Re: British Muslims to protest over cartoons

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:17:09 GMT, zadoc <zadoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:50:18 -0500, LiRM <LiRM@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

|>On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:44:16 GMT, zadoc <zadoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|>
|>>On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:46:35 -0500, LiRM <LiRM@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|>>wrote:
|>>
|>>|>On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:13:50 GMT, zadoc <zadoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|>>|>
|>>|>>British Muslims to protest over cartoons
|>>|>>
|>>|>>Mark Oliver and agencies
|>>|>>Friday February 3, 2006
|>>|>>
|>>|>>British Muslims were expected to protest at the Danish embassy in
|>>|>>London today over the publication of cartoons depicting the
|>>|>>prophet Muhammad.
|>>|>>
|>>|>>One organiser of the demonstration planned to take place at the
|>>|>>building in Sloane Street, west London, said he expected hundreds
|>>|>>of Muslims to take part.
|>>|>>
|>>|>>The cartoons were first published in the Danish newspaper
|>>|>>Jyllands-Posten in September. They were then run in several other
|>>|>>European newspapers and one in Jordan, which later sacked its
|>>|>>editor.
|>>|>>
|>>|>>More, and other links to the cartoons and related stories at:
|>>|>>
|>>|>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1701518,00.html
|>>|>>zadoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|>>|>
|>>|>
|>>|>Now consider the prospects for a successful implementation of any kind
|>>|>of system of democracy where top on the list would be a persons
|>>|>inalienable right to freedom of speech.
|>>|>
|>>|>You betcha. This is going to work out fine.
|>>|>
|>>|>The cartoonists have gone into hiding for fear of their very lives.
|>>|>
|>>|>And the cartoons were simply despicable:
|>>|>
|>>|>http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698
|>>|>
|>>|>We have "x" amount of time left before the bad guys in the mid east
|>>|>are going to capable to hit us with some very nasty weapons - nukes -
|>>|>modified forms of smallpox, etc. In fact, some would argue that that
|>>|>time is already here.
|>>
|>>You are making the assumption that this inevitable. I would
|>>disagree with you.
|>
|>Then we have to agree to disagree. Time will prove one of us right. I
|>hope it's you.

So do I :-)
|>
|>>
|>>However, we cannot escape the fact that there are around
|>>1,283,424,000 Muslims in the world and around 2,957,341 in the
|>>USA.
|>>
|>>The overwhelming majority are not terrorists. A few are. It
|>>isn't really a good idea to encourage the latter.
|>>
|>>If you are afraid of other people, do you go out of your way to
|>>deliberately annoy them? These cartoons definitely do offend
|>>Muslims, there is no getting around that fact.
|>
|>Gee, that's a shame then. My heart bleeds for the little rag headed
|>bastards.
|>
|>Ya know what pisses me off about this supposed majority group of your
|>Muslims that don't condone terrorism?

Not "my Muslims" mate, I'm a conservative Protestant Christian.
|>
|>WHERE THE *** ARE THEY?
|>
|>Am I getting up too late in the mornings to miss the "3 Million Man
|>American Muslims United Against Terrorism" Parades?

No, but why should you expect any? Remember the 1992 riot,
looting and burning by some of the Black Americans in Los
Angeles? Presumably they were only a small fraction of the total
Black American residents of Los Angeles.

To me a riot involving arson and looting is a terrorist act.
Where were all the Black American protest marches against the
terrorist acts? Not only in LA, but nationwide? I don't
remember any widespread condemnation.

So why the hell should anyone expect most Muslims to feel guilty
about the actions of 20 mostly Saudi Arabian terrorists.

I don't know much about Islam, but I do know that most Muslims
are Sunnis or Shiites. As we see from Iraq, neither group is
very fond of the other. The Saudi terrorists, from memory, were
from a reform movement that had declared a Jihad, or holy war,
against the majority Sunnis or Shiites.

A quick search revealis the following bit of info.

==============================

Wahhabi or Wahabi (wähä'be-) , reform movement in Islam,
originating in Arabia. It was founded by Muhammad ibn Abd
al-Wahab (c.1703?1791), who taught that all accretions to Islam
after the 3d cent. of the Muslim era?i.e., after c.950?were
spurious and must be expunged. This view, involving essentially a
purification of the Sunni sect, regarded the veneration of
saints, ostentation in worship, and luxurious living as the chief
evils. Accordingly, Wahhabi mosques are simple and without
minarets, and the adherents dress plainly and do not smoke
tobacco or hashish.

