Who will declare war first?

Well, considering that the state of Israel and the United States are virtually synonymous in terms of their support of each other both militarily and economically the options in this market in reality are really 3. Will Israel/U.S.A. declare war first or will Iran declare war first. I'm sure the Israeli lobby is very hard at work convincing the American political body that "its" interests are also the United States interests.

As an interesting side note you might recall a little treaty that was devised by the world's leading nations. It's called the NNPT or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Interestingly, everyone knows that Israel possesses nuclear weapons in violation of this treaty. Now, this revelation is probably no surprise to most people but what is surprising is the fact that Israel believes that Iran should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons while it itself possesses them in clear violation of world law.

So...let me get this straight. You can illegal possess weapons capable of destroying your enemies but your enemies cannot? LOL! Someone, anyone! run to the bookshelf and get me the dictionary. Let's look up the definition of hypocrite, double-standard, illogical, two-faced and zealot together. Really, I'm quite interested in the result.

Oh, and by the way. I'm not a terrorist. Although I suspect the state of Israel who label me as one as they tend to dislike truths, especially when they don't coincide with Israel's "version."

I'm sure the Israeli lobby is very hard at work convincing the American political body that "its" interests are also the United States interests.

Is it in the United States interests for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?!?!

Israel shouldn't even be on the MAP. It's only there because of 'terrorism'.

Please notice:

It's not only about declaring war on each other. each of this country may declare war on any country (also such not mentioned here) to make this question settle. in case the US would declare war on Honduras, this question would settle "US", for example.

I understood that krujis. I just like posting about how much I despise Israel. Plus I fully expect Israel to be the country that starts something.

Does it count if they declare war again on Gaza? By that I mean, name their next bloodbath combat mission like they did Operation Cast Lead.

"Is it in the United States interests for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?!?!"

Is it in anybodies interests to posses nuclear weapons? Well! Here's a pretty simple answer for you. That depends on who's interests we are talking about now isn't it? And who exactly has a right to own nuclear weapons to begin with? Are you operating on some divine notion that I don't know about? or, far more likely, are you just basing your ideas of who and who shouldn't have be allowed to possess nuclear weapons based on your nightly news? daily news paper? syndicated radio station? In other words, the things your government wants you to believe. It's not called propaganda for nothing.

Now, am I saying that its in every bodies interests for Iran to have nuclear weapons? No, as my intuition tells me it isn't. Any idiot can see the potentially for problems if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons. But tell me this? Why is it okay for you that Israel has nuclear weapons? Or even better yet. Why is it okay with you that the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on other human beings to have nuclear weapons? That's right, the good ol' U.S. of A. We are crazy enough to use them as we have so adeptly demonstrated.

So essentially my real question is this: If the cat is out of the bag then who's to say who has the right to possess nuclear weapons. Did God ordain only the "good" nations to possess these weapons? or is it really not the fact that nobody "has a right" to possess these weapons? I tend to agree with the latter. No body, no one, no nation HAS a right to anything. But nuclear weapons are here, they are a reality we must all contend with. You cannot put the genie back into the bottle. But it doesn't help your cause any when you shake your finger at others for fear of their using nuclear weapons when you yourself are the only one to have used it against humanity. If all of this doesn't strike you as a bit hypocritical we are done here. I cannot afford to waste my time debating with rocks.

is snickering at oppland's presumtive dismissal

I second that, oppland.
c2: I didn't mean to write it in response to your comment. just wanted to notice before anyone asks (see: http://www.hubdub.com/m11148/ )

...presumptive dismissal - exactly.

Oppland
Your clear implication is that America simply lobs a nuke every now and then - just for grins.
American dropped atomic bombs on Japan in a delayed response to an unprovoked attack at pearl harbor, which was part of Japan's attempt to invade and take over the pacific theater. This was done after America lost approximately 300,000 troops during WWII. Somehow, you forgot to mention that minor detail in your grand synopsis.

Why is it that most nations agree that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?
Because of the implied threat to the rest of the world.
What you are leaving out of your equation is the inherent level of aggression towards other nations between America vs Iran.
American and coalition forces invaded Iraq with conventional weapons. While many claim it was a failed effort to find WMD's or a war for oil, I believe the end result was to provide a troop base near Iran as a deterrent to their aggression and to encourage their population to replace the current religious zealots with a democratic based republic through a citizen uprising.

