Should Jews build the Third Temple?

[Vegas]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1184766045650&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Traditionally the Temple Mount Faithful attempt to set up a foundation stone for the Third Temple on Tisha Be'av, and the police routinely prevent them from doing so. The occasion for this street theater is the anniversary of the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and that of the Second Temple in 70 CE, both said to have occurred on the same calendar date.

It is certainly right that the date be commemorated; but would rebuilding the Temple be an appropriate act for the State of Israel today?

Assuming there were no Dome of the Rock and no Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, no Wakf and no Aksa Mosque, the pressure to rebuild the Temple would be enormous - but would it, in historical terms, be sound?

The last time such an opportunity occurred was in the time of Julian the Apostate, in 362 CE. That Roman Emperor, who succeeded Constantine, reversed his predecessor's decision to turn the empire into a Christian state and returned to the former pagan religions, which were permissive of other cults, including the Jewish one. It seems that he gave permission for the Temple to be rebuilt, and then went off to fight his enemies.

In Jerusalem work commenced on reconstructing the altar, but hardly had a few stones been put one on another, when a massive earthquake hit the area and the work collapsed. Worse still, Julian was killed in Persia and his place was taken by the Emperor Jovian, who reinstalled Christianity as the official religion. Any hope of rebuilding the Temple ceased, never to return.

IN 638 CE, the hordes of Islam conquered Jerusalem and by 692 the Caliph Abd al-Malik had completed the Dome of the Rock, which stood on the mountain inviolate for the following 1,315 years.

During the Crusader years it was converted to Christian use, and most Crusaders thought it had been built originally as the Temple of Solomon, but it was not changed structurally and returned to the Muslims on expulsion of the Crusaders in 1187. However, it did not return as a mosque, as it had never been one.

As the Dome was not a mosque, why did Abd al-Malik build it? It may be that he was attempting to set up a place of pilgrimage in competition to Mecca, which was controlled by his rival, Ibn al-Zubayr, but it seems more likely that, probably advised by an ex-Jewish companion, he recognized the historic significance of the site and in particular of the rock, the foundation stone, the even shetiya, that carried so much religious baggage. It was the scene of the Mihrab of Dawood (shrine of David) and the Bayit al-Makdis of Sulayman (Temple of Solomon) so al-Malik may have selected the site as a kind of location of ultimate holiness, maybe even for the Day of the Last Judgement.
The unique design of the building, a circular dome over an octagonal base, emphasized its concentration on the central feature, the Rock. Unlike any mosque, the building had no directional focus and was entered by four doorways, one to each of the cardinal points, as if to encourage access to persons or, indeed, their souls coming from the four corners of the earth.

LATER THE Muslims observed that the Rock was the mythical arrival and departure point of Mohammed on his white steed Buraq, but Abd al-Malik had recognized the precedence of Solomon and even Abraham on the site.

This makes it clear that the sanctity of the site stems from its Jewish origins, though the Muslims, of course, claim Abraham as one of their own, and venerate Solomon as divine. Now, even if the Muslim attitude would be to allow a Jewish presence, and even a rebuilding on the site, would it be in the Jewish interest to proceed with a third Temple?
WHEN HEROD decided to rebuild the Temple in 19 BCE, 18 years after having been handed the throne by the Romans, there must have been much trepidation among the population, the priests and others, about his intentions. He managed to calm their fears by employing only priests on the Temple itself and by enabling the Korban Tamid, the daily sacrifices, to continue without interruption.

The resources that he used were vast and would have pleased the local craftsmen, who were provided with employment for many years. The end result pleased even his rabbinic critics, though well after the event: "Whoever has not seen Herod's building has never seen anything beautiful," they crowed.

This was a surprising reaction, as very few rabbis were yet around to see the Temple in its glory. Additionally, modern reconstructions show a rather high, lopsided building with an overblown classical front sitting on a vast platform that completely ignores the beautiful mountain it covered. Such an oversize terrace must have intimidated anyone venturing on to it.

The huge expanse of uncovered space would not be conducive to our weather, be it sunshine or rain. For all its glory, the structure was not completed until 60 CE, well after the death of Herod, and it only stood another six years before its service was embroiled in the revolt against the Romans.

So what did Herod's great work really achieve? Did it achieve unity among the Jewish people? Did it achieve harmony between our different factions? Did it achieve reconciliation with our governors, the Romans, who admired the structure built on classical lines by their favorite Jewish ruler? Did its presence give us protection against our enemies or absolution for our sins?

QUITE THE contrary. The daily sacrifices were used by the zealots to exclude the offering of the Roman emperor, which led to reprisals and insults by the occupying army. Different parties saw different ways of resolving the crisis, but could find no unanimity among themselves. The High Priest, who might have been a potential leader, was just another political appointment, as he had been under the Seleucids; even his sacred clothing was held hostage in the hands of the Roman governor. The priests were divided in their loyalties and unable to conduct the divine service in a dignified manner.