Driven from Medina for his preaching, the founder of the Wahhabi
sect went into the NE Nejd and converted the Saud tribe. The
Saudi sheik, convinced that it was his religious mission to wage
holy war (jihad) against all other forms of Islam, began the
conquest of his neighbors in c.1763.
MORE at:
http://www.answers.com/topic/wahhabism

In WW2, most Germans [and Nazis] would have been Protestant
Lutherians. Were American Protestants marching and protesting
again the German invasion of Poland? Were even American
Lutherans protesting? How about Americans of German ancestry?

As I see it, you and others are trying to assume that all Muslims
are the same, and they certainly aren't.

Do you think that all Jews are the same? They aren't. They are
Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform, and they aren't alike.

In Christianity, there are at least two main divisions of
Catholics, Roman Catholics who follow the Pope and Orthodox who
don't. There are also some minor sects.

Do you think that the many Protestant Churches have much in
common with Catholics? The "High Church" Anglicans and
Episcopialians have very similar rituals to the RCs but the low
church Anglicans and Episcopialians are different.

When get in to the hundreds of different Protestant
denominations, they have little to do with the Catholics, or
often much to do with one another.

Lets now consider the conflict in Northern Ireland between the
Catholic IRA and the Protestants. When the IRA made terrorist
attacks killing civilians, did you see any American Roman
Catholics in the USA marching to protest these terrorist actions?

Nope. Just the opposite, in fact. American Catholics not only
donated money to the IRA but in some cases provided smuggled
weapons to them.

Anyway, do you now see why the Sunnis and the Shiites and Wahabi
don't get along with one another, and there is no particular
reason for them to protest against the actions of a handful of
Wahabi terrorists. Even most Wahabis wouldn't have supported the
destruction of the WTC.

I'm familiar with the fact that there are various sects of Islam, but
google for a zogby poll done some time back and you'll discover that
in spite of the differences they have between each other, the poll
revealed that in excess of 90 percent of all Muslims out and out hated
the US and its people.

And I'm sure you remember the days following 9/11. Millions gathered
in the mid east to celebrate the attack on the US.

Zadoc, it's basic common sense that the average Muslim on the street
in the mid east would love to see the United States destroyed.



However, when dealing with either political or religious
extremists, it is sometimes best to keep a low profile. The
average German citizen in WW2 may not have agreed with the Nazi
persecution and murder of Jews, but if he did oppose the Nazis
you can bet that he wasn't out marching on the streets. Even
saying the wrong thing could result in a visit from the Gestapo
and a lot of personal experience with the extermination camps.


|>I don't think so.
|>
|>With the exception of a few - this majority you speak of has remained
|>SILENT. And in my book, I equate silence with complicity. Why? Very
|>simple. If I were a Muslim - post 9/11 - I would be taking every
|>minute of my spare time to organize my people to let the rest of
|>America know that we don't go along with these bastards.

See above.
|>
|>You bet your ass I'd be organizing parades.
|>
|>You bet your ass I'd be taking some of that money they raise for
|>Muslim "charities" to take out full page ads in the New York Times to
|>state that very position.

Why? What possible good would it do when many Americans know
nothing about Islam and care less. The Muslims know that no one
will care whether they are Sunni, or Shiite, or Wahabi.
|>
|>In short, I would be doing EVERYTHING I could to make it known that
|>vast majority of Muslims do not support Islamic terrorism.

This should be extremely obvious to most people. As I pointed
out above, there are ~ 2,957,341 Muslims in the US. How many
terrorist incidents have you seen since 9/11?


|>Yet it hasn't happened.
|>
|>Their silence screams of either out and out support of Islamic
|>terrorism or at the very least - tolerance of it.

Not to me it doesn't.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. We have different viewpoints
and we are simply at the point of beating the issue to death.

