The NAAJP (you'll see what I mean)

[BabyRider]

Bullet has just made a good observation to me, and I thought it would be good for discussion here:



We have the NAACP, the United Negro college fund, Black Miss America....etc, etc....

A race that has been persecuted 1,000 times more than any black person, is the Jewish people. Where's their college fund? Where's their alliance association?

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Blackjack]

They didn't just get a fund, they got a whole country.

[BabyRider]

Blackjack wrote: They didn't just get a fund, they got a whole country.
And Africa has their own continent. :yh_eyebro

[spot]

BabyRider wrote: We have the NAACP, the United Negro college fund, Black Miss America....etc, etc.... A race that has been persecuted 1,000 times more than any black person, is the Jewish people. Where's their college fund? Where's their alliance association? Thoughts? Opinions?Good lord, BR, be original - the Internet is crawling with this question from people trying to provoke a backlash. Just google "Jewish college fund"... the first pages up are:



Even so, there is no National Association for the Advancement of Jewish People, nor a United Jewish College Fund, not anything of the sort. ...

Is there such a thing as a Jewish College Fund? There have to be smart poor Jews somewhere in this country. Maybe Adam Sandler should start something like ...

... NO. Every hear of the White College Fund? No? How about the Hispanic College Fund? Or the Jewish College fund? NAAWP? NAAHP NO!! Should there be one? NO. ...

... "OR" ... even a white college fund (which would also require an Indain and Hispanic, and a muslim, and a Jewish college fund). The ...

When is The Last time you watched The Miss Jewish USA, or heard of The NAAJP (J=Jewish) or The United Jewish College fund. Miss USA and Teen USA have Black ...

The United Jewish College fund or whatever it is? There isnt.... that would be racist. but theres sure one for black people, how is that Not racist?

[BabyRider]

spot wrote: Good lord, BR, be original - the Internet is crawling with this question from people trying to provoke a backlash. Just google "Jewish college fund"... the first pages up are:
Well, Mr. Research and Perfection, I don't spend a lot of time on Google, and I don't care to. What I'm after are the thoughts of the people HERE in FG.

You may not appreciate my "unoriginality"...I don't appreciate your snideness or superior attitude.

Are you ever capable of entering into a discussion without sounding like you know everything?

[spot]

BabyRider wrote: What I'm after are the thoughts of the people HERE in FG.Nonsense, madam - you're out here black-baiting again. You have a history of it a mile long.

[BabyRider]

spot wrote: Nonsense, madam - you're out here black-baiting again. You have a history of it a mile long.
You don't have the first clue what I'm about. I am not baiting, I am after the thoughts and opinions of members of FG.

I have never hidden how I feel about certain races, not ever. I have my views, to which I am entitled, and you stick your snobby f*cking nose into my thread to try to make me out to be something I'm not. I have also never hidden the fact that I think you're an @sshole.

For the rest of the FG crowd who isn't steeped in false accusations, what do you think of the original topic I attempted to begin before this idiot tried to derail it?

[weeder]

I dont know if Jewish people have a fund. What I do know is that they are known for taking care of their own. Hard working, diligent people... their main focus seems to me to be family. Dedicating themselves to see that their children receive an education, and their main focus being that each generation achieves more than the one before it. The many Jewish friends I have had never seem to look outside the family for asistance,they uplift and support each other.

[Rapunzel]

weeder wrote: I dont know if Jewish people have a fund. What I do know is that they are known for taking care of their own. Hard working, diligent people... their main focus seems to me to be family. Dedicating themselves to see that their children receive an education, and their main focus being that each generation achieves more than the one before it. The many Jewish friends I have had never seem to look outside the family for asistance,they uplift and support each other.


I quite agree. I lived for several years in Golders Green, the main Jewish community in London and in the UK. They live as an interconneted community and I believe pay something like a third of their income into a communal fund to help each other out. They're also, by and large, pretty well loaded as there are a heck of a lot of mansions in Golders Green and they all belong to Jews.

Without wishing to cause any more aggro on this site, I also agree with Spot. There are no 'white' funds or 'hispanic' funds or 'greek orthodox' or whatever. I believe he gave a perfectly valid answer to your query and didn't need to be slated or sworn at.

