|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
anti immigrants bordering in racism and anti-Semitism. Umm, I am white and consider myself a conservative. I can tell you that I do not harbor racist/Semitic thoughts. To use a label again, as I look at what the so called liberals say, I consider them more of a threat to racism than what they accuse us conservative extremists of. Of course, the ones that know me don't tell me that to my face, but as a white jew I pass very easily as white non jewish, so I happen to hear more than I'm expected to. What is it that you are or are not expected to hear? Is it what you want to hear? The reason I ask, is when I read what you wrote I asked myself, when was the Last time I heard a racist/anti Semitic comment, and frankly I don't remember one, that is just between my friends and the folks I go to school with. I am not saying that it don't happen, and I am not talking about the talking heads on TV (it is to easy to find any view point you want on satellite) I am just saying what "I" see in normal America. What I am saying is, I do not think to myself before I open my mouth, "Hey self, you think that white guy is a jew?". Actually I just open my mouth and insert both feet, but I say what I feel *shrug*. Also, I have no understanding of the plight in Israel. Watching the bombing that happened the other night is very foreign to me. As long as there are religious fanatics willing to blow themselves up for their god, I have no idea what can be done to help fix the situation. I truly hope that the Iraq situation is a step in the right direction. To get the countries in the Middle East to question their involvement with Hamas (and other terrorist orgs). It is a HUGE process and I hope that the USA helps Israel the best that we can. [ May 02, 2003, 02:59: Message edited by: Narrew ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Article:
"Mike’s Place, Tel Aviv Bombed" April 30, 2003 At 1 a.m. April 30th in Tel Aviv a homicide bomber blew himself up at Mike’s Place, murdering 3 and maiming at least 49, 8 seriously. Mike’s Place is next door to the American Embassy - I wonder if President Bush got the message? This is the 89th suicide bombing since the Arab Palestinian Terrorists began the September 29, 2000 Rosh HaShanah War. The heroism of a security guard at the entrance, like the one at the Kfar Saba train station on Thursday April 24th, saw the Terrorist, engaged him in a strong verbal exchange, asked for his ID but effectively pre-empted from entering the pub who then blew himself up at the entrance and not inside the pub. Mike’s Place was filled to the brim and an explosion would have caused dozens of killed and injured. No doubt, on cue, we will hear from Bush-Powell-Peres burbling as always: "These killings will not stop the "Peace Process’". The BBC, always an anti-Jewish pro-Terrorist new organizations, has reported that the Homicide was merely an expression of Palestinian pain and frustration. In the days to come we will hear President Bush condemn the bombing and then say that this is the reason that his political jingle called "The Road Map" must be followed. The U.S. State Department will roll out its propaganda machine to fudge over the killing and boost Abu Mazen just hours after he was voted in as the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. As a PM with little power, he will be celebrated for his potential while Arafat continues to hold the reins of power. Even as I write this, the White House, as I predicted, has "condemned the Homicide Bombing and further states that it will not impede the "Road Map". We have yet to hear from Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon and see if he obediently follows the usual Peres expression: "This shall not stop the Piss Process." We await the Left Liberal Media take on the clear statement by Hamas or Islamic Jihad that they will continue the bombing until Israel is gone. We await the NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, NPR (NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO), among others, to start vomiting out rationale as damage control to protect the Arab Palestinians and their Terrorist cronies. Not to worry - just wait for the Wave of Propaganda to wash over you explaining how Terrorists are merely frustrated militants and how we are not ‘really’ at war with Islam and hostile Muslims. " |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
[ May 03, 2003, 00:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
By deliberately blurring the boundaries between nation and religion, that article attempts to stir up racial hatred by simplifying the issue. By portraying even neutral outsiders like the BBC as hostile "pro-terrorist" organisations, they strengthen the "them and us" mentality that prolongs the conflict. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Then there are some Christian fundamentalists that support Israel because Israel is an important piece of their "End of the world" scheme, so their support is anything but out of kindness. In the end the Israeli Fundamentalist Groups, and they are just a few when compared to the Palestinian Fundamentalist organizations, are trying to play the "them against us" card in an intent to bust their numbers. Israeli Fundamentalism have been slightly on the raise since September 2000 when the Palestinian launched their 2nd Intifadah, thus proving that Rabin and the Dovish gang were wrong granting the Palestinian authority without any commitment to a permanent peace. You have to understand that during the 1st Intifada the Palestininas were throwing rocks at us, but now they are throwing the Kassam II and III rockets, home made mortars and suicide bombers. What have changed between the 2 Intifadas? What have gave them this capability? Rabin's Palestinian Authority. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Umm... no Aloofi, most people are not like that. And it has nothing to do with being on the "left" or on the "right".