|>
|>Make note, I am not afraid of them - I simply don't trust them. And
|>if a few cartoons piss them off - they can buck the *** up and
|>realize in free societies people have the right to say and express
|>their views in any number of ways.
|>
|>And if they to go to war over some cartoons - then let's go.
|>
|>And yes, I do mean that personally. On September 13, 2001 I applied
|>to get into the National Guard - figuring at my age it would probably
|>be the best chance I would have of getting into the armed forces.
|>
|>They sent me a letter declining my offer. When I called the number on
|>the letter to find out why - they told me I was too old (I was 46 at
|>the time). I am pretty much disabled due to a back condition as well,
|>but it would not prevent me from doing certain things that would allow
|>me to participate, even with these disabilities.
|>
|>Perhaps the time will come when they can't meet their enlistment
|>quota's and they will reconsider people like me.
|>
|>Don't get me wrong - I am not a macho bravo - let's kill 'em all while
|>I rip chunks of flesh out of faces with my bare teeth. I would have
|>fear about engaging in combat with the enemy. Since I have never been
|>in a position where someone was shooting at me, do I know how I would
|>react? Would I fold under the pressure? In all honesty I do not
|>know. It's something I think about often. I would hope and pray that
|>I would act with courage along with my fellow man (troops). I would
|>hope and pray that I do the absolute best that I could do and act with
|>honor. That is all I know at this point. I suppose every man or
|>woman who goes into combat for the first time faces those questions
|>and I'm guessing - but I don't think you could absolutely know one
|>would react until push comes to shove and it happens.

Would totally agree with you here. I don't think that anyone
would know how they would face any siatuation if they hadn't
faced it before, and perhaps not even then.

Consider Kent State. Student protestors had threatened to invade
a building that was being protected by armed national guardsmen,
& probably many were 18 to 20 years old.

I don't remember the details, would have to dig out a book on the
subject. But lets consider maybe 15 or 20 guardsmen and a couple
of hundred students.

Now, to me, unarmed students who decide to rush armed guardsmen
must have a death wish. Were I one of those guardsmen I would
be thinking that if a few decided to rush me and knocked me down
they could do a lot of damage with something as simple as a
single edge razor blade.

From memory, something like this happened. There had been no
order to fire, but, of course, as soon as one guardsmen did the
panic spread and the others started firing too.

Lets go back to the race based terrorism in L.A. in 1992. From
memory, there were a lot of complaints at the time that the
police and or national guard could have done much more to stop
the arson and looting.

And this is exactly what had been done in a previous riot back in
the 60s. Unfortunately, some innocent people ended up injured or
dead.

Now when I left the US decades ago there were a fair number of
people on both sides of the racial divide who felt that a race
war was only a matter of time.

It hasn't happened, hopefully it will never happen, but like any
civil war it can spin rapidly out of control. So perhaps in 1992
the authorities simply didn't want to take the chance.

Sure, it can be argued that a race war shouldn't develop from the
authorities having a strong response to the terrorist act of
arson and looting. However, it is also highly illogical that the
whole thing developed from some rogue cops beating up on Rodney
King.

I totally agree. But when you mix anger, rage and hatred into a large
crowd, the above is what you sometimes get.

...Much the same attitude as many people have on the possibility
of a religious war.
|>
|>But if this war ever comes to this shore from the standpoint of having
|>to defend it against these 3 million Muslims you speak about - I would
|>join in with fellow countryman and do my best to defend the country I
|>dearly love.
|>>
|>>|>In order to get Islam to the point of even contemplating the ideas of
|>>|>a true democracy will probably take 50 to 100 years.
|>>
|>>How do you want to define democracy? Would you define the USA as
|>>a democracy? Many Americans wouldn't. Consider the Electoral
|>>College, for a start. Or consider that at the time of the
|>>Vietnam war, 18 year olds could be drafted but they didn't have
|>>the right to vote until 21.
|>
|>Democracy - used in the context of this post and conversation about
|>these cartoons and the reaction they have provoked:
|>
|>I am simply talking really about the 1st of the 10 amendments of the
|>Bill of Rights - that of Freedom of Speech.

It isn't absolute. There are limits. There is a question of
where to set those limits.
|>
|>I would define our method of government more as a Republic then a true
|>Democracy. We elect representatives who do our voting for us -
|>including the Electoral College. I thought this would be an
|>assumption by those who were reading my reply. I didn't state this
|>clearly enough.

Being an American was aware of it. The English and Australian
systems are closer to true democracies. Actually, if we go back
to the origin of the word, in ancient Greek city states the male
property owners personally voted on every issue. Women and
slaves didn't vote, of course, so even that wasn't a true
democracy.

In a true democracy, every citizen would vote on every rule and
law, and today we could do it with computer voting from home with
appropriate safeguards.

However, would we want to? The power of advertising shows us
that the public is pretty easily swayed and manipulated.