The important point here is that America is withdrawing from Iraq now, and the citizens have hope for more democratic elections, while most agree that Iran's probable use of nukes would be for the expansion of an islamic dictatorship. the difference being that one scenario allows the citizen population free will to make their own decisions on the future leadership of their country.

At least, this is one rocks opinion . . .

"What you are leaving out of your equation is the inherent level of aggression towards other nations between America vs Iran."

@ chatarra, Although I'd like to address all of your points I only have the energy to address one at the moment. "Inherent level of aggression", interesting! Okay, so is occupying the country right next door to yours considered aggression? if so I believe America is in Irans neighborhood not the other way around. How many countries has Iran invaded, occupied and dictated its will to lately? Now, how about America? How many billions of dollars in military aid has Iran funneled to other countries that America is considered enemies with, that are able to carry out military strikes on America? Now, how many of billions of dollars has America provided the state of Israel with which is the universally known arch enemy of Iran? I'm guessing there is no comparison. In fact, I'm not guessing, I know for certain who provides billions upon billions of dollars of military aid to Israel and it's not Iran.

Fact is, we are the aggressors you speak of. We are in their land, taking their oil, undermining their cultural traditions and why exactly? Because we like gas guzzling cars and we like to sell people our sh*t! Otherwise, we'd care about the Middle east about as much as we care about Darfur, which is to say not a damn bit!

I'm not buying the argument that Iran is the only aggressor involved in this feud. I think it's pretty evident that Britain, America and other European countries' use of the world for their colonial playground has come back to sh*t in our faces. There's plenty of good books on this subject. I suspect you read different ones than I did.

somebody call joe biden and ask him the correct answer to this question. it seems that he is willing to answer questions off the cuff

Hello Joe Biden, is this you? Okay good, I got a question I need answered. And you can answer my question with complete certainty at the drop of a hat? Oh, wow! Okay then, my question is...

Why do you remind me of a slimy vacuum salesman?

Hey oppland, you mentioned We are in their land, taking their oil... I missed the news on this one... where is this oil we took from them?

well oppland there is this theory known as the reflective perspective. i would share it with you but the elders forbid the sharing of wisdom with rocks

careful there mean....for some reason YOU are not allowed to share with anybody, be it animal, vegetable or mineral, lest you 'cross that line' again and find yourself banished to the penalty box.

is now snickering at the thought of bainishment for positive reflection

*banishment

Australia is the only country that should be allowed nuclear weapons.

The climate here breeds a sober, contemplative and dispassionate disposition.

but Australia was populated by deported criminals! argh!

That was a long time ago Kruijs. Today, Australia is comprised solely of law abiding, decent people (with the notable exception of Australian criminals).

In any event, our checkered past is like a Formula 1 flag, waving on the responsible use of military grade plutonium.

You know, why does the US have so many problems getting along with other countries? You don't see a question like this regarding their neighbors Canada or Mexico.

Obama: No green light for Israel to attack Iran

The United States is "absolutely not" giving Israel a green light to attack Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama told CNN Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/07/obama.israel.iran/?iref=mpstoryview

Oppland, none of what you said has any relevance to this market. The most ridiculous thing you said was "I'm not a terrorist. Although I suspect the state of Israel who label me as one as they tend to dislike truths". No, the state of Israel (and everyone else) would label you a "terrorist" if you go around deliberately killing civilians to further your political causes. If you limit your activism to Hubdub comments (whether they are "thruths" or "falsehoods"), you won't be labeled a "terrorist", don't worry :-) Perhaps a crackpot, perhaps an annoyance, but not a terrorist....

But to get to the point - I think this question is very problematic. Imagine that one of the countries in the list attacks one of the other countries in the list. With all likelyhood, this will be a suprise attack. It's not like the attacker will send a messenger with a "declaration of war" before the attack. When do we expect a "declaration of war"? What if that never comes, or comes a month later when the country in question needs to secure funds from its congress or parliament or whatever? What if the second country to attack would be the first country to make something resembling a formal "declaration" of war?

- Nyharel : True. 'Declarations of War' is a somewhat quaint notion that does not fit todays world nearly as much as it did the last century. It is far more likely that a country will invade claiming self-defence of itself or others (like the Russian invasion of Georgia).

Did the US actually declare war on Iraq? Does the phrase 'declare war' have a set legal definition or is it simply an acknowledgement of the use of military force. Anyone?

Otherwise I note : "terrorist" if you go around deliberately killing civilians to further your political causes.

