A voice of dissention:

Discussion in 'Community' started by mischief, Sep 11, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #2
    Yes, and he has valid points. As a super power, we are a remnant of the cold war. The world is changing, its no longer the US vs. USSR (and communism). Our roll needs to change a bit too, to what, I have no idea.
     
  2. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #3
    wow that avatar is sweet. something i can stare at.


    As far as the role of the US in the world, I still contend that we are being put in between a rock and a hard place.

    Countries hate us, telling us that we are the cause of war and terrorism. World leaders and major reporting agencies point out that we seem not too worried about some countries having weapons of mass destruction, while others we will go to war with to prevent them from gaining them. It is said we are too active in the world and we should just leave well enough alone.

    On the other hand, we are the most powerful country in the world. We have been for over a century. We have economic power, military power, and power in sheer numbers. We have had two of those powers since the late 19th century. So what happens when we stay out of others' business?? What happens when we just keep to ourselves and leave well enough alone??

    Other countries bring those problems to us, asking us for our help, telling us we should share, not to be selfish, becoming jealous, hating us. We are attacked by surprise in order to force us into a war we have vowed to stay out of.

    We, the United States, are "the rich" of the world. We are "the powerful". With these things comes a great amount of responsibilty thrown upon us. How many times have we saved europe as a CONTINENT from drowning in self-inflicted poverty and destruction?? How many times have we run to the defense of a country who is calling for help, telling us it is our responsibility to protect what is right?? How many times has that been used against us??

    Israel may have nuclear power, but they aren't using it. They aren't pushing their way into more and more land, trying to expand. They are however, using their military strength to fight back against the people who are bombing them, terrorizing their everyday lives. Where are they supposed to go?? Nobody wanted them. Countries were expelling them, even exterminating them. So they took their own land back. Thats the way I see it. Thats the way the US government saw it.

    Iraq may soon have nuclear power. What has the past proven?? When things arent going their way, and they have military power, they abuse it. They invade nearby countries to steal its economic powers. They kill innocent people in order to make one man feel more powerful. So what happens when they have nuclear power?? Are we supposed to stand by and watch Iraq spit in the face of the UN? Are we supposed to stand by and forget about the knowledge we have of high ranking Al Qaeda officials given asylum in Iraq??

    No, we cannot stand by. We cannot go quietly into that good night. We must stand up for what we believe in. We must stand and protect ourselves and our allies. Alot of people in the US went to bed last night questioning what today would bring them. Questioning whether or not their lives were in danger. Wondering if more people would die, if someone they knew or loved was going to die. America went to bed last night in defiance of a looming threat, but not without some small amount of fear. This one night, we all felt what it was like every night for a Jew in Israel.
     
  3. mischief thread starter macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #4
    Actually this country has a VERY long history of abusing it's power, just like any other powerful nation. Mostly it was couched in "Manifest Destiny". Go ask a Native American how well this country has avoided abusing it's power.

    Israel IS most certainly pushing out into it's neighbors. Palestine IS technically another country, separate from Israel. There has been continuous abuse of the Palestinian people for 50 years. I certainly do not approve of terrorism as a tool of deplomacy but I certainly make no illusions as to Israel's innocense or restraint.

    Iraq only has 1 option to get Nuclear Weapons: Buy them. The facilities needed to produce Nukes are not only a gathering of rare, expensive components but they require STAGGERING amounts of electricity. Have we heard anything to the effect of there being a HUGE power plant out there? No. Have we heard anything about Iraq having successfully bought replacements for the stuff that had been destroyed by the UN and Desert Storm? No. Iraq is a convenient bogey-man.

    Don't forget: Most of the Money behind Al Qaida comes from the Saudi royal family and there are "High ranking" Al Qaida officials hiding in every Muslim country with a rock to hide under.

    Don't be so naive. We went to bed that night feeling for the first time in over a century like the rest of the world (not just Israeli Jews) has been feeling since before the crussades. Americans are involuntarilly arrogant and selfish. It's too easy to sit here in a VERY secure country with none but friendly neighbors with literal Oceans separating us from the rest of the world and pretend that only we and Israel suffer.
     
  4. deputy_doofy macrumors 65816

    deputy_doofy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    #5
    I am not pro-israel, but you guys tend to forget a war in 1967 where ALL arab nations decided to "push the jews into the sea." A total of 6 days - they all failed. In war, you lose life, money, and land. The palestinians got exactly what they deserved. There is no "ma fault" (pronounced like a white trasher) in war. If you wish to attack others, you better be prepared to pay.