When it came to the actual revolt in Jerusalem, things turned perilous, and civil war reigned. The zealots, led by John of Gischala, got the upper hand and the peace party was unable to stop them. Another zealot leader, Simon bar Giora, was welcomed into the city to oppose Gischala, but the two soon joined together against the moderates. That union did not last and within a short time there were three "gangster" parties (in the words of Josephus) who burnt each other's grain supplies, not realizing that they would all suffer in the end.

Only the Romans could benefit from the chaos, and so they did, in spite of the brave efforts put up by the separate parties, one of whom used the Temple precinct for a heroic, if vain, last stand. The magnificent Herodian Temple, as finally completed, had stood for only 10 years.

THIS WAS not so different from the vicissitudes of the First Temple. Solomon completed it with forced labor shifts, directed by his chief taskmaster, Adoniram. On Solomon's death, the majority of the tribes revolted against his successor Rehoboam, put the hated Adoniram to death by stoning, and set up the Northern Kingdom, which had no use for the Temple.
n the south, the Temple was sacked by Pharaoh Shishak in about 925 BCE, and all its gold was stripped away and taken to Egypt. Rehoboam was forced to present to the people shields of polished brass to simulate the looted metal. The golden glory of Solomon's Temple had lasted for just 40 years.

Not long after, king Asa had to use the replaced Temple treasures to bribe Ben-Hadad of Aram (Syria) to help him fight against Baasa, king of Northern Israel. Worse than all that loss of treasure was the fact that the First Temple, as described in our sacred books, became the focus of idol worship in the reigns of the Judahite kings Asa, Jehoram, Amaziah and the queen Athaliah, who gave its treasures to the House of Baal.

The timely restoration under Hezekiah was undermined by his son Manasseh, and the renaissance initiated by Josiah was sabotaged by the desecration of his successors that culminated in defeat by the Babylonians in 597 BCE, followed by destruction 11 years later.

What happened to the glory of the First Temple? It lasted 40 years. The Second Temple never achieved glory until its rebuilding by Herod, and that lasted 10 years.

Will a Third Temple fare any better? The records of history are against it.

[Tom Joad]

No.

[Vegas]

No.

Care to elaborate?

[Tom Joad]

Care to elaborate?

The Temples were great and all, but most Jews are Diaspora Jews. One of my biggest problems with Israel is that Jews continue to push for Zion and Zion only as the end-all, be-all of survival. Well, Zion hasn't worked. Is there a better solution? Maybe, but I don't know what it'd be. I'd rather Diaspora Jews just focus on being successful and prosperous members of whatever society in which they live.

Also, building the Temple on the site of the Second Temple would be ignite Armageddon.

Is that enough elaboration?

[Vegas]

The Temples were great and all, but most Jews are Diaspora Jews. One of my biggest problems with Israel is that Jews continue to push for Zion and Zion only as the end-all, be-all of survival. Well, Zion hasn't worked. Is there a better solution? Maybe, but I don't know what it'd be. I'd rather Diaspora Jews just focus on being successful and prosperous members of whatever society in which they live.

Also, building the Temple on the site of the Second Temple would be ignite Armageddon.

Is that enough elaboration?

That's a fine elaboration. I appreciate your insight. I was actually hoping you'd respond when I made the original post.

[KinjaKahn]

The Temples were great and all, but most Jews are Diaspora Jews. One of my biggest problems with Israel is that Jews continue to push for Zion and Zion only as the end-all, be-all of survival. Well, Zion hasn't worked. Is there a better solution? Maybe, but I don't know what it'd be. I'd rather Diaspora Jews just focus on being successful and prosperous members of whatever society in which they live.

Also, building the Temple on the site of the Second Temple would be ignite Armageddon.

Is that enough elaboration?
Exactly. Its bad enough the Israelis still continue to build and build onto settlements in the west bank, now they toy with the Idea to replace a sacred mosque with the 3rd temple?

I still cant get over the US tax payers borrowing money from China and at the same time, giving Israel $15 million a day in Welfare, and Egypt $5 million a day to be friends with Israel. Checkbook 101 teaches that, that is a flawed way to manage money. Meanwhile American kids go hungry & medically neglected and, the homeless freeze to death in the winter.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Exactly. Its bad enough the Israelis still continue to build and build onto settlements in the west bank, now they toy with the Idea to replace a sacred mosque with the 3rd temple?

I still cant get over the US tax payers borrowing money from China and at the same time, giving Israel $15 million a day in Welfare, and Egypt $5 million a day to be friends with Israel. Checkbook 101 teaches that, that is a flawed way to manage money. Meanwhile American kids go hungry & medically neglected and, the homeless freeze to death in the winter.link?

[hannitykillspuppies]

link?nothing? this is the second time you've asserted that the us hands out 5.475 trillion dollars a year to israel and provided no proof.