Surely every member here should be allowed to make their own point of view known without worrying about whether they will be sworn at or jumped on by a member of longer standing. We are not a pack of wolves who need a pack leader and who savage anyone trying to usurp the leaders position, we are a group of like-minded individuals who come together for serious (or fun) discussions with our peers. I'm sorry, BR, I have a lot of respect for you and Bullet and I know you are going through a very tough time right now and you both have my very best wishes and prayers on your behalfs. However, denigrating another member and calling them rude names just reflects badly on you and causes more aggro on this site which certainly doesn't need any more aggro after the last few days.

Hugs to you. Lets do some fun threads to cheer people up instead. We certainly need to lighten things up around here. :-6

[StupidCowboyTricks]

SnoozeControl wrote: Its still a valid question since she'd like some opinions from members in here. I don't mind looking like a fool by some for answering it.


If this is true....in the meantime dear Snooze Repunzel has made a most valid point.

"Surely every member here should be allowed to make their own point of view known without worrying about whether they will be sworn at or jumped on by a member of longer standing. We are not a pack of wolves who need a pack leader and who savage anyone trying to usurp the leaders position, we are a group of like-minded individuals who come together for serious (or fun) discussions with our peers. I'm sorry, BR, I have a lot of respect for you and Bullet and I know you are going through a very tough time right now and you both have my very best wishes and prayers on your behalfs. However, denigrating another member and calling them rude names just reflects badly on you and causes more aggro on this site which certainly doesn't need any more aggro after the last few days."



*HUGS*:-4

[StupidCowboyTricks]

SnoozeControl wrote: Why aren't you at work, young lady?


I'm on oxygen and steriods:(

[StupidCowboyTricks]

SnoozeControl wrote: Oh my god, I hope you're better soon.


I'm beginning not to care....I'm tired of it.

[BabyRider]

Mmmm...nope, I don't care to involve admin., I never do. If anyone else cares to, that is their prerogative. I thought of a topic I wanted some input on, and posted about it to get input, not to be told I'm black-baiting.

Rapunzel, the content of posts is not for you to poilice either. Why is everyone all of a sudden trying to tell others what to do in here? None of us is moderators, and if you don't like the sunbject matter or what is said in it, ignore it!

Spot made an allegation against me, and I answered it. If you think for one second that I tolerate that sort of thing or don't say exactly what I think, you've never read one single thing I've ever written.

Since the topic didn't take off, I could care less, apparently most of the members don't care to participate, and that's fine. What isn't fine is false accusations. I say what I think, and mean what I say. Sorry you don't like it.



Rapunzel wrote:

However, denigrating another member and calling them rude names just reflects badly on you




But it's ok for him to say I'm black baiting????

[Lon]

BabyRider wrote: Bullet has just made a good observation to me, and I thought it would be good for discussion here:



We have the NAACP, the United Negro college fund, Black Miss America....etc, etc....

A race that has been persecuted 1,000 times more than any black person, is the Jewish people. Where's their college fund? Where's their alliance association?

Thoughts? Opinions?


Bullets observations are off the mark.

Not a real good comparison BR. Jews weren't sold and bartered into slavery since the days of the Pharoahs, and though they certainly suffered discrimination in the U.S. and elswhere, they weren't being lynched in the U.S.

Jews do have associations for education and discrimination, like the JELF and ADL as well as others.

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: Bullets observations are off the mark.

Not a real good comparison BR. Jews weren't sold and bartered into slavery since the days of the Pharoahs, and though they certainly suffered discrimination in the U.S. and elswhere, they weren't being lynched in the U.S.



Jews do have associations for education and discrimination, like the JELF and ADL as well as others.
I guess the 100,000 or so Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust don't count as persecution. (That's tongue in cheek, Lon, I see what you're getting at.)

[Lon]

BabyRider wrote: I guess the 100,000 or so Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust don't count as persecution. (That's tongue in cheek, Lon, I see what you're getting at.)


It was over 6 MILLION in the Holocaust BR

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: It was over 6 MILLION in the Holocaust BR
I just threw out a number. I know it was way more than 100,000, Lon, I'm trying to inject a bit of levity into an apparently boring topic.