    It's true. Countires like the U.S. and Israel have nuclear power but they are not holding it over everyone's heads. They are used in defense - as a retaliation. They are NOT firing SCUD missiles at their neighbors for the fun of it like Iraq.

    Your argument that the U.S. should not have Nuclear power if Iraq cannot have it is the same as saying cops cannot have guns if rapists cannot.

    The U.S. does have a patchy past BUT we are now the most politically correct country out there. We are so afraid to offend everyone now. When Europe decides to turn on itself again (like WW2), we should just sit back and watch... again.... except for England, the ONLY European country with some backbone.
     
  5. mischief thread starter macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #6
    Um, what?

    ********. The US and other Nuclear powers have, quite specifically been holding Nukes over the collective heads of the world, that's what Mutually Assured Destruction was as an actual imlemented US foreign policy strategy.

    What part of any post above yours mentions ANY nation having the right to own, use or make Nuclear weapons? Particularly: where did ANY of us state that some Nations have more of a right to than others?

    Why do you feel that Europe is destined to make war again? Do you have ANY idea why the first 2 world wars happened?

    The US gives the most lip service to PC but in action the US is still operating like one of Roosvelt's bands of Roughriders..... Blazing out into whatever battles are deemed appropriate to protect "American Interests" while the citizenry does nothing to question the morallity of the actions!
     
  6. deputy_doofy macrumors 65816

    deputy_doofy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    #7
    Re: Um, what?

    Roughriders? Yes, that's why we waited to make sure 3000+ people were killed in our country before we finally decided to uproot the Taliban instead of yanking Afghanistan from them - like we should have done.

    Having nuclear capabilty and not using it is not the same as wanting to possess nuclear ability to attack your neighbors. I'm sorry... where were you in 1991 when Iraq invaded their neighbors, started killing their own people, while sending SCUD missiles at Israel? I suppose you supported that whole thing.

    Being a "super power" does not make us exempt from things but it does give us a responsibility to make sure that others who might possess similar powers are not trying to simply attack other countires without provocation.

    I really hated Reagan as a president but does anyone remember his great move? Libya's Ghadaffi (sp?) started mouthing off how he was going to kill the American's and started all kinds of nonsense. We dropped a bomb on his house, killed his daughter, and never heard from that ass again.

    You seem to think we can reason with these people. They strap bombs to their bodies and attack children - NOT military installations - they attack children. They fire their guns specifcally into the homes of ordinary civilians. These are not missed shots. Do you not read CNN, MSNBC - any news at all....? You cannot reason with these arabs any more than you could with a wild animal.

    I'd like to put you in a cage with a hungry lion so you can negotiate with your great english skills on why the lion should not eat you. Nope, you don't get a weapon.... same f@#kin' thing!!!
     
  7. Gus macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #8
    No,No,No

    There is no Palestine. There is no country on a map or in any document called Palestine or the Palestinian State. In the Bible, yes, in our times, no. We and they have made up a country that does not exist and have fooled everyone else into believing it also. If you disagree, then don't whine, get proof and prove me wrong. And saying that the media calls it that means nothing.

    By the way, if you call what the Palestianians are doing "waging war" then I am afraid of you. Just for the record the U.S. goes WAY out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. The Palestinians are AIMING for the civilians. Yes, the U.S. has screwed up a couple of times and hurt innocent people, but it does happen now and again. Let me ask you this--if you know that there is a war or battle going on in your city, then WHY STAY THERE? If you are still there and get killed, who's fault is that? When a hurricane comes, people have hours or days of warning, but people stay-do we blame the hurricane? No, the people, because they knew what was happening and chose to do it anyway.

    Anyway, that's enough. Sorry for the rant, and have a good day.

    gus
     
  8. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    Are you flippin' kidding me?? You should go and read some politically balanced information about the six day war.

    Arabs at the time hated Israel and wanted them wiped off the map, that is true. But the questions you have to ask yourself is 1) Why? and 2) Were they going to act on that hatred?

    The first question is relativelly easy, but is the source of the most debate and really the cause of the Israeli/Arab turmoil in the region. The Arabs believe that Israel was created in sin. They believe that it was given to the Jews, which to an extent, it was. But Israeli's feel that it is their homeland and have since fought long and hard to keep it. And that, as we all know is the source of the tensions.