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Aloofi what is your position.
Do you think there should be a Palestinian state that recognizes Israel? Do you think that the Palestinians have no right to self government? Do you think that Israel is justified in its treatment of the Palestinians? Do you think that the Suicide Bombing is wrong but tanks are okay? What is your solution to the problem? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Salaam Pax made it through the war alive fortunatly. He has updated his blog.
http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/ Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Lets do a WMD update.
For those of you keeping score at home, here is our Altercation-exclusive State of the Union - Weapons of Mass Distraction scoreboard: “...Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.” Liters found in Iraq this week: Zero Liters found in Iraq to date: Zero “...Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.” Liters found in Iraq this week: Zero Liters found in Iraq to date: Zero “...Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.” Tons found in Iraq this week: Zero Tons found in Iraq to date: Zero |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Everyone who thinks about posting in this 'heated' thread should go read that. Of WDMs, it is still too soon to expect results. I will hold that line for one year. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Nice
http://www.kron.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1607366.php and one of the funniest tongue in check Posts http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article...nested&order=0 P.S. SmirkingChimp is a little out there ( actually alot out there, read it and then look for supporting documents..... but i liked this one ) [ May 11, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: tesco samoa ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Freedom of speech? Or is it boys will be boys? The teacher's and parent's at Columbine got critisized in hindsight for disregarding comments made by Harris and Klebold. I guess you really are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Geoschmo EDIT: So what's the deal here Tesco? Has this thread changed from a discussion of the rightness or wrongess of the war in general and is now a forum for any sort of complaint or disagreement with the administration and it's polcies? That's fine if it is. You have the freedom to express those opinions. But maybe we should be honest and change the title of the thread to "I hate George Bush." [ May 11, 2003, 03:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
i do not know Geo. I posted the first one all buy itself... Then I re-read it and thought. Well what did they say. So off looking for the second one....
I think if I was the teacher I would have pulled them aside and told them that they should not say those words and explain why. And then leave it at that. But I also believe that Oakland has zero tolerance ( which is a stupid stupid theory and practice ) so the teacher would have to bring this up. I do think the pull aside is the thinking and harder path for the teacher to follow but the correct one. It is one thing to say you disagree with the Prez. but it is quite another to state that he should be capped, and it should be delt with right there and then in a class room. Just some thoughts - MAC 2002 |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
hmm seems you edited you post while i was posting that Last one there... No I think that the title is still working and that these Posts are within context of this thread.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
My first thought was the teacher perhaps did over react by calling the Secret Service, but as Geo said, we dont have all the facts so perhaps the teacher did what she felt was right. I am surprised that the teacher made that call since that part of California is very liberal (that was the area where the teachers tried to make Ebonics a legal language).
The teacher Cassie Lopez said in the article "They were so shaken up and afraid", well the kids should be, perhaps they will think twice before they open their mouth again. I think we have gotten to the point (in the USA) that people think they are not responsible for their own actions. There is one thing about what they did, the President had nothing to do about it. The Secret Service will do what ever THEY think is the best for the safety of the President (regardless of party affiliation). |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
An interesting piece of reading that made me really uneasy. I am interested by comments of US citizen about it.