[KinjaKahn]

nothing? this is the second time you've asserted that the us hands out 5.475 trillion dollars a year to israel and provided no proof.
1 trillion = 1000 Billions. Need a link for that too?

[hannitykillspuppies]

1 trillion = 1000 Billions. Need a link for that too?regardless of my lack of math skills, you still provide no proof.

[KinjaKahn]

regardless of my lack of math skills, you still provide no proof.
I implore to educate yourself. If you would like to hire me as a tutor, I will be glad to charge you $540 /hr minimum of 6 hours.

[swordfish]

nothing? this is the second time you've asserted that the us hands out 5.475 trillion dollars a year to israel and provided no proof.

How does this look to you.

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

12.2 % of all our aid goes there. *snore*

Total cost to US taxpayers

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

These figures are only current to 97, I will find some more.

[swordfish]

Heres a more liberal news source.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/US_Aid_to_Israel.htm

[hannitykillspuppies]

I implore to educate yourself.

If you would like to hire me as a tutor, I will be glad to charge you $540 /hr minimum of 6 hours.

i'll pass.

[hannitykillspuppies]

How does this look to you.

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

12.2 % of all our aid goes there. *snore*

Total cost to US taxpayers

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

These figures are only current to 97, I will find some more.that doesn't come out to 15 mil a day

[KinjaKahn]

Heres a more liberal news source.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/US_Aid_to_Israel.htm

Heres a right wing news source... http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html

[jcarm22]

Heres a right wing news source... http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion.
How is that $15 million a day?

[Tom Joad]

How is that $15 million a day?

You forgot the Conservative maxim: Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[KinjaKahn]

Last year, U.S. surveillance planes flying along China’s coast were threatened by Chinese fighter jets armed with Israeli missiles.

During the series of airborne confrontations, a Chinese jet crashed after colliding with a U.S. spy plane, killing the Chinese pilot and disabling the U.S. plane. The incident sparked a bitter diplomatic row as China detained the American crew for 11 days.

Had Chinese fighter pilots been given the order to fire, they could have brought down the U.S. planes with Israeli Python III missiles.

U.S. technology given to the Israelis in the form of the Sidewinder missile was used in the development of the Python, said Larry Wortzel, former U.S. Army attache in Beijing and now a military analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

U.S. defense chiefs say Israel sold China the missiles without informing the United States.

“Generally speaking, we’re not in favor of such capable weapons systems being proliferated to a variety of nations around the world,” Rear Adm. Craig Quigley said in a Pentagon briefing last year. “That’s a good missile, and its capabilities are considerable.”

In 2000, Israel bowed to U.S. pressure and canceled the sale to China of its AWACS-style airborne early warning radar planes. The director general of Israel’s finance ministry, Ohad Marani, said Israel typically discusses arms sales with the Americans.

“We don’t sell systems that upset the Pentagon,” Marani said.

Israel’s arms industry nevertheless continues to put great emphasis on the Chinese market, hawking its spy planes and radar systems at recent trade shows in Beijing and Singapore.

China may unveil as early as this year its new J-10 jet fighter, which experts say is modeled on Israel’s Lavi. The Lavi, now discontinued, was based on the U.S. F-16 and built with $1.3 billion in aid from Washington.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that the F-16 is the Lavi and the Lavi is, in substance, the J-10,” said Wortzel.

More fun for our bucks....

[Hotpapa666]

You have got to be fucking kidding me, that a person situated in Las Vegas NV, the Soddom of the modern world would start asking about the end of the world scenario. If there were a god, judging by the way those dens of sin were judged in the Old Testiment (A term I know you don't like because it deminishes the importance of the books, which leads one believe you think they should be held GREAT importance) you, Vegas, and all the rest of that town, would be worse than the french toast forgotten about, burned and trown away from the griddle of some low cost Vegas buffet; you'd be burning in a lake of fire...

Vegas, with armagedon comin', are you there just for a front row seat for the "I told you sos?", or....

Just curious...

[KinjaKahn]

Jun. 17, 2007 23:05 | Updated Jun. 18, 2007 8:39
Should Israel really be asking for an increase in US aid?
By RONI BART

Unless developments in Gaza overshadow the planned agenda for Tuesday's summit, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and US President George W. Bush are set to discuss, inter alia, Israel's request to increase American financial aid.

A few months ago, Israel submitted a request to raise the annual sum by 25 percent over 10 years, from $2.4 billion to $3b. If implemented, this would reverse the course initiated by prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu 10 years ago, which gradually reduced annual assistance by 20%, from $3b to $2.4b. Doing so would be a mistake.

The underlying rationale for the Israeli request is to take advantage of the final two years of the firmly pro-Israel Bush administration.

Israel's reasons for requesting increased aid are fairly obvious: financial need in the face of multiplying security threats, and reinforcing a powerful public symbol of American support.