    The second question is really at the heart of the six day war. Recently uncovered evidence shows that some countries, such as Egypt, had definite war plans. The tension between them and Israel is really behind the war. The Syrians would rather have let the Egyptians fight first, and then join later, which constitues some battle plan. But then there were other countries like Jordan who didn't want a war. They weren't equipped to fight the war and just didn't want it. But they were in a difficult position because of tensions between them and other Arab countries. If they had not joined the war and Egypt would have won, they most likely would have been attacked by Egypt and the rulers killed. Thus, they eventually joined with the rest of the region who, at the time, had superior armies and technology.

    Another fact is that Israel attacked first. They had good reason to as Egypt was obviously preparing for war, but they nonetheless struck first.

    Another overlooked fact in this is that the occupation of the West Bank that has lasted since that war ended was not something Israel wanted to do. They were preparing treaties that would have given the West Bank and other lands back and a possible Palestinian state in exchange for promises of peace and laying down of arms. But the Palestinians officials simply couldn't accept it. They were under enormous pressure from the Arab community and sects within the Palestinian people. Accepting peace and breaking the cycle of war would have earned them only the wrath of the rest of the Arab community and probably assasination attempts from zealots in their own people. Again, it was a lose/lose situation.

    And contrary to popular belief Israel didn't really want to occupy the West Bank or any more Arab territory. They returned the Sinai to Egypt but couldn't find a way to peacfully return the West Bank without the threat of more war. They were probably naive in thinking that they could eventually return the land after years of occupation or that the political situation would improve after the war.

    My point in all of this is that the situation is much more complicated than either side lets on. And in the US, we get a very pro-Israel point of view that doesn't do the situation justice.

    Here is a great book about this conflict, written by an officer in the Israeli army. It is surprisingly unbiased and sticks very faithfully to the facts. I highly recommend it.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-9276039-5266361?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

    Taft
     
  9. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #10
    the article was good. i only wish more people would read it.

    one fo the larger points i liked about the article was that Mandela did not attack the US. instead he attacked Bush and his puppeteers. too often in the international setting people confuse US actions as the will of the peopel of the united states. Mandela did not make this mistake.

    normally democracies are hypocritical if you view them as a single entity. since democracies are made up of political parties and individuals who disagree the opinions of these people get translated into actions in a haphazard manner. too often the international community views the actions of the united states as the collective will of the people of the united states.

    but the current situation is even worse. because the individual in charge, the partyu supporting him, and the men controlling him were not elected. the majority of the country did not want this man in charge. this man did not win the popular vote. this man did not win the electoral vote. this man was appointed to the office of the president but the supreme court that (largely) had been appointed by his father.

    to make matters even worse, checks and balances in this country have largely been abandoned. in the wake of september 11th 2001, the governing bodies of the united states ddecided that anyone who spoke out of against the president's actions would be branded 'unpatriotic' and 'unamerican.' 'president' bush, a man who's views and opinions do not reflect that of the people of the united states, has been given free reign over the united states and has abused that power in nearly unimaginable ways.

    the international community needs to understand that the actions of this country do not reflect the will of the people living in this country. but people are afraid to speak up. our leaders are too afraid to speak up, and our people are too lazy and ignorant to speak up as well [not an insult its just that most people do not understand the international political affairs of the united states].

    nelson mandela seems to recognize all of this. his words are strong and pointed but they are directed towards bush and his pupeteers not the country. condemn the united states. i condemn the actions of the united states as well, but i do not confuse that with condemning the people in the united states, who are good, honest, kind people just like people everywhere. do not judge us by the actions of our leaders.
     
  10. mischief thread starter macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #11
    Thank you to both Taft and Lemon.

    I have a question for doofy: Did you actually read the article I posted or did you just assume I was being "Unpatriotic"?

    Also: You seem to be under the impression that building Nuclear Weapons is a casual act... like a pipe-bomb or a suicide-vest. It's not. That stupid movie where the kid builds a Nuke in a plexiglass sphere has clouded you mind. Nuclear Arms are incredibly difficult to build and require very rare, expensive and power-hungry equipment that covers acres of land several stories deep. I assure you that Saddam Hussein does not have the capability to "BYO Nukes".