================================================== =============== STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT http://www.stratfor.com 9 May 2003 ================================================== =============== * New Resolution Would Solidify U.S. position as Global Hegemon .................................................. ................. Today's Featured Analysis New Resolution Would Solidify U.S. Position as Global Hegemon Summary The United States has presented a resolution to the U.N. Security Council that would suspend the sanctions regime and transition the oil-for-food program in Iraq into a different form. The resolution is an attempt to get a U.N. stamp of approval on coalition efforts in Iraq -- which in reality will continue regardless of the Security Council's actions. But more than that, it is a challenge to every state that opposed U.S. policy in Iraq and a threat to those who might do so again. Analysis The United States presented a new resolution to the U.N. Security Council on May 9. At its core, the resolution would lift all sanctions against Iraq, legalize Iraqi oil sales, give the coalition de facto control over revenue from those sales for reconstruction purposes, and grant international approval to coalition efforts, both past and present. But the resolution has a second implication. The Bush administration is giving countries that opposed its efforts in Iraq a Last chance to acquiesce to U.S. policy, or suffer the consequences of being in the bad graces of a global hegemon. The Resolution First and most important, the resolution would extend the legal cover granted by the oil-for-food program for another four months as the program is slowly phased out. This would allow Iraq to sell oil without the risk that proceeds could be seized by Iraq's numerous international creditors. Second, income from Iraq's oil would flow into an Iraqi Assistance Fund instead of its oil-for-food escrow account -- which is controlled by the United Nations. Although the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank would hold seats on an advisory board that oversees the fund, the coalition ultimately would decide when and how to spend the money. This authority would apply retroactively to the existing oil-for-food program, making it unlikely that, for instance, the $1.6 billion in contracts currently held by Russian companies would ever generate revenue. This also would provide the legal basis for the World Bank and IMF to return to Iraq. Currently, since there is no recognized government, the two organizations have no legal standing to assist in the country's reconstruction. Third, there would be no role for U.N. weapons inspectors, whose job would be formally taken over by the coalition. Fourth, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan could appoint a coordinator to assist in reconstruction efforts. This coordinator would have, at best, moral authority and the ability to offer recommendations. But the day-to-day presence of a representative of the U.N. Secretariat would grant international approval, both de facto and de jure, to future coalition actions. Fifth, the resolution declares that all products originating in Iraq and the proceeds from their sale "shall be immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings arising in relation to claims against Iraq or the Authority [the coalition]." In other words, this means Iraq and its resources would belong to the coalition. All legal claims against the past and current government by countries that received oil contracts from the Hussein government, were owed debts by Hussein or lost business because of the coalition's actions would be null and void. The coalition's aim appears to be to protect future coalition government actions from any and all legal suits. Finally, the resolution would lift all sanctions against Iraq except those prohibiting the import of weapons. In short, the resolution touches on all of the issues to which the coalition of states that opposed U.S. efforts in Iraq object. It would retroactively legitimize U.S. actions, eject all non-coalition interests from Iraq and enshrine U.S. hegemony. The language of the resolution is crafted in a confrontational and at times almost condescending manner -- in a way that leaves little, if any, room for compromise. The Meaning The timing is close to perfect. The world is still stunned by the speed at which the United States conquered Iraq, and the anti-war coalition is quite spectacularly disorganized. Should the United States delay too long, there is a chance that the opposition could coalesce again into a coherent political force. It is simply too early at this point to project how individual powers will react to the resolution. Many states -- including France, Germany and Russia -- this week have sounded notes of compromise on many aspects of recent U.S. policy, particularly in regard to the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. The new resolution, however, would take the U.S. position in Iraq light-years beyond what the anti-war states were willing to consider -- and even the United Kingdom, Washington's staunchest ally, cannot be happy with its wording. That was precisely the intent. The United States is generating a moment of crisis for the countries that opposed its Iraq policy to this point. The war in Iraq was not just about fighting al Qaeda or intimidating the Arab world into acquiescence; it was also about showing that the United States could not and would not be constrained by the international community or international law. When viewed in this light, the new resolution is not merely the next logical step in U.S. efforts to secure Iraq, but also a blunt ultimatum to those who have opposed Washington over the past several months. The rest of the world has seen clearly that the United States can and will use its full military strength to achieve its foreign policy goals. Washington