On the other hand, there are four reasons to continue reducing the aid, and eventually eliminating it.

# First, since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of US foreign assistance. In the past 55 years, Israel has received more than $84b. in grants alone. Annual per capita American aid to Israel is more than $340, which is by far the highest in the world. Average global aid per capita is only $22.

This comparison becomes all the more glaring, given that, according to various indices, Israel is ranked 27th or 37th on the "rich scale." From a moral point of view, Israel's place at the top of the list of aid recipients, ahead of all poor and sick and malnourished Third World countries, is, to say the least, problematic.

Furthermore, this is also, or should be, a matter of national honor. It was only a generation ago that the goal of "economic independence" was still mentioned in Israel, if only as a distant aspiration. The process initiated by Netanyahu inched Israel toward that goal; freezing the process, let alone reversing it, means forsaking the dream.

# The desire for economic independence highlights a second reason for decreasing the aid.

Israel's financial dependence on the United States is a diplomatic liability.

True, this leverage has not been used by the US since 1956's brutal American pressure to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, but that is only because there is no need for anything explicit to be said. The American leverage over Israel, inter alia due to financial dependency, is manifested by the ever-present question: "What will the United States say?"

True, even if Israel were economically independent, it would still be dependent on crucial American support in other areas (technology, diplomacy). That, however, does not negate the importance of reducing dependence on the US as much as possible.

# A third reason for decreasing aid is maintaining long-term political support in the US. At some point, Americans will grow weary of the burden. It is already possible to detect potential warning signs. In 2003, against the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby, Congress included aid to Israel in an across-the-board cut in all foreign aid. And in 2005, both the administration and Congress cold-shouldered an Israeli request for extra assistance to offset the costs of disengagement from Gaza.

Starring effortlessly at the top of the list of aid recipients far into the future should not be taken for granted. Important voices calling to engage more seriously in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (a euphemism for pressuring Israel) indicate growing willingness in the US to acknowledge that Israel is not just a "strategic asset," but also a diplomatic liability.

Israel would do well to limit the negative aspects of its image to this issue, without being regarded an eternal financial burden as well. Furthermore, if at some point the United States should, for any reason, wish to decrease the aid, it would be important that Israel preempt this by initiating the process itself. As mentioned above, aid to Israel is a powerful public symbol of American support. Any American-initiated decrease, even for purely budgetary reasons, would be perceived as a weakening of support. Not so if the initiative is Israel's, as proven by the Netanyahu process.

# A fourth and final reason for decreasing aid is the economic advantages it will bring. American aid comes with strings, some of which shackle Israel's defense industry. Decreasing or eliminating American aid would help this sector in four ways. One, the IDF would buy more in Israel, investing in the local economy. Two, additional purchases by the IDF would bolster the reputation of Israeli firms, and thus their sales. Three, Israel's defense exports would be at least partly unshackled by American restrictions. Four, paying for purchases in the US with Israeli money would increase the volume of reciprocal purchases by American firms in Israel.

Israel's military needs are many and expensive, and the United States is generous. However, American aid amounts to only 4% of Israel's annual budget. Israel can and should change its budgetary priorities to gradually decrease American aid. Instead of asking for a 25% increase over 10 years, Israel should suggest a weaning process: a 100% decrease over 25 years.

Link Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813057221&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

To be continued...

[IBC]

To be continued...

Why isn't Vegas calling you an anti-semite?

[Vegas]

Why isn't Vegas calling you an anti-semite?

I was about to flat out ask him if he's an anti-Semite. Seriously.

[KinjaKahn]

US to double emergency equipment stored in Israel
Emergency stockpiles in Israel meant for storing US army equipment in Middle East opened in Israel's favor during last Lebanon war

Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 12.12.06, 08:57 / Israel News

WASHINGTON - The American Congress gave Israel financial and security encouragement when the Senate and the House of Representatives gave their approval to double the emergency equipment the United States stores in Israeli stockpiles.
Within the next two years the Americans will fill the military emergency stockpiles in Israel with double the equipment they now hold.


In addition, the US will allow Israel to use the remainder of the US's monetary guarantees given to them that have not been used yet, and add up to USD 4.5 billion, by 2011.


The emergency stockpiles are meant to store American military equipment in the Middle East in case of an emergency. However, in case of an emergency, Israel is allowed to use the stockpiles.


The value of the equipment currently stored in Israel amounts to USD 100 million and the American government approved doubling its value to USD 200 million in the coming year.


In 2008 the military stock will be doubled and refilled once again in the value of USD 200 million.



Pro-Israel decisions

The Congress decided to give special aid to Israel in order to minimize war damages, without having to give Israel additional direct financial aid.


The bill was approved by the Senate and House and it renewed authority to transfer equipment to be stored in Israel.


A great portion of the American equipment stored in Israel last year was used for combat in the summer war in Lebanon.


The US approved guarantees in the sum of USD 9 billion to Israeli to be used over a period of three years, and this period was then prolonged an additional year.