That's an interesting question and one I'd like to think about more. I
see pluses and minuses to both sides of this coin. I for one, would
love to eliminate the middle man and directly vote on issues, laws as
they present themselves, but it would be a full time job (much as
Usenet sometimes gets to be :)).

|>>
|>>|> That's if we
|>>|>remove the madrassas, eliminate the radical clerics, convince Saudi
|>>|>Arabia to move away from Wahabism to a more moderate form of Islam,
|>>|>etc. Even IF we can accomplish this - it will no doubt cost trillions
|>>|>of dollars.
|>>
|>>Well, firstly we have no inherent right to force our system of
|>>government on any other country. If the Saudis want to adopt a
|>>more moderate form of Islam, eliminate their radical clerics,
|>>close down the religious schools, etc. I'm sure they can manage
|>>it.
|>
|>That works for me. My point was that it's extremely unlikely they
|>will implement a form of government devoid of Islamic ideology. They
|>will more or less probably always live under some form of Sharia.

Yes, that is probably true. The Jews follow the Old Testament,
but not the New Testament. Christians believe they have the last
word. Muslims accept the validity of both OT and NT, they just
believe that Mohammed had the latest word.

Will they ever abandon Islam? That is about as likely as
Christains rejecting Jesus and going back to Judiasm. :-)

|>Now - depending on *how* that's implemented is where it starts to
|>affect *me*. If it means they continue to fund, support, tolerate,
|>harbor and generally accept Islamic terror, that's where I say "Sorry
|>fuckheads. You - your country - your government - your people - are a
|>direct threat and clear and present danger to *my* country - *my* way
|>of life and the well being of *me* and *my* family."

Uh, just to clarify things here, you mean like American Catholics
funding and supporting the IRA in Northern Ireland?

An excellent point which lends support to your argument, I have to
agree. But there are major differences in the IRA and Islamic
terrorism - principally this: Islamists - if and when they possess
the means to destroy our country will undoubtedly do so. They have
stated this is their goal. So while I'll admit your point is a good
one, the analogy isn't the same with what we are dealing with. And I
include you as part of the we since bin Laden has your country right
up there on the list next to the US.

We haven't been subjected to "Islamic Terror", or even general
"Wahabian"

Are you not counting the attacks from just a few months ago on London?

|>
|>This brings me to a point of being justified in saying "fix it" - or
|>we will fix it for you. Fixing it might require military action and
|>it might require a full scale preemptive nuclear strike - depending on
|>the circumstances.

We are going to nuke Saudi Arabia for the action of a handful of
terrorists? Isn't that going to make oil a bit expensive? :-)

It would depend on how the attack is carried out. Of course we
wouldn't nuke the oilfields of Saudi Arabia. That would require the
use of probably Sarin with a coordinated conventional attack to secure
the area. The details of this attack we could talk about for weeks
and it's getting away from the point.

...As well as the most feared and hated country since Nazi
Germany or the Communist Soviet Union?

If securing our country requires a preemptive nuclear strike on the
nations that continue to support Islamic terrorists is what it takes
to end it, then the world can kiss my ass. Another of Osama's stated
goals is to bleed us financially by forcing us to spend more and more
money to protect ourselves from these attacks.

Sorry, but to me - spending trillions and trillions of dollars to
"defend" the US from the Islamists isn't my idea of how to fight this
war. That's exactly what they *want* us to do.

Nope. Not when using a couple hundred well placed nukes will do the
job and end it in an afternoon.

If "the world" insists we sit idly by and just "take it" lest they
hate us, well - *** 'em. In a nutshell, it's how I feel.


What about all the other Muslim countries? Islam isn't like the
Roman Catholic Church where the Vatican and the Pope call the
shots. Like most Protestant Christian churches there is no
central authority.

Which is why we may have to undertake a plan such as outlined above.
Destroying the infrastructure that supports state sponsored Islamic
terrorism is the name of the game.

|>
|>I think Bush was pretty clear when he stated back in 2001 when he said
|>"you are either with us or with the terrorists". This is a perfect
|>expression of how I feel.

I'll accept that you feel this way. I'm not convinced that going
into Iraq has improved our security in any way.

Look at a map. We now have military bases in a major Islamic country
in the middle east. Which - IMO - was the entire point of this war.
Forget all the political bull*** and reasons why we invaded Iraq.

Which is also why we won't leave for years.


....But of course, political opinions aren't always logical, as
even a casual reading of this group will show.

Do you think that our involvement in Vietnam increased our
security? Or the security of other countries in SE Asia?