is now presenting them with a choice : they can capitulate to American power and play Washington's game by Washington's rules, or they can continue to resist and freeze relations into a cycle of hostility. With the proposed U.N. resolution, the Bush administration in essence is saying that it can accept that the stance of the anti-war coalition to this point was based on principle -- or greed. However, if the positions of anti-war states do not change, then their past opposition will be viewed as policy -- not as a fluke -- and will not go unpunished. Washington expects to be respected as global hegemon. The resolution will not be popular. But Stratfor does not expect debate to be vociferous. The governments of each state on the Security Council -- once they stop fuming -- will have some serious thinking to do about their relationship with the United States. Stratfor already has detected a sort of frantic rush in national capitals as world leaders come to grips with this new American move. In Washington's view, it is time for all of them to reassess their policies and find a means of fitting into the U.S. paradigm -- or to set their opposition to the United States in stone and suffer the consequences. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
However, the article does address a matter that should be seriously considered: how much power does the U.S. have? That is a little scary. There is only one superpower left and it is the U.S. Would even a united Europe be able to thwart the wishes of the U.S.? Does the divided and contentious Europe we find now have a chance? Next question, what does one do about this. Should a coalition of nations be formed solely to oppose the U.S.? Should nations oppose the U.S. in any of its endeavors simply because it is too strong? Does every action the U.S. takes seek only to add to its power? The question is not, however, how much power should the U.S. have. You cannot simply take power away. The U.S. has this power because of its nature: because of its industry, because of its economy, because it has the third largest population in the world and because of what it is doing with that population. You could not take this power away without changing the nature of the U.S.; this may be possible, but it's not a realistic goal. The question is how much authority should the U.S. have. Unfortunately there is no simple substitute for the power the U.S. uses to back the authority it has taken for itself. If another body were to be given authority over the U.S. that authority must also be backed by power. The U.N. has some authority but it did not change Iraq, did not prevent genocide in Africa or Europe, did not slow nuclear programs in Pakistan or North Korea. (The one in India did come to a stop, and only resurfaced when Pakistan started getting close.) Is anything wrong with this? Perhaps not. Perhaps we should look at what the U.N. has done. Or perhaps the U.N. lacks power because it only derives its authority from the power and authority of its consistently bickering constituents. Should the U.S. be solving the world problems? I doubt it. They aren't pursuing this goal, either. Really the U.S. only messes with the world to their own ends: for their security, for the stability of their interests, for their profit. Is that right? Should you expect anything different? Could you or even your country do anything about it? Probably not, not even with all of your friends. Quote:
If you are speaking about committing a crime, you can be charged with Conspiracy to Commit that crime, this covers talk of killing the president and means that talking about this is, eventually, going to get the attention of the Secret Service. That, it seems to me, is the way it ought to be. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Europe can do nothing about the US, but the truth is that the US can do nothing about Europe too.
I don't think the US population would support any kind of war against Europe, unless Europe strike first, that is. But the real thing is the cost of any US-Europe confrontation: -Can Europe fund an army comparable to the US? -Can the US fund an army to oppose Europe without relocating its troops already defending important strategic objectives? In my opinion, none of them is really willing to go to the end. It looks to me like they have opoussed interests, but those interests are not unreconcilables. Doesn't matter how much the Euros hate the US, their goverments know that the Empire can be oppossed, but not fought. At the same time, the chickenhawk brigade in the White House knows that they can bark at Europe all they want, but they can't bite. . . [ May 12, 2003, 15:44: Message edited by: Aloofi ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Article:
Wrong Turn by Abraham D. Sofaer (Commentary) May 12, 2003 Immediately after the 1991 Gulf War, the first Bush administration convened in Madrid an international conference on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This was an event that political leaders all over the world had been pursuing as if it were the holy grail of international diplomacy. It set in motion a decade of "peacemaking" that included the treaty between Israel and Jordan but whose most visible fruit was the Oslo accords of 1993. In recent months, three years into the bloody Palestinian assault on Israel that the Oslo peace process became, the same dynamic has once again been in play, as international diplomats and government officials have scrambled to take advantage of the anticipated defeat of Saddam Hussein by pushing forward their preferred solutions. President Bush himself predicted in late February that "success in Iraq could . . . begin a new stage of Middle Eastern peace," while England and other European nations, keen to demonstrate their good faith to the Arab world, have gone much farther. In the very first week of the war, the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, complaining