I'm going to go soak my head now. :yh_bigsmi

[Lon]

BabyRider wrote: I just threw out a number. I know it was way more than 100,000, Lon, I'm trying to inject a bit of levity into an apparently boring topic.

I'm going to go soak my head now. :yh_bigsmi


I know what you mean't, but some could take offense by implying "what's a few million jews more or less".

[BabyRider]

Lon wrote: I know what you mean't, but some could take offense by implying "what's a few million jews more or less".
But that's my point. We cater to one race, and forget the atrocities committed on another.

[valerie]

(Val sorts her copious notes, trying to present a reasonable post...)



I'm sure it's not a secret that I consider BabyRider a good, true, friend.

('Cept maybe for a coupla newbies) HOWEVER, what I say has no bearing

on our friendship. I would say the same for anyone else on here, okay?



I would about a million times rather see a post from her than some others

who shall remain nameless. And I don't care if something is already on the

Internet, I personally haven't seen it and so what if I had? Might be I'd

still like to make a comment on it here. I personally think it's not very

nice to try and kill a thread.



So, without further ado, my thoughts on this subject: (They might not

be very deep, but they're mine!!)



I am of Jewish descent, my mother's side. Not Jewish faith. I have at

times wondered myself about things like this, and I think it's interesting

to see how it plays out, and how the pendulum swings. I have heard

some from places like UCB, which has over the last few years had some

changes to their affirmative action programs. I think if ANY student or

really anyone needs help, they should be able to get it. But I also think

that personal responsibility comes into it, and what I used to be told was

"Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" in other words... make it on your

own without always expecting a handout.



I can't pretend to know why there isn't a NAAJP, or if there should in

fact be one. All I can give is my thoughts on the subject, humble as

they are, and know that BR probably wants to see something like this,

however lame.



Okay, so that's it. Fire away.



:-2

[Lon]

BabyRider wrote: But that's my point. We cater to one race, and forget the atrocities committed on another.
Who forgets the atrocities??? It's in the press and different publications on a regualr basis. Also the movies.

When is the last time lynchings were discussed in the media?



There are those that would say cater is a poor choice of words. Consider or showing consideration might be better. And African Americans are not the only ones that are (catered) shown consideration in abundance. How about Hispanic's?That's certainly true in California.

[Accountable]

Lon wrote: Who forgets the atrocities??? It's in the press and different publications on a regualr basis. Also the movies.



When is the last time lynchings were discussed in the media?





There are those that would say cater is a poor choice of words. Consider or showing consideration might be better. And African Americans are not the only ones that are (catered) shown consideration in abundance. How about Hispanic's?That's certainly true in California.Nah, we cater. We cater, we cow, we grovel, we give.... and give and give and give.



Some upper-class culture somewhere has infected us. That part of us that says 'it's not nice to talk about it' has morphed into 'if we give you something will you go away?' So we give. We hate noise and complaining so we give something to make us feel better and make them shut up.



The saddest part is that there never had to be an us or them. We could have been one, and we still can be. But we never will be as long as 'we' think 'we' owe 'them' and 'they' keep saying 'they' can't survive in 'our' world. Yeh, it's our world, and we're all types, colors and cultures. Success is available to anybody and everybody who will put for the effort and quit blaming failure on outside forces.



Outside forces exist. Get over it. As long as one person is dependent on another, his success is limited to what that person is willing to give.

[BabyRider]

Val, you're never "lame" and I thank you for your input. I never knew you were from Jewish descent.



Lon, let me walk out on a limb here, for about the 800th time on FG, and risk someone bashing me.

There are more funds, associations, organizations, welfare programs, exceptions made, backbends attempted, to CATER to a certain race. Where is all the effort for the Jewish community? The Native American community?

Sure, they're out there to some degree, but why aren't THEY shoved down our throats as the NAACP, UNCF, and all the others are? Why do we give handouts to the group with the highest crime rate, the highest drop out rate, the highest welfare recipient rate, the highest illigitimacy rate, the highest illiteracy rate, the highest gang involved rate? Why?