Israel has only used half of this amount and has requested the United States again extend the time limit on using these guarantees. Following the second Lebanon war the US agreed to extend this period until the year 2011.


These pro-Israel decisions were made due to the lobbying efforts of Senate heads Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Bill Frist, and through Head of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations John Biden and Richard Lugar.

Link another Israeli news source. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3338927,00.html)



2.46 billion in military Aid = over $6.7 million a day. Add to that the "emergency aid" approved by the senate in 2006 to give Israel an additional 9 billion over 4 years. Which is another $6.1 million a day... 12.8 million a day... in dollars we have to borrow and pay interest on. There are other smaller aid plans but I don't have time to dig them up.

[Vegas]

2.46 billion in military Aid = over $6.7 million a day. Add to that the "emergency aid" approved by the senate in 2006 to give Israel an additional 9 billion over 4 years. Which is another $6.1 million a day... 12.8 million a day... in dollars we have to borrow and pay interest on. There are other smaller aid plans but I don't have time to dig them up.

So are you an anti-Semite?

[KinjaKahn]

Pro America = Anti Semite? Perhaps you missed the post about this "friendly" country copying our F16, calling a Lavi, and dishing it off to China to be called the J-10?

[Vegas]

Pro America = Anti Semite? Perhaps you missed the post about this "friendly" country copying our F16, calling a Lavi, and dishing it off to China to be called the J-10?

I'm getting the impression that you're concentrating on Israel. They're hardly the only country getting a lot of US aid.

[KinjaKahn]

I'm getting the impression that you're concentrating on Israel. They're hardly the only country getting a lot of US aid.
Please educate yourself. Israel is the a rich nation and gets THE MOST United States welfare of all nations. Even more than those dying of starvation. Where is your morality? Watch children starve while propping up a criminal, almost fascist terrorist nation that sits on blood soaked land.

[KinjaKahn]

This comparison becomes all the more glaring, given that, according to various indices, Israel is ranked 27th or 37th on the "rich scale." From a moral point of view, Israel's place at the top of the list of aid recipients, ahead of all poor and sick and malnourished Third World countries, is, to say the least, problematic.

Read that again and again until it sinks in....

[Vegas]

Please educate yourself. Israel is the a rich nation and gets THE MOST United States welfare of all nations. Even more than those dying of starvation. Where is your morality? Watch children starve while propping up a criminal, almost fascist terrorist nation that sits on blood soaked land.

You didn't answer the question.

[hannitykillspuppies]

2.46 billion in military Aid = over $6.7 million a day. Add to that the "emergency aid" approved by the senate in 2006 to give Israel an additional 9 billion over 4 years. Which is another $6.1 million a day... 12.8 million a day... in dollars we have to borrow and pay interest on. There are other smaller aid plans but I don't have time to dig them up.

so we should now ignore the other two sources already posted in this thread, one of which posted by you, that reflected numbers that in no way came out to $15 mil a day and instead go by this source?

[KinjaKahn]

You didn't answer the question.
Which question? Your only defense? Scream anti-semite at those who oppose your little neo-fascist terror state?

Here's my plan... Disband Israel move all the Jews & Christians to the US. Tell the Muslims don't call us, we'll call you. They have had 50+ years to find peace and can't do it. The Britain's experiment failed. All it has done is produced a paranoid nuclear armed nation with divisions that will never mend. It's time to start worrying about the real pressing issues like Asia and its power balance and it's impending lack thereof.

[Vegas]

Which question? Your only defense? Scream anti-semite at those who oppose your little neo-fascist terror state?

Here's my plan... Disband Israel move all the Jews & Christians to the US. Tell the Muslims don't call us, we'll call you. They have had 50+ years to find peace and can't do it. The Britain's experiment failed. All it has done is produced a paranoid nuclear armed nation with divisions that will never mend. It's time to start worrying about the real pressing issues like Asia and its power balance and it's impending lack thereof.

I guess I have my answer now.

[KinjaKahn]

so we should now ignore the other two sources already posted in this thread, one of which posted by you, that reflected numbers that in no way came out to $15 mil a day and instead go by this source?
I posted a right wing source to balance someones left wing source. That source claimed $1.6 trillion in total financial burden, over the 1973-2002, 29 yrs... or $128 million a day, which is wildly higher than what I asserted.

Instead of whining about what you don't know... how about you start spitting out what you do know. How much does our support for Israel cost averaged out on a daily basis?

[Vegas]

I posted a right wing source to balance someones left wing source. That source claimed $1.6 trillion in total financial burden, over the 1973-2002, 29 yrs... or $128 million a day, which is wildly higher than what I asserted.

Instead of whining about what you don't know... how about you start spitting out what you do know. How much does our support for Israel cost averaged out on a daily basis?

So how do you feel about the money given to the PLO?

[KinjaKahn]

I guess I have my answer now.