about an alleged double standard when it came to "injustice against the Palestinians," equated U.N. resolutions concerning Saddam Hussein's threats to international peace with those condemning Israel on a range of less significant matters. A more evenhanded view underlies the latest diplomatic initiative to address the Israel-Palestinian dispute. This is the famous "road map" prepared by the "quartet" of the United States, the European Union, the U.N. and Russia. The road map, released earlier this week, proposes a two-state solution to the conflict, to be reached in three phases. In Phase I, the Palestinians are to "declare" an end to violence and terrorism; undertake "visible" efforts to prevent attacks on Israelis, consolidate all security forces under an "empowered" interior minister, and restructure Palestinian institutions through numerous, detailed measures. Israel, for its part, is to call for an end to violence against Palestinians; cooperate in rebuilding a viable Palestinian security force; cease all actions "undermining trust," including deportations, demolition of homes and destruction of Palestinian infrastructure; take measures to improve the humanitarian situation; and immediately "dismantle" settlement outPosts erected since March 2001" and freeze all other settlement activity, including "natural growth." All this is to happen by next month. Then comes Phase II, which foresees the "option" of creating a Palestinian state, with provisional borders, attributes of sovereignty and maximum territorial continuity; the completion date for this phase is the end of 2003. Phase III, which is to result in a final agreement between the parties settling all outstanding issues, is to be completed by the end of 2005. The road map was given a major boost on March 14 when President Bush affirmed his support for it and promised to publish it as soon as the Palestinians appointed a new prime minister with "real authority." British Prime Minister Tony Blair promptly signaled his readiness to put pressure on Israel to move the process forward whether Palestinian violence ceases or not. Meanwhile, both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have claimed to accept the road map "in principle"--a standard Middle East negotiating ploy--although both sides have major differences with it. In particular, Ariel Sharon's government has insisted that Palestinians must end all attacks before Israel is required to take any steps on the proposed "road." Quite apart from its wildly optimistic timetable, many substantive objections can and should be raised to the road map. Still, it may be stipulated that the plan's aim--a two-state solution--is a reasonable one, accepted by the present Israeli government. But the mere recitation of a valid aim, even when coupled with a scheme for negotiations and escalating concessions, will hardly suffice to realize the peace envisioned by the road map's authors. The problem is that this road map, like many plans for Middle East peace, expects to bring an end to Palestinian violence against Israel without addressing the reasons why the Palestinians have deliberately and repeatedly chosen that path. Dennis Ross, the former U.S. negotiator for the Middle East, recently admitted that ever since the Last Gulf War, he and other U.S. negotiators failed to take seriously the Palestinian Authority's steadfast refusal to end violence. (As Mr. Ross put it in State Department doublespeak: "The prudential issues of compliance were neglected and politicized by the Americans in favor of keeping the peace process afloat.") Instead, in the face of the continuing violence, the U.S. kept pressing Israel to make further concessions, thereby convincing Palestinians that they could go on cheating and killing and still procure the benefits for which they had been negotiating. In the end, it seemed reasonable to suppose that they might even force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza as it had been forced to withdraw from southern Lebanon in the summer of 2000. But Palestinian violence is a much more serious and difficult problem than even Dennis Ross now admits. It is the product of an environment that fosters, shelters, encourages and rewards acts aimed at nullifying Israel's very existence. And that environment is itself the creation not only of the Palestinians, or of the Arabs, but also of the international community--including the U.S. To change this situation requires changing not just the actions and attitudes of Palestinians but the policies and practices of others, again including the U.S. No recognition of these facts, let alone any acknowledgment of the need to do something about them, has been made part of the road map--which is again why it shares the basic flaw of every Middle East peace plan that has preceded it. The policies and practices I have in mind can be broken down into categories, of which the first has to do with terrorism. The United States portrays itself, properly, as leading the world-wide effort to combat terrorism. Some longstanding American policies, however, have contributed to terrorism, and especially to terrorism against Israel. Although steps have been taken to rectify matters in the wake of September 11, terrorists and supporters of terrorism continue to be abetted by the U.S. in their determination to control the destiny of both Israelis and Palestinians. Consider, first, the longstanding strategy of Arab states and the Palestine Liberation Organization to keep as many Palestinians as possible living under horrible conditions in refugee camps, close to Israel. The camps, first set up after the 1948 war that followed the establishment of the state of Israel, are administered by an arm of the United Nations, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. UNRWA now spends more than $400 million a year to assist a population that has swollen over the past half century to some 4.5 