At the time, had we finished the job we intended - *and* if we would
have been allowed to fight the war instead of just pretending to fight
the war, then yes. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and who knew at that
time the Soviet Union would have ever collapsed. It's so easy to play
Monday morning QB and say the war was wrong.

I don't go fighting a war with one hand tied behind my back. If we
are going to fight, then fight it. Kill the enemy and make the enemy
sorry they ever started the war. Exactly how we fought and beat the
Japanese. *That* is how you fight a war.


Do you think that the US has benefited from the "War Between the
States" also known as the "Civil War"? I'll bet that there were
a lot of people in the CSA that regretted that first shot on Fort
Sumpter.

Benefited as opposed to allowing the south to simply secede from the
Union? Yes, it was worth it. That is so easy to write, yet hundreds
of thousands of men died in that war. Easy for me to write a simple
yes, huh. I'm not blind and callous. That was a horrible war. Our
worst. And again, it's hard to say where we would be had it not been
fought.



Do you think that our invention of nuclear weapons has increased
or decreased our security?

Considering that someone would have invented them, yes, I'm glad we
invented them and glad we have thousands of them.


|>>
|>>Or are you telling me that you advocate world government by the
|>>United Nations? :-)
|>
|>Geez, zadoc, our conversations have thus far been civil. Now you're
|>insulting me :)
|>
|>Seriously, twas it up to me - I'd redefine how we work with the UN
|>regarding war:
|>
|>1. We go to the UN *once* to try and get them to bring about a
|>solution without shots being fired. If they can do that, great.

How do you define a "solution"? A democratic vote by the various
nations of the world that we only agree to if it comes out the
way we want?

I sure as *** don't want it to come out the Iraq wants it to, Zadoc.
Geez, man, c'mon. This should be obvious.

|>
|>2. If that doesn't work, we act unilaterally or with whatever
|>coalition we can put together.

Um, yeah, but didn't Hitler have the same idea when he started
WW2 by invading Poland? He had arranged the Axis coalition with
Italy and Japan.


|>That's it.
|>
|>As far as them interceding on how we run our country - ie - gun laws,
|>etc. - uh - *** *them*. NO ONE EVER tells us how to run the US of A.
|>Sorry, "Coffee" - go mind someone else's business - stay well the ***
|>away from ours.

In other words, democracy is great, but we get to set our own
rules and work outside the system?

At the end of WW2 we tried to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons technology. Now if we, or a coalition of countries,
could have guaranteed world peace it might have worked.

Unfortunately, the trust rapidly evaporated, and other countries
decided that they needed their own nukes. After what the Jews
went through in WW2, I can't really blame them for wanting their
own nukes. The question is, though, how many other countries
actually need them? For the more of the damn things that are
around, the more chance of a screwup.

The people I don't mind having them are the people who value life and
the meaning of the phrase "mutually assured destruction".

Islam doesn't fit in this category. There isn't a doubt in my mind
that if they had 50 to 100 nukes they'd use them on the US (and the UK
as well) and take the hit we toss back at them and just consider the
loss of a billion Muslims as collateral damage - as long as in the end
- they walk out of their caves considering it a victory.


|>>
|>>|>What do YOU think is more likely to happen first?
|>>
|>>Personally, I don't think that we are in any particular danger
|>>from Muslims in general.
|>
|>Not at the present. True.
|>
|>>If I lived in Los Angeles, I would be far more worried about race
|>>riots. AFIK, there have been no incidents in the US where a
|>>large number of Muslims were burning and looting.
|>
|>Correct.
|>
|>Provided their isn't a large scale attack by bin Laden and company
|>that involves killing hundreds of thousands or millions of American, I
|>would say they are pretty safe.
|>
|>If the terrorists go nuclear on us and take out half a dozen large US
|>cities - I wouldn't bet you a nickel that within a week or two after
|>said event, there would be a Muslim left alive in the US.
|>
|>That my suck and it may not be right, but people are people. After it
|>sinks in - even if it wasn't their city hit - that it's all over - I
|>mean the United States of America is *all over* - you can bet your ass
|>they are going to take it out on who they can.

|>
|>And "who they can" are going to be those millions of Muslims you have
|>spoken of who have remained silent all these years - doing *nothing*
|>to help in the war on terror - and having *done* nothing to help the
|>rest of us believe they don't support it.

But if people cannot understand that most don't support it now,
what is the use of trying?