How about you argue the issue and not the poster? Novel concept?

[KinjaKahn]

So how do you feel about the money given to the PLO?
Add it to the total financial burden of this mess.

[Tom Joad]

Hasty deduction like ancient egg. Look good from outside. ~Charlie Chan

[hannitykillspuppies]

I posted a right wing source to balance someones left wing source. That source claimed $1.6 trillion in total financial burden, over the 1973-2002, 29 yrs...or $128 million a day, which is wildly higher than what I asserted.

Instead of whining about what you don't know... how about you start spitting out what you do know. How much does our support for Israel cost averaged out on a daily basis?
not whining, just wondering how many more sources we have to run through to get the numbers right.

i don't know anything about anything.

[Vegas]

How about you argue the issue and not the poster? Novel concept?

I'm against foreign aid in almost all cases, but have to wonder why you seem to have so much extra dislike for the aid to Israel.

[KinjaKahn]

I'm against foreign aid in almost all cases, but have to wonder why you seem to have so much extra dislike for the aid to Israel.

http://tomdavis.typepad.com/tom_daviss_blog/images/starving_children_1.jpg vs. http://coat.ncf.ca/f-15%20israel.jpg

Got Morality?

[Tom Joad]

http://tomdavis.typepad.com/tom_daviss_blog/images/starving_children_1.jpg vs. http://coat.ncf.ca/f-15%20israel.jpg

Got Morality?


And this is different from our gigantic budget for the military versus helping our own people, how?

[KinjaKahn]

And this is different from our gigantic budget for the military versus helping our own people, how?

One is foreign policy, the other is domestic policy. If you want to discuss cuts in military spending and welfare increases or the other way around, state your case.

[Tom Joad]

One is foreign policy, the other is domestic policy. If you want to discuss cuts in military spending and welfare increases or the other way around, state your case.

I want to know why you're pro-poor people...as long as they don't live by you?

[KinjaKahn]

I want to know why you're pro-poor people...as long as they don't live by you?
Am I the topic now?

[Tom Joad]

Am I the topic now?


No, I want to know why you place a higher value of one over the other. It's the same as me asking why you would vote for Ron Paul over any other Republican candidate.

[KinjaKahn]

No, I want to know why you place a higher value of one over the other. It's the same as me asking why you would vote for Ron Paul over any other Republican candidate.
It falls under what I feel is right and wrong. Ending world hunger never seems to fall on the side of "the wrong thing to do".

[Tom Joad]

It falls under what I feel is right and wrong. Ending world hunger never seems to fall on the side of "the wrong thing to do".

What about domestic woes?

[KinjaKahn]

What about domestic woes?
Which ones? Personal responsibility? Personal Accountability? Going to bed hungry is not the same as going to bed starving to death. I am in favor of a community service for welfare type program where the poor must make an effort to help society.

[Tom Joad]

Which ones? Personal responsibility? Personal Accountability? Going to bed hungry is not the same as going to bed starving to death. I am in favor of a community service for welfare type program where the poor must make an effort to help society.

http://www.amazon.com/When-Work-Disappears-World-Urban/dp/0679724176

Read that book. I promise, it'll make you really think.

[Vegas]

It falls under what I feel is right and wrong. Ending world hunger never seems to fall on the side of "the wrong thing to do".

World hunger cannot be solved by any foreign aid from this or from any other country.

[LSU]

World hunger cannot be solved by any foreign aid from this or from any other country.



Is it really an "all or nothing" situation?

[KinjaKahn]

http://www.amazon.com/When-Work-Disappears-World-Urban/dp/0679724176

Read that book. I promise, it'll make you really think.
I live in Metro Detroit. That book is a Detroit Reality.

[Vegas]

Is it really an "all or nothing" situation?

No, but giving money to the poor means you will end up with more poor. Giving money away doesn't solve problems.

[KinjaKahn]

World hunger cannot be solved by any foreign aid from this or from any other country.
Nonsense. We couldn't go to the moon and we couldn't harness a chain reaction for that matter either. I can see how Corn, Wheat, and Soy cultivation is equally insurmountable.

[Vegas]

Nonsense. We couldn't go to the moon and we couldn't harness a chain reaction for that matter either. I can see how Corn, Wheat, and Soy cultivation is equally insurmountable.

It's hardly nonsense. Look at the history. In this country, we have spent $11 trillion on the war on poverty. How could we have any poor?

Look at foreign aid. We spend untold amounts of money in poor countries and the money does little to nothing (usually nothing) to help the needy.

[LSU]

No, but giving money to the poor means you will end up with more poor. Giving money away doesn't solve problems.

I'm sure those people in Africa are planning right now ways to look more deathly skinny so that the US will send over a couple more bags of rice.

[Vegas]

I'm sure those people in Africa are planning right now ways to look more deathly skinny so that the US will send over a couple more bags of rice.