million, relatively few of whom are refugees by any accepted definition of the term. The whole system could not have been better designed both to endanger Israel's security and to damage its moral reputation. In the late 1980s, when I was running the legal adviser's office in the State Department, my colleague Nicholas Rostow and I proposed to Secretary George Shultz that the U.S. move toward ending its financial support of UNRWA programs that perpetuated the exploitation of refugees as tools of the radical Palestinian cause. The "building"--as the department is called by insiders--rose up in opposition. Our diplomats acknowledged that the camps were awful places that bred hatred and terrorism. But, they claimed, it was too late to do anything about it, and anyway the camps would disappear once peace was achieved. They declined to consider the possibility that the camps were helping to prevent peace from being achieved. What would an alternative look like? It would include plans for building permanent homes for Palestinian refugees within Palestinian territories on the West Bank or in nearby states. As the scholar Scott B. Lasensky has recently suggested, incentive programs could also be put in place to encourage refugees to relocate and neighboring Arab states to accept them. Such resettlement could commence immediately; as long as it does not, we will be continuing to aid in solidifying the sentiments that lead to terrorism. Second, the Palestinian educational system is an abomination; it, too, is largely funded by the U.N., with the substantial support of American taxpayers. In their schools, Palestinian children are taught mendacious Versions of their own history as well as of Jewish culture, history and beliefs. Generations have been fed on propaganda that denies the legitimacy of the state of Israel while simultaneously glorifying intolerance, fanaticism and "martyrdom." Very little that is actually useful--engineering, computer technology, science, finance--is taught in these schools. In the private, religiously funded schools, things are still worse. There, in the words of Itamar Marcus, "children have been taught to hate, and to die for Allah. Their childhood has been destroyed by indoctrination to hate and kill Jews as well as Americans and Westerners in general." The U.N. and the U.S. have allowed these terrible practices to continue for years. Although efforts have been made recently to restrict the flow of funds to some schools, little if anything has been done to halt the teachings themselves. How can Palestinians realistically be expected to accept Israel as long as they continue to convey to their children that Israel is unacceptable, and that terrorism against it is a noble undertaking? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sofaer, a senior fellow at Stanford Univerity's Hoover Institution served as legal adviser tp the State Department from 1985 to 1990. The complete article of the author appears in the May 2003 edition of Commentary. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
A bit of news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3018063.stm Now we know Iraq did NOT have any WMD whatsoever. Public was duped by Bush & Blair. If I had any doubts, then none anymore. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Think of all the wonderful things we will be able to focus on when we no longer have to worry about national defense. Then, maybe, some nation can give Marx' vision a proper try. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This kind of jump-on-what-you've-got behavior reminds me of some Bible-belt fundamentalist pointing at every failed attempt to pin down a 'missing link' as proof that evolution is bunk and as reason to teach creationism in school. It's the same mistake being made by the other side. Every vague chance of an NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) site is being reported as a 'find' before the determination could possibly be made. Both sides need to wait until word is really in. One way or the other the matter will not be decided before the passage of many moons. [Edit: [qoute] is not [quote]] [ May 12, 2003, 16:55: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
So what happened to the Iroquois tribes? They were split up and destroyed by siding on both sides of a factional fight between two almost democratic societies, Britain and the USA. [ May 12, 2003, 17:19: Message edited by: Wardad ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Wardad:
A matriarchal or matrilineal society does not a democracy make. There have been many cultures with matriarchal or matrilineal bases who were not anything close to democracies. I understand a lot of western education may lead someone to believe that a government of women is somehow a better government, but it is not true. Matriarchies are not less likely to get in wars, promote slavery, or practice euthanasia. They are, however, less likely to survive. The League of Five Nations, the Iroquois Tribes, whatever you want to call them, many have been close to a democracy, but that does not dispute the "democracies don't make war on each other" rule. Neither the English Colonies, nor the British Empire, nor the French Empire were democracies. Democracies will make war on other governments, but they will not make war on each other. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Loser, simply because they haven't in the past doesn't prove they never will. Up to this point in history Democracies are still fairly rare. They've been around for thousands of years, but it's only been in the Last 60 years we've had more than one or two running at the same time. The bunch we have now have all been pretty dependant on each other until the Last ten years to defend against the threat of the communist bloc, perceived or real. Now that that is gone we'll get a good test of your theory in the next 50 to hundred years I think.
Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
oleg
perhaps the us inspectors did not get an email of Powell's PowerPoint Presentaion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif So what was the reason again for war on Iraq ?? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Check out this one too:
Dishonest Reporting 'Award' for 2002 http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/imag.../honestPop.gif [ May 12, 2003, 18:30: Message edited by: Aloofi ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Geoschmo:
You are correct, this is also a "we'll see" situation. However, I believe there is more historical support for this theory than you imply. I will not be able to back this up right now. Sorry about that. Tesco: I would say that this 'war' was about securing an American position and installing American influence in a strategic location in the Middle East. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I do not see how early USA could be fairly considered a democracy. 52% of the population (Women) could not vote. Slaves were not considered men, and could not vote. Early on in some states only land owners could vote. [ May 12, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Wardad ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
The main justification for the "Photo-op War" was that we could not wait for the original inspectors to do their work. Well if the pro war people could not wait then why do the "unduped" have to wait for evidence that this war was worth wasting tax dollars? I keep reading that we should be patient - But I ask how long?
"As long as it takes" was not good enough for the pro war people so it's not good enough for me. With the Bush Economy in full swing I suppose we'll have to wait for people to admit there weren't any wmd until after the next election. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
No nation has ever had a democracy, actually, as that requires all citizens to be able to vote on every issue and to directly participate in every level of government. Not even Athens was a democracy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Most countries that people label as "democracies" actually have some form of a republic, in which people are in one way or another chosen to vote for large blocks of people in government. A republic does not require that all people living in the country to be considered citizens or to be given the right to vote. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. The term "democracy" is often fallaciously used to describe a wide range of government types that are not democracies.
[ May 12, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Fyron, for an Imperator, you know a lot about democracy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Fyron, your post is pretty non-helpful to the topic at hand. Yes of course by the strictest definition possible for the term democracy, few if any nations have ever had such a system. However the term has evolved over the years to encompass many similer forms of government. According to Webster's Online dictionary "Democracy" is defined as...
Quote:
This definition would fit any of the governments commonly referred to as democracies today. Refuting this is just arguing semantics instead of contributing to the point of the discussion at hand. Geoschmo [ May 12, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Imperator was not found in the Cambridge Dictionary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif
I did find: imperative (URGENT) adjective extremely important or urgent; needing to be done or given attention immediately. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif So an Imperator must create urgency and need attention. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif correct usage: The Imperator threw a tantrum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is our daily anti-Fyron moment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I am not anti-Fyron at all. I just like batting his ears now and then. Got to keep the young ones in line. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I am not anti Fryon either.
It is just that his comments on what should or should not be posted, and his definition of humor makes a good target for a humorous jab. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Go Ahead Aloofi, leave your self open... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
That is how long it took before someone said enough is enough of Saddams jerking the weapon inspectors around. It could be argued that someone got tired of the UN dragging its feet, as we dig deeper and see that the UN knew that the "oil for food" was actually "oil for palaces" (ok, but we can agree that it DID NOT get to the Iraqi people, unless you count food given to the children in prison). It will not take 12 years to figure out the WMD one-way or the other. I still think that what ever is found will NEVER satisfy the Bush haters, but that is politics. But I can guarantee one thing, that if there are NO WMDs found, this President will not pass the buck to a scape goat, he will assume full responsibility for the action taken. [ May 12, 2003, 23:24: Message edited by: Narrew ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geo, as I have said many times, dictionary definitions are not valid for complex terms. They simplify the terms, and often miss all of the subtleties of the meanings. They often reflect common misconceptions of words too. And, my post was made because there were people using democracy to mean different things, and trying to argue against each other. Some of the counter-arguments made no sense as they were. It was my hope that people would start using more accurate terms to avoid such confusions. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
narrew it is not about peoples feelings towards bush.
Some of the things it is about is International law. deceit. War. Incompetence. WMD International alliances. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Tesco, most of the people that post for or against Bush's policies do so only because they like or hate him. Very few people have an open mind and look at the whole situation, instead of saying "Republican = evil".
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You mean Republican doesn't = evil? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif There goes my entire conception of the world! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[quote]Originally posted by Narrew:
Quote:
I have an idea: Why don't we just cut taxes on all the wealthy Iraqis that will solve all that country's problems. [ May 13, 2003, 02:20: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.