Does the word 'deliberately' include killing by way of reckless indifference? If so, alot of dead Iraqis may be pointing the finger...

please do not take 'Declarations of War' as if it must be a formal one. if anyone official declares that it's a war, it's enough to settle. (see settlement of http://www.hubdub.com/m11148/ )

there haven't been formal declarations of war by the US since WWII, for example.

@ nyharel, your points are well taken. I won't venture to answer any of your questions as I suspect you don't/won't care to listen/regard anything I have to say. Your mind seems set. I respect your feelings but there is nothing we can discuss, at least not with any hope of learning or considering each other's point of views.

kruijs, the question explicitly says "It must be an official declaration of war (not just warlike operations) to settle this question."
In this sense, I believe the US's war in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't considered a war? When did you hear an "official declaration of war"?
And in the latest Israeli-Lebanese war, there were arguments in Israel for *months* whether this was in fact a *war* or perhaps it was just an "operation". For various reasons, the goverment finally decided it was indeed a war, but this was already after that war has ended... In fact, headstones of all killed soldiers were replaced, to change the engraving from "killed in an operation in Lebanon" to "killed in the Second Lebanon War"...

Another example - the latest Israel-Lebanon war started when the Lebanese Hizbollah briefly penetrated the border (and killed and kidnapped several Israeli soldiers), and Israel responded by a bigger attack of Lebanon, from which things escalated into a war. Who would you say "officially declared war" first? It could be argued that HIzbollah started the war, but it could also be argued that they didn't declare a war - they just wanted to do a small operation in Israel and not start a full war. What a mess.

So, when the time comes (hope it doesn't...), we'll have a tough time deciding whether we've seen an "official declaration of war", and who did it first...

Oppland,
"How many countries has Iran invaded, occupied and dictated its will to lately? Now, how about America?"

As I see it, America and Iran approach their aggressive activities in a much different way.
In Iraq, America brought the opportunity to vote to millions of citizens when they removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Iraq continues to threaten Israel (& America) with annihilation, if given the opportunity, through the violent use of nuclear weapons.

"We are in their land, taking their oil. . . "
Yeah, after they sell it to us.

"Because we like gas guzzling cars and we like to sell people our sh*t! Otherwise, we'd care about the Middle east about as much as we care about Darfur, which is to say not a damn bit!"
We would need much less imported oil if environmental extremists & liberals would not stifle our attempts to drill in the USA.

Interestingly, you bring up Darfur. President Bush was given praise for his handling of Darfur, by none less than Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. I urge you to read his article in the Wall Street Journal.
Bush Does the Right Thing for Darfur
A critic praises the president's stand on war criminals and international law.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122748942432652031.html

editors note - should read:
Iran continues to threaten Israel (& America) with annihilation, if given the opportunity, through the violent use of nuclear weapons.

my mistake

@ chatarra,

"As I see it, America and Iran approach their aggressive activities in a much different way.
In Iraq, America brought the opportunity to vote to millions of citizens when they removed Saddam Hussein from power."

Chatrarra, it was never "America's" mandate to "bring" the "opportunity" to vote to millions, nor was it their mandate to cause the deaths of of thousands upon thousands of people directly or indirectly through their "good actions." That is to say, you may justify the wars cause and effect by any good deeds you wish but it will never change the fact that we initiated an illegal war. My argument doesn't consider whether our intentions were pure or not, it considers the justness and legality of the war which it clearly was not. Not even on the flimsiest of evidence offered up by war mongering/war profiteers that contiue to dig deep for the slightest of justifications for the war.

"We are in their land, taking their oil. . . "
"Yeah, after they sell it to us."
LOL! Yeah...I'd sale you stuff too if you had your gun in my face. This must be that "free-market" capitalism you talk about. Oh, and don't forget, when you take over stake in another countries oil fields with your own multi-national oil companies, it's not too hard to get the "Iraqi's" to sell it back to us.

"Because we like gas guzzling cars and we like to sell people our sh*t! Otherwise, we'd care about the Middle east about as much as we care about Darfur, which is to say not a damn bit!"
"We would need much less imported oil if environmental extremists & liberals would not stifle our attempts to drill in the USA."