As Val said, "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." The Jews aren't out there clamoring for handouts, they are doing it on their own, which in my mind, makes them MORE entitled to help than other races.



OK, my turn.....slam away.

[BabyRider]

Accountable wrote: Success is available to anybody and everybody who will put for the effort and quit blaming failure on outside forces.
Brilliant, succinct, spot-on, exactly what I mean, right on the money, you hit the nail on the head.....any more cliches I think of will be added later.

:yh_clap :yh_clap

[OpenMind]

It seems to me that since they took up banking in Babylon back in the golden days of the Old Testament, the Jews had more funds than they could give names to. They just prefer to keep it to themselves or everyone would want a piece.

[Jives]

What's that "B'nai B'rith" organization. Does it apply here?

[weeder]

One would be hard pressed to put together a handfull of Jews who need help. Thats probably why we dont hear of them asking for any. When hard times befall them, they make due. If need be.... with nothing.

[anastrophe]

Lon wrote: It was over 6 MILLION in the Holocaust BR


it's worth noting that the totals approach ten million when you add in the poles and others 'suspected' of being jews, the homosexuals, criminals, handicapped, and others swept up in the net of 'not perfect aryans'.

[anastrophe]

it's also worth noting, since i'm in a notable mood, that the concept of 'races' is just that - a concept. it has almost no actual meaning. i watched a fascinating show on PBS the other night about DNA tracing of a group of well known black people - oprah winfrey, an actor whose name i always forget, the first black woman in space, etc - and they traced their ancestry as deeply as possible. the 'host' of the show was black, and in fact the director of the african american studies department at the university the study was undertaken. it turned out that the majority of his DNA traced back to europe, with only a tiny, tiny bit coming from africa. yet by all outward appearances, he was obviously an african american.



i'm half greek. aside from a somewhat striking nose (meaning don't get in my way if i turn fast to the left or you might get struck with it), you'd never know i was greek. the other half is northern european mongrel - french, german, english, scots, anglo saxon, you name it.



none of it matters. it's the content of my character that matters. i was in a meeting of mortgage brokers the other day, and five of the fifteen people there were african american. i sat next to a young lady whom i thought was hispanic but who was in fact greek.



none of it matters. none of it matters. none of it matters. i've known black assholes. white assholes. greek assholes. bulgarian assholes. afghanistani assholes. iranian assholes. jewish assholes.



the problem people have is in putting some significance on the lefthand side of those statements. they're *all* assholes. the rest is meaningless.



okay, that's my blithering, blathering, rant for today.

[Jives]

Similar to what I tell my students when they make a racist comment, "I've been around this world and I've met good people and bad people, and you know what? Those two varieties seem to come in all colors.";)

[spot]

Accountable wrote: Nah, we cater. We cater, we cow, we grovel, we give.... and give and give and give.There's a convenient hook, then. I knew I'd find one.

The trigger for affirmative action was President Johnson's paraphrase of MLK: "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair". The current extent of the initiative stemming from that speech is that Federal agencies implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees, and larger "organizations accepting federal funds ... must have a written affirmative action plan" denoting "goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities". Beyond that, there is a variety of state-specific legislation, some extending and some restricting the Federal initiative.

Regarding tertiary education, "no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions". "Quotas are illegal in the United States, except when a judge issues an order for a specific institution to make up for extreme past discrimination".

Just to deal with the initial spurious query regarding "the Jewish people. Where's their college fund? Where's their alliance association?", a brief look at http://www.ujc.org/section_display.html?ID=570 provides a host of relevant hyperlinks.

[Accountable]

Dammit! I knew I shouldn't have read this while I was drunk. I will do my best to respond to this, because I tend not to backtrack when reading threads.

Accountable wrote: Nah, we cater. We cater, we cow, we grovel, we give.... and give and give and give.
spot wrote: There's a convenient hook, then. I knew I'd find one.
BTW, Spot. Next time, keep the hook in context. It's not a habit of yours, I know. I'm just sayin'.

spot wrote: The trigger for affirmative action was President Johnson's paraphrase of MLK: "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair". The current extent of the initiative stemming from that speech is that Federal agencies implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees, and larger "organizations accepting federal funds ... must have a written affirmative action plan" denoting "goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities". Beyond that, there is a variety of state-specific legislation, some extending and some restricting the Federal initiative.



