren't being hypocritical).

'4) There is the Congressional Black Caucus for black members of Congress; however, a Congressional White Caucus would immediately become the focus of protests as...<<gasp!>>..."racist". More hypocrisy.'

Before the end of Jim Crow, the only caucus there was was the defacto White Congressional Caucus (otherwise known as 'Congress').

(skip remainder of inane points)

Do you think that all blacks should just forget what the situation was 50 years ago? Should they not try to have any organizations that look out specifically for their interests (since they weren't being looked out for in my lifetime)? Should they now just say: 'OK, overt racism is against the law now (technically), let's just close up all our advocacy organizations & leave it to the kind ministrations of people like Anahadwolves to ensure we get a fair shake'?

They're not that stupid.