Yeah...those pesky liberals, always trying to preserve the very earth that makes humanity possible. I too never got or understood their loony logic, you know, the preserving nature so that it can preserve us part?? Pretty dumb stuff huh? Really chatarra? do you really believe that humanity doesn't have the intellectual capacity and engineering know-how to come up with viable alternatives to petrochemicals? We've had the capacity and know how for decades, the only things stymieing progress in this area is hidebound/greedy oil companies and all the politicians in their pockets' which want to forestall any alternative to our petrochemical dependency simply based on their profit motives. Moving on now...or are we? How long are people like you going to risk this world simply because you "think" you know you are right about everything? Does the earth's fate need to literally drop off the F*ing! cliff in order for people like you to say, hmmm! maybe I was wrong? Maybe our species' actions are irreversibly altering this planet's ability to cope?

Interestingly, you bring up Darfur. President Bush was given praise for his handling of Darfur, by none less than Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. I urge you to read his article in the Wall Street Journal.
Bush Does the Right Thing for Darfur

You've got to be kidding. A little bit of mouth service doesn't do this catastrophe justice. Long after Bush has left office the problem in Darfur is no closer to being resolved, that means people are still dying and those deaths are no less tragic because Mr. Bushy boy made a few words of window dressing. We've done nothing near what we "could" doing. Instead of engaging in illegal preemptive wars perhaps the United States would be better served in putting a stop to atrocities like this. It would no doubt cost the American tax-payer far less than wars of the Iraq ilk and would go a long way in showing America actually has an understanding of justness and injustice. But then again, Darfur is bubbling with oil like some other countries I can think of...now is it? Perhaps if it were we'd find "reasons" to intervene. But it's not, so here we are, and there's Darfur.
A critic praises the president's stand on war criminals and international law.

Ignore the
"A critic praises the president's stand on war criminals and international law." part. It was a typo, also I meant to say Darfur isn't swimming in oil like Middle eastern countries.

I have not yet visited your alternate universe.

Oh yes you have, it's called the United States under fundamentalists leadership. Which is to say not America at all, at least not the America it was meant to be.

Maybe I should get a purdy! little American flag icon for my avatar like you. That way everyone would know what a good little blindly patriotic American I am.

Oppland:
Re: Illegal war - I will not argue that one. International legal critics agree - it was illegal.
My point was not to argue the legality of the war, but to show that there is not equivalency in war. If Iran were to go to war with the USA, I doubt they would try to only take out Obama. Instead, I suspect that they would try to convert or eliminate all citizens. While America and the coalition of the willing had a high number of causalities on both sides of the war, it was not our intent to destroy the country.

LOL! Yeah...I'd sale (sell) you stuff too if you had your gun in my face.
Here is your weakest argument. Do you think the oil sales will continue after we have departed the country? Of course they will. Iraq needs the capital and America will gladly use their oil. Some circles would call that a partnership.

Yeah...those pesky liberals, always trying to preserve the very earth that makes humanity possible.
Darn-It-All, I thought I was about to win you over when I first read that one. he he
Drilling technology has improved to a point where the earth will not collapse if we drill for oil closer to home. Regardless of your claims that we have had alternative methods for energy production that have been stymied by the oil companies who only want to profiteering, oil still brings the best value when comparing the amount of energy produced by various methods.

You've got to be kidding. A little bit of mouth service doesn't do this catastrophe justice.
OK - I agree that our efforts here have been weak. But what would you suggest? Our only way to be sure that relief supplies would reach the intended victims would be to invade the country so that we could oversee the distribution of food and medical supplies. But if we were to invade Darfur, then there would be another uproar that our actions were considered illegal. So, what are we to do? This is not a snide or condescending question - I just really do not know what we can do. Please remember, that I do not consider the UN to be a valid agency for change, when considering the options for relief to Darfur.

P.S. I start my weekly shift tomorrow with the (4) 12's and I have found from previous experience that I come across as a grumpy old man if I respond to postings after a long day at work. And no, I do not consider myself better because I work 12 hour days. I just need more time than most other people, who can get them done in just 8 hours.
8>)

Background: It must be an official declaration of war (not just warlike operations) to settle this question.

comment 26 - please do not take 'Declarations of War' as if it must be a formal one.

before you wager some friendly advice. flag and ask the admin whats the difference between "offical" and "formal."

see link below as to where this is headed.

http://www.hubdub.com/m19274/Will_the_US_leave_Iraqi_cities_before_July_2009

Oppland
Oh yes you have, it's called the United States under fundamentalists leadership. Which is to say not America at all, at least not the America it was meant to be.
Maybe I should get a purdy! little American flag icon for my avatar like you. That way everyone would know what a good little blindly patriotic American I am.