The politicians in Africa may be thinking of ways to get more deathly skinny people so the politicians here will send more money for the politicians themselves to keep and not feed the starving.

[LSU]

The politicians in Africa may be thinking of ways to get more deathly skinny people so the politicians here will send more money for the politicians themselves to keep and not feed the starving.


It's the US's problem if they're shipping shit over there blindly, trusting assholes. That doesn't make the charity bad, just the execution of it. If they're funneling it through the people that live in 3 palaces while the rest starve...there needs to be a new leader to say..."hold on, bitches."

[KinjaKahn]

It's hardly nonsense. Look at the history. In this country, we have spent $11 trillion on the war on poverty. How could we have any poor?

Look at foreign aid. We spend untold amounts of money in poor countries and the money does little to nothing (usually nothing) to help the needy.

Obviously fools are in charge, most likely attorneys, since thats generally the prerequisite for being in the employed in the immense and inept bureaucracy that is the US Federal Government. This brings to mind the greatness of FDR's projects, I say we invest in a nationwide hydrogen fuel infrastructure. The Status Quo has to go.

Ron Paul will end the War on Poverty.

[Vegas]

It's the US's problem if they're shipping shit over there blindly, trusting assholes. That doesn't make the charity bad, just the execution of it. If they're funneling it through the people that live in 3 palaces while the rest starve...there needs to be a new leader to say..."hold on, bitches."

That's happened the way you described it multiple times.

[Vegas]

Obviously fools are in charge, most likely attorneys, since thats generally the prerequisite for being in the employed in the immense and inept bureaucracy that is the US Federal Government. This brings to mind the greatness of FDR's projects, I say we invest in a nationwide hydrogen fuel infrastructure. The Status Quo has to go.

Ron Paul will end the War on Poverty.

Should we invest in a nationwide hydrogen fuel infrastructure before there is a viable way of getting the hydrogen?

[LSU]

That's happened the way you described it multiple times.



Yeah, because it's a token move. It's not real compassion. If the gov't was all that worried about actually helping people, they'd be there doing it, not just throwing it out and wherever it lands it lands.

But that doesn't mean the act of giving wouldn't be helpful. Just means that it's being done wrong.

[Vegas]

Yeah, because it's a token move. It's not real compassion. If the gov't was all that worried about actually helping people, they'd be there doing it, not just throwing it out and wherever it lands it lands.

But that doesn't mean the act of giving wouldn't be helpful. Just means that it's being done wrong.

True. But let's look at Ethiopia as an example. We sent tons of food there that never made it to the needy. But if it had, how much would it have helped? The population would have doubled in a short time and there would be more mouths to feed.

[LSU]

True. But let's look at Ethiopia as an example. We sent tons of food there that never made it to the needy. But if it had, how much would it have helped? The population would have doubled in a short time and there would be more mouths to feed.


So, in theory, it would've been better to let the poor starve and die out rather than risk them reproducing to produce more poor?


Somehow the "love thy neighbor" concept seems to be missing here.

[KinjaKahn]

Should we invest in a nationwide hydrogen fuel infrastructure before there is a viable way of getting the hydrogen?
Federal Govt. is blocking hydrogen technology. Why is that?

May 22nd, 2007:

Our Hydrogen Fuel System is not yet available for sale. There are legal problems with several components of the unit which is preventing its sale.
Until the legal proceedings are complete, we won't be moving forward the system.
Thank you all for your emails & support. The legal action is due to the actions of the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) attempting to remove the necessary chemicals used in this system from public use.

[Vegas]

So, in theory, it would've been better to let the poor starve and die out rather than risk them reproducing to produce more poor?


Somehow the "love thy neighbor" concept seems to be missing here.

I'm not as heartless as I'm sure I sound here. I'm just trying to make the point that we cannot solve the problems of starvation and poverty by throwing money at it.

[Vegas]

Federal Govt. is blocking hydrogen technology. Why is that?

The federal government is not blocking hydrogen technology. There are simply some serious technical challenges that have not been solved (and may not be in my lifetime). The amount of energy that it takes to get the hydrogen molecules to unbind from oxygen molecules in water is more energy than you get from the hydrogen fuel.

Until there is a lower energy method, it will not be viable.

[LSU]

I'm not as heartless as I'm sure I sound here. I'm just trying to make the point that we cannot solve the problems of starvation and poverty by throwing money at it.



I know you didn't mean to make it sound like it did...but if we're to take the stance as the "moral" country and the leader of the free world...we have to do just that. Lead. Help. People have a much better chance, IMO, of getting out of it with help rather than without.

[LSU]

The federal government is not blocking hydrogen technology. There are simply some serious technical challenges that have not been solved (and may not be in my lifetime). The amount of energy that it takes to get the hydrogen molecules to unbind from oxygen molecules in water is more energy than you get from the hydrogen fuel.