I don't know how representative this group is of public opinion
in the US, but I see a mutual loathing between American
Republicians and Democrats that I never expected to see in my
lifetime. Lets assume two families who are next door neighbors.
Similar ages, at least 4th or 5th generation US Citizens, same
religion, etc. "R" & "D".

Now when I grew up in the USA, these families, or the husbands
anyway, might discuss politics, or even argue politics. However
there wasn't the name calling or naked aggression that I see on
this group.

So, if "R" & "D" can now barely tolerate the presence of the
other, what chance does either have of understanding, or even
wanting to understand, a citizen of another country, someone of a
different religion, and so on?

It doesn't make me very optimistic about the future of the world.


|>
|>Lots of things happen in war that aren't right, aren't fair and are -
|>any way you slice it - horrific.
|>
|>Islam made its choice to take us on in a war.

Nope, far too general. Islam didn't make any such choice. There
was no vote, no central authority. A tiny group of Wahabi
extremists accomplished their objective very cheaply.

Again - go back to the archives and take a look back at the millions
who danced to celebrate our dead.

We seem to keep going in circles over this and perhaps it's just as
simple as the way we perceive things.

|> This war - like others
|>- has escalated to now include the war in Iraq.

We may have a definition problem here. I regard 9/11 as a simple
attack by a small group of criminal terrorists. As far as I know
there was no proof of any backing by the government of any
country. From memory, at the time, the total estimated cost of
the operation was estimated to be under US$ 1,000,000.

There are reports and articles galore detailing donations by Islamic
charities, businesses, hell, even the Saudi's held a widely publicized
"terror-thon" to raise money for the families of suicide bombers about
a year ago.


How many individual humans in the world could afford to spend
$1,000,000 cash? More than you might think. Plenty of large
companies could afford it. To most countries, it would be petty
cash.

|> It's not going to end
|>there, either. My guess is that is going to spill over into Iran,
|>Syria, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia next. But we are in World War III -
|>make no mistake about that. What we are experiencing are just the
|>opening volleys.

Well, am sure that we can make it come out as WW III if that is
what we want.

Will try for a simple example, and hope it applies. People are
all different. Even siblings such as brothers and sisters don't
always get along that well, and I know families in which the kids
hate one another and their parents.

I've seen strangers apparently fall deeply in love, get married,
had have a divorice with a bitter custody battle in the first two
or three years.

The same applies to countries, actually, as governments are made
up of humans.

The US and Canada aren't really all that much alike, and have not
always been as friendly with each other as they have been in the
last century or so.

I don't know how much history is taught in US schools these days,
but are you familiar with the following?

============
Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!
From Matt Rosenberg,
Your Guide to Geography.

The Development of the Boundary Between the U.S. and Canada
n 1818, the United States and the United Kingdom (controlling
British Canada) established a joint claim over the Oregon
Territory - the region west of the Rocky Mountains and between
42° North and 54°40' North (the southern boundary of Russia's
Alaska territory).

Joint control worked for over a decade and a half but ultimately,
the parties decided that joint occupancy wasn't working well so
they set about to divide Oregon.

The 1844 Democratic presidential candidate James K. Polk ran on a
platform of taking control over the entire Oregon Territory and
used the famous campaign slogan, "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!"
(after the line of latitude serving as the northern boundary of
Oregon at 54°40'). Polk's plan was to claim and go to war over
the entire territory for the United States.

MORE [& map] at
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/5440orfight.htm

Fortunately, the governments of the UK and the US had enough in
common that the problem was successfully resolved by the "Treaty
of Oregon" in 1846, and the largely undefended border between
Canada and the US is one of the longest in the world.

Suppose, though, for the sake of arguement, that Canada had been
controlled by the French, Spanish, Italians, Germans, etc?

Then the border between Canada and the US might have resembled
the border zone between North and South Korea.

The point am trying to make here is that disputes are often
resolvable if the parties concerned really want to resolve them.
If they don't, then wars, or divorice actions, can continue on
for years where there seems to be a winner and loser.


Only a madman would prefer war to peace to resolve disputes such as
these. Some call for peace no matter what. Imagine if the
"peaceniks" of WWI or WWII had gotten their way. We'd be living in a
very different world. Sadly, sometimes the only answer is war. I
believe we are at that place with our current enemy and quite frankly
- had we acted sooner - we wouldn't be facing some of the threats we
are facing now.

In another sense, of course, both sides generally lose by such a
basically non-productive effort.

Looking forward to your reply, and possible comments from others.

Cheers,



zadoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Regards,

LiRM
.