Although these are not directed to me, I cannot help but answer them.
FOF handles himself just fine and I look forward to his response as well.
You are better off sticking to tangible issues, rather than personal attacks. Just because Bush professed to being religious, he did not create fundamentalist rule. I do not even know what church Bush attended. Kinda like Obama, except that Obama cannot find a suitable church. Perhaps Obama should return to the church he attended for the last 20 years.

Showing pride in America is not a bad thing. Is America perfect? No. Show me the perfect country and I will move there tomorrow. Until then, I will be happy to stay here in the good Ole USA.
If you like, I will send you a picture of the flag hanging in front of my house.
I would be honored to share my patriotism with you. Just let me know.
:-)

I second the theme in your post (no. 38) Chat

Oppland - there are good texts out there that give guidance on how to persuade a conservative. Until you take that exercise seriously you are doomed to come across as moody teenager no matter how valid your points may be.

@dieseldog
thanks for your concern about the way of this question.
I'll try explain (again) what the difference is between a formal and an official declaration:
- formal (got out of fashion in modern times), like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal_declarations_of_war
- official, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress

But kruijs, the question asks which country will make the war official *first*.
Isn't this meaningless? Country A will attack country B, and an hour later country B retaliates, and vice versa, and a full-blown war starts.
Then, a *week* later country B's congress decides to fund this war. Country A doesn't even have a congress. So does this mean that B declared war first?

@ buckojo, my aims aren't to persuade anyone, besides, ignorance cannot be persuaded. Moody? maybe so, it's not hard to be moody when you take a critical look at man's current predicament. My personal take on the matter is it's too late. This world is led by the blind. I can assure you one thing, give it a few hundred years and humanity will extinct. If that.

Oppland - I think you are trying to persuade.

Ignorance can be lifted by enlightenment but only if persuasively presented. I have something I call the asshole theory which posits that you can have the most logical, well-structured and cogent argument possible but if you begin (or if someone thinks that you begin) your presentation with the words 'Hey asshole...' there is no chance of convincing them.

One great way to convince a conservative is to appeal to there sensibilities re money (if emotional arguments were going to work on these people they probably would have worked already).

So for example, in Australia, the last conservative government one the election in 2000 by scapegoating refugees who came to teh country. Many people beleive that refugees are a threat to the economy ('they tik urr jobs' kinda thing.)

If you point out that the governments treatment of the refugees (ie by placing them on 'off-shore processing centres') costs hundreds of millions of dollars and doesnt change the influx of further refugees you have a chance of getting them to re-think. If you just say 'its immoral to put children behind bars for years' they wont be convinced no matter how right you are.

"one" (won) (its late in the day)

@nyharel
since warlike operations alone does not suffice, someone (who is in the appropriate position - doesn't have to be a "congress", that's just one possibility), has to say "we are at war" (or similar). the first to do so will settle the question.

"One great way to convince a conservative is to appeal to there sensibilities re money (if emotional arguments were going to work on these people they probably would have worked already)."

@ buckojo, buckojo, you strike me as someone who changes with the direction of the wind. Somethings cannot be comprised. Your "idea" of convincing a conservative by appealing to his sensibilities is nothing short of dealing with the devil. There's certain things in life that are nonnegotiable, such as justice. While justice is a subjective term there is indeed universal definition of justice. It's called treat others how you yourself would like to be treated. Quite frankly humanity strikes me as a disease. Just have a look around, people behave in grotesque ways. Really, when the earth falls to sh@t! Let it breath a long sigh of relief. Human beings are the most selfish creatures this planet has ever conceived.

I'm proud to be an American
where at least I know I'm free,
And I won't forget the men who died
who gave that right to me,
And I gladly stand up next to you
and defend her still today,
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A. - Lee Greenwood

In order to love one's country, one needn't wear their patriotism on their sleeve. There's things I love and hate about America. America is like and unlike any other country. It has its faults and its strengths. A country however is not an inanimate object. It's not a flag or a national anthem. It's not what a thousand history books in your high school say either. Those are stories created for popular consumption. Most of all, America is not stagnate. Yesterday's America is not today's America. Put simply, your country is the actions it takes everyday. And the actions "our" country is making today, are, in my opinion, not exactly something to be deeply proud of. I love our country too. But not because of the daily dose of propaganda that saturates our media waves everyday. I'm proud of it because it still holds the promise of actually living up to what it purports to be.

Oh gawd....settling markets based on wikipedia.
This is gonna be worse that the Iran/U.S. troops market!