Until there is a lower energy method, it will not be viable.


there was a good article in scientific american within the past couple months regarding H technology...described advantages and limitations to the whole shindig.

[KinjaKahn]

there was a good article in scientific american within the past couple months regarding H technology...described advantages and limitations to the whole shindig.

Meanwhile both of you without even asking... dismiss this system, contently ignorant of the fact the hydrogen generator is powered from solar panels or a windmill turbine.

[Vegas]

Meanwhile both of you without even asking... dismiss this system, contently ignorant of the fact the hydrogen generator is powered from solar panels or a windmill turbine.

How about if you calculate how much of the area of the USA would need to be covered by solar panels or windmills to extract enough hydrogen to fuel even 10% of our oil needs?

[LSU]

Meanwhile both of you without even asking... dismiss this system, contently ignorant of the fact the hydrogen generator is powered from solar panels or a windmill turbine.



I think the ignorant one would be the one that lumps me in with those that dismiss the system.

But, whatever trips your trigger. I know what I think is what you think I think, so there's no use discussing it.

[KinjaKahn]

How about if you calculate how much of the area of the USA would need to be covered by solar panels or windmills to extract enough hydrogen to fuel even 10% of our oil needs?

How about a panel mounted on your roof running a generator in your garage? Still to cumbersome?

[KinjaKahn]

I think the ignorant one would be the one that lumps me in with those that dismiss the system.

But, whatever trips your trigger. I know what I think is what you think I think, so there's no use discussing it.

So tell me about the system to which I am referring? Or are you accurately Ignorant to it?

[LSU]

So tell me about the system to which I am referring? Or are you accurately Ignorant to it?



You said I dismissed the whole thing, which I most certainly have not.

That was the point that was made, rather than the one you're trying to turn it into.

I don't know much about H technology, no. Ignorant am I? Perhaps, but I have not dismissed it as you said I have.

[LSU]

Is this the process I'm ignorant to?

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/home-hydrogen-fueling-stations.htm

[KinjaKahn]

Is this the process I'm ignorant to?

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/home-hydrogen-fueling-stations.htm

Not the particular instance to which I was referring but it seems quite similar.

[LSU]

Not the particular instance to which I was referring but it seems quite similar.



My first question would be, how much electricity does it need to convert enough H20 to H2 in order to get a tank full? And would a tank full last the standard 300+ miles as a petro tank does now? And what happens if I have to drive more than 300 miles? Do I have to bring my garage with me?

Regardless of how cool a fill up station would be in your garage, you still need to have H2 stations all over the country, or travel would be a pain. Unless you have a gas/H2 vehicle that could run on either.

But from what I understood in the SciAm article, right now there are no viable ways (at the moment) to get the H2 compact enough (for nationwide use in cars) to get a good distance out of a tank of fuel, unless the whole car was the H2 container.

[KinjaKahn]

My first question would be, how much electricity does it need to convert enough H20 to H2 in order to get a tank full? And would a tank full last the standard 300+ miles as a petro tank does now? And what happens if I have to drive more than 300 miles? Do I have to bring my garage with me?

Regardless of how cool a fill up station would be in your garage, you still need to have H2 stations all over the country, or travel would be a pain. Unless you have a gas/H2 vehicle that could run on either.

But from what I understood in the SciAm article, right now there are no viable ways (at the moment) to get the H2 compact enough (for nationwide use in cars) to get a good distance out of a tank of fuel, unless the whole car was the H2 container.

This was the whole premise for building a hydrogen fuel infrastructure. The system I was referring to does allow you to switch between H2 and Gasoline at any time.

[Vegas]

This was the whole premise for building a hydrogen fuel infrastructure. The system I was referring to does allow you to switch between H2 and Gasoline at any time.

And the government should be spending the money on that infrastructure?

[KinjaKahn]

And the government should be spending the money on that infrastructure?
Better than spending the money on blowing up Arabs.

[Vegas]

Better than spending the money on blowing up Arabs.

If hydrogen becomes a viable fuel source, the oil companies will happily spend the money on infrastructure and it will be far cheaper than anything the government could do.

[KinjaKahn]

If hydrogen becomes a viable fuel source, the oil companies will happily spend the money on infrastructure and it will be far cheaper than anything the government could do.ROFL Big Oil has no interest in giving up the fuel cycle.

[Vegas]

ROFL Big Oil has no interest in giving up the fuel cycle.

Who besides big oil could distribute hydrogen on a wide scale and at a competitive price?

[KinjaKahn]

Who besides big oil could distribute hydrogen on a wide scale and at a competitive price?

hmmmm the water company? You seem to not grasp the idea of independent hydrogen production.

[Vegas]

hmmmm the water company? You seem to not grasp the idea of independent hydrogen production.

The local water company can distribute explosive materials?

[KinjaKahn]

The local water company can distribute explosive materials?ROFL It does everyday... its safely delivered bound to oxygen, in liquid form. Its called Water.