[...]
Who's to determine "full utilization of women and racial minorities"? The people entrusted to that decision (politicians) have a conflict of interest. If they declare the problem solved, they have to find another problem. It's much easier to continue working on the problem at hand.



The whole problem with this issue is that people are approaching the problem from the same angle the problem was created: they color code the people and assign levels of success by color. Wasn't it Einstein that said that solving a problem requires a different way of thinking? Here's a different way of thinking: Look at the individuals. If that's too complicated, look at socio-economic status. Lord knows Oprah doesn't need the same help that an inner-city gang member does.



Remember my old signature? Give a man a fish, and he'll tell all his friends you're giving fish away. Affirmative action, universal healthcare, welfare, and other such programs look good on paper. How could one be against helping people? I'm not! I say these programs don't help. They make otherwise hearty people dependent on others. When you are dependent on another, your success is limited by the help the other is willing to give.



The law of unintended consequences is decimating our society - our societies! We have convinced a segment of society that they are not good enough to make it on their own. They believe it! And because they believe it, they don't try as hard as they might. Why should they? Failure is virtually guaranteed. Safety nets abound. It would be easier to just let the gov't take care of things and lament that life is not what it should be. It's their fault, after all.



Let any group collect and give money to whomever they want. Hell, I found out I qualify for some kind of Irish-American scholarship if I write a good enough essay. People are free to help whomever they want and give their money to whomever they choose. But don't get the gov't involved. Legislating so-called "affirmative action" broadcasts to all the world that the gov't believes that certain Americans - Americans, members of the greatest civilization in history - are not able to succeed on their own simply because of the amount of melanin in their skin. What an insult! What a betrayal!

[Accountable]

anastrophe wrote: it's also worth noting, since i'm in a notable mood, that the concept of 'races' is just that - a concept. [blather, blather, meaningful blather ]
Good to see you posting again. where were you when we were discussing Crash the movie?

[spot]

Accountable wrote: BTW, Spot. Next time, keep the hook in context. It's not a habit of yours, I know. I'm just sayin'. ... Legislating so-called "affirmative action" broadcasts to all the world that the gov't believes that certain Americans - Americans, members of the greatest civilization in history - are not able to succeed on their own simply because of the amount of melanin in their skin. What an insult! What a betrayal!Excuse my selection of material from your post, I'm not ignoring the rest, just focusing.

The hook was very much in context - I looked for exactly what you were saying and dropped my comments where I did quite deliberately.

What strikes me is that I was agreeing with you, and you seem not to have recognised it. The list I provided is the absolute, entire, incredibly minimal extent to which affirmative action is legal in the USA. Every single other measure of welfare or support, state-sponsored, in the USA is race-blind. I've re-read my post to see whether I inadvertently suggested otherwise, and I didn't. The measures and constraints listed are, to the best of my knowledge, it, in their entirety.

Were it my decision, I would have those measures repealed and the entire legal base of discrimination law played out on leveled ground, which I think coincides entirely with your expressed position. The measures are, as I have listed, minimal, and in my opinion they are effective for the economically sophisticated and ineffective for the economically illiterate. They are practically a placebo treatment for the majority of those whose historical background is rooted in institutionalized discrimination. The rigorous application of race-blind equality legislation is far more powerful, and should be policed and prosecuted wherever it is demonstrably apparent either at a personal or a statistical level.

[Accountable]

:yh_blush I told you I was drunk at the time. *quickly shifts from standing face-to-face with Spot to standing shoulder-to-shoulder.*

[Jives]

Accountable wrote: Affirmative action, universal healthcare, welfare, and other such programs look good on paper. How could one be against helping people? I'm not! I say these programs don't help. They make otherwise hearty people dependent on others. When you are dependent on another, your success is limited by the help the other is willing to give.


I'd go even further and point out that not only does charity stifle ambition, but then the receiver harbors resentment against the giver.

Just look at all the countries the U.S. has helped financially, for the most part, they end up hating us even more for the handout. (I read once this concept stretches back through the ages to the very beginnings of civilization.)