You hit it on the head dieseldog

Erik,
I know that you think that wikipedia is a comic book. but why not use the comic book to illustrate the difference between formal and official if some people don't know the difference themselves? A picture is worth a thousand words.
oh, and in case you didn't notice: if you read wikipedia articles, you'll find quotes which refer to other media sources. are you familiar with quoting to back up statements? I guess you are.

Wikipedia get's crap because it's liberal-leaning. All the other encyclopedias sold out and print what corporate/politically correct America wants them to print. Wikipedia is as accurate, if not more accurate than other encyclopedias. Are they 100% accurate on everything? No, show me an encyclopedia that is. Do they have the income of some of these other encyclopedia monopolies? No. So for what they have and what they produce they are a viable source of information. I trust Wikipedia nearly as much as Britannica's encyclopedia. And on some issues I don't trust Britannica's "interpretation" at all.

Chill oppland - everything is not political.

Wikipedia is to fact what the editorial page is to hard news. (OK, except for the NY Times)

Get serious Erik - everything is not a game.

@ oppland "you strike me as someone who changes with the direction of the win"

No but I am flexible like the reed.

"Somethings cannot be comprised".

Almost everything is

"Your "idea" of convincing a conservative by appealing to his sensibilities is nothing short of dealing with the devil".

Deals have to be struck or the devil may stab your children

"There's certain things in life that are nonnegotiable, such as justice."

That is the way it ought to be, not the way it is

"While justice is a subjective term there is indeed universal definition of justice. It's called treat others how you yourself would like to be treated."

You are referring to the principle of 'universiality' first referred to by Plato I think - i agree its intergral to any workable code of conduct

"Quite frankly humanity strikes me as a disease"

It resembles cancer in many ways.

"Just have a look around, people behave in grotesque ways. Really, when the earth falls to sh@t! Let it breath a long sigh of relief. Human beings are the most selfish creatures this planet has ever conceived"

Dont be so down...the scope for human conduct is a broad one.

I cant believe the 'Is Michael Jackson" still alive?" question has been setled/voided!!

We have a winner :

Niue's Michael Jackson not dead
By ABC correspondent Kerri Ritchie

Posted Thu Jul 9, 2009 6:43pm AEST

A Pacific Island man who shares his name with the late Michael Jackson says his friends got a real fright when they heard the news of the King of Pop's passing.

Michael Jackson - from Niue - says initially most residents of the remote coral atoll thought that it was him who had died.

Niue only has about 1,000 residents. Mr Jackson is the editor of the local newspaper the Niue star. He says when news broke of Michael Jackson's death, he got a lot of phone calls from worried friends.

"Some of our locals almost had a heart attack because in Niue everyone knows everyone, so when they heard Michael Jackson passed away they thought it was me, they start crying and that sort of thing," he said.

Mr Jackson says his famous name has earnt him a lot of attention over the years, but now it is time to move on.

"I just carry on with my life, the other one has passed away," he said.

Niue's Michael Jackson says he watched the funeral on the TV, and felt very sad for Jackson's children.

Tags: human-interest, people, offbeat, niue

@ Erik
Chill oppland - everything is not political.
I really think you should give the poor kid a break.
First, I hear, he was banned from Daily KOS for being too political.
And he has had to deal with the reality that "Hope and Change" didn't really mean what he thought it would.
Afterall:
Gitmo is still open and no lawyers have been dispatched for mass miranda readings.
Troop buildup in Afghanistan.
Unemployment is higher now and only headed upwards.
Obama's approval rates are dropping faster than a hooker during superbowl week.
Bailout money is going to wall street types and not even benefiting needy citizens.
Senator Burris is not going to continue.
Ward Churchhill did not get reinstated to his college teaching profession at Colorado University.

His world is falling apart. . . .
;>)

I voted for Nader. Chat, go read a book for Christ's sake, start off with something light, perhaps Cat in the Hat. Move your way up to Pictorial dictionaries. In 15 years perhaps we can discuss some very deep things, like Sports Illustrated cover or something. ;)

‘Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli deputy defence minister, warned that time was running out for action to stop the programme. “If no crippling sanctions are introduced by Christmas, Israel will strike,” he said. “If we are left alone, we will act alone.”’

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6860161.ece

It always comes back to Israel.

All 3 countries have God/Allah on their side which makes the question more interesting!

@ excontender:

You're right! There was a joke during the "6-day war", that the Pope in Rome was praying to the Catholic God to keep the Israeli and Muslim Gods from fighting...