:rolleyes:

[spot]

Jives wrote: I'd go even further and point out that not only does charity stifle ambition, but then the receiver harbors resentment against the giver.You both sound very like Henry Ford in his assessment of charitable activity. This is from his autobiography, "My Life and Work" (Garden City Publishing 1922):

Professional charity is not only cold but it hurts more than it helps. It degrades the recipients and drugs their self-respect. Akin to it is sentimental idealism. The idea went abroad not so many years ago that "service" was something that we should expect to have done for us. Untold numbers of people became the recipients of well-meant "social service." Whole sections of our population were coddled into a state of expectant, child-like helplessness. There grew up a regular profession of doing things for people, which gave an outlet for a laudable desire for service, but which contributed nothing whatever to the self-reliance of the people nor to the correction of the conditions out of which the supposed need for such service grew.

Worse than this encouragement of childish wistfulness, instead of training for self-reliance and self-sufficiency, was the creation of a feeling of resentment which nearly always overtakes the objects of charity. People often complain of the "ingratitude" of those whom they help. Nothing is more natural. In the first place, precious little of our so-called charity is ever real charity, offered out of a heart full of interest and sympathy. In the second place, no person ever relishes being in a position where he is forced to take favors.

Such "social work" creates a strained relation--the recipient of bounty feels that he has been belittled in the taking, and it is a question whether the giver should not also feel that he has been belittled in the giving. Charity never led to a settled state of affairs. The charitable system that does not aim to make itself unnecessary is not performing service. It is simply making a job for itself and is an added item to the record of non-production.

[anastrophe]

Ford, of course, is also notable for being viciously anti-semite.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: Ford, of course, is also notable for being viciously anti-semite.You spoiled my trap, you wretched man!

[Jives]

Well, I'd have to say that I'm not convinced of that view, it's just a theory I've heard from a few social scientists. But the evidence from past cultures, such as the Goths who, despite being given farming technology, aqueducts and roads by the Romans still decimated that empire, seems sound to me.

I am actually very pro-Jewish. I love the Israelis. They rock. Scrappy little dudes!:D

[spot]

Jives wrote: the evidence from past cultures, such as the Goths who, despite being given farming technology, aqueducts and roads by the Romans still decimated that empire, seems sound to me.I think you need to clarify and expand on that a little, Jives.

Neither the Germans, nor the Goths, nor the Huns, were ever a part of the Roman Empire, they were always barbarian outsiders.

The Romans never built anything north of the Danube or the Rhine. Before the arrival of the Goths and the Huns in Europe, the north of the Rhine was Germanic. Rome sent legions across in 9AD which famously disappeared never to be seen again. The Goths migrated from Russia to settle north of the Danube. When the Goths invaded Rome from north of the Rhine, around 270AD, they didn't decimate the Roman Empire, they lost. Similarly, at around the same time, Goths attacked the Eastern Roman Empire - Rome and Byzantium were by that point independently governed - and similarly lost. The destruction of Rome by the Huns in 410, who were pushing west from their Steppe heartlands, destroyed the Western Roman Succession and left Rome to assimilate the Huns as the new rulers of the old Empire.

None of these cultures received any farming technology, aqueducts or roads from Roman Civilization, they all lived beyond the bounds of the Empire.

[Jives]

Hmmm...you obviously know a lot more about it than I do, I'm just writing what I remember and it's pretty hazy.

Can you think of any example where, after a nation's help, the receiver was ungrateful?

[spot]

Jives wrote: Can you think of any example where, after a nation's help, the receiver was ungrateful?Japan, post-WW2. You'll remember that the US gave them a considerable leg-up, financially, through the 50s. Have you the slightest idea how much the Japanese people want the US bases closed? That is the one great overriding concern, the removal of the stain of humiliation by foreign occupation.

Perhaps we might extrapolate from that notion to the prospects for Iraq?

[Jives]

Good example...and I'd have to agree, I can't think of a single time in history that a people were grateful and helpful to occupying armies. That doesn't bode well for Iraq.

(And this time I'm not giving any examples 'cause I don't want Spot to skewer me any more today.):o