    He DOES however have money enough and facilities for buying a fully functional USSR warhead via the black market or more likely to simply make poison gas. Crazy bastards tend to stick to an MO they know works.

    BTW: Thanks again to Lemon for putting US versus US admin. in prespective. Please insert " Rich, White American Oligarchy of Protestant Old Boys" in place of the above "US" in any of my comments.

    Like I said: Terrorism is not an effective tool of deplomacy.

    In response to GUS:

    U are correct. I whiffed. Palestine hasn't been a country in a hell of a long time. What there is of Palestine is effectively a Reservation. However: Israel hasn't been exactly blameless in getting attacked. The Israeli government has been harrassing Palestinians for YEARS.

    Really I feel that the only solution that would END all this idiocy would have to be an "Act of God"...... Say Jerusalem gets hit by a 1/4 mile wide meteor. End of issue and nobody gets blamed.

    When a hurricaine comes U get out of the way because you know it's mindless and has nothing against you. When you ask Palestinians why they stay they say "Because this is my home and it was the land of my Father before me." Leaving is not an option for them. They are bound by their own sense of place. There was an old dude who died on Mt. St. Hellens because he didn't want to leave the house he had built himself.... same thing... pride over reason.

    Israeli Ultra-Orthodox seem to have the unfortunate belief that centuries of Palestinian Occupation ammounts to nothing more than Squatting on Israeli land.

    For the record I feel that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous Sociopath. I believe that attacking his own people with Gas and Gunships was a Crime Against Humanity. I feel that attacking Israel was an oppertunistic way to try to gather support from other Arab Nations to stall out the impending reaction of the Bush Administration. I feel that Desert Storm was prompted by Bush's pocketbook and personal stake in Kuwaiti oil. I feel that NONE of this is simple enough to be so pissy over without admitting that ALL sides are acting more for the bennefit of special interests than they are acting for the bennefit of Humanity or the safety of their people.
     
  11. Choppaface macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    SFBA
    #12
    "terrorist" is the new communist. do we really need to go through it all again? :rolleyes:
     
  12. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #13
    Die, un-American scum!
     
  13. me hate windows macrumors 6502

    me hate windows

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    #14
    The U.S. Government brought all these problems upon itself. With the whole WTC thing, the FBI and CIA had evidence that something like this was going to happen. They could have done something about it before it happened. But they didn't. Because they couldn't just go to war with some country or else everyone would hate them even more. What would you have thought of America if you woke up one day and you found out that Afghanistan was controlled by U.S. forces? Most of us didn't even know what evil was/is there.

    America brought all this hate to itself by trying to control the whole world(basically), saying what countries could and couldn't do. Thinking that they should go invade some country becuase they were afraid that they would use nukes against us. Most powerful countries have nukes. What would the world think if the U.S. one day decided to attack Russia because it is a "threat" It would probably start another world war.

    My point basically is: America HAS to stop trying to control the world. Unless they want to screw themselves over.

    {some of this didn't make sense} Oh well.:eek:
    Man, I haven't posted forever.
     
  14. Gus macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #15
    Hey Mischief

    When I was talkiing about the hurricane analogy, I really wasn't talking Palestine or Israel there, I was just talking about wars in general. I realize that they would stay in the land of their fathers, just as we would here, however, to blame the US military for the loss of civilian life in an area where we have advertised that we would be bombing is ridiculous. Those people have chosen to stay, and they are taking theor chances after being warned profusely. That is all I was saying. I was defending the military, not attacking those who want to stay.

    Just a clarification. :)

    Gus
     
  15. GeeYouEye macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #16
    Re: Thank you to both Taft and Lemon.



    Really? Which components? All you really need for a nuke is a critical mass of plutonium (extracted from nuclear waste, and/or bought on the black market. If this is what you were referring to, you'll note that there have been 4 years in which he could build the necessary parts & equipment), set of explosive plates, form fitted to the plutonium, some equal lengths of wire to make sure everything detonates at once, and a trigger with a moderately large battery. He has everything else to construct missiles for it.

    No doubt, though more likely anthrax would be the weapon of choice, as seen by that hangar a british missile blasted open a few days ago. And to be honest, I must disagree about buying a nuke. My feeling is that if he could, he would have a long time ago.

    Which we have to prove to the world. By launching a preemptive strike. Or perhaps you'd rather wait until thousands, or millions more are dead before we acknowledge the facts, and remove him from power.

    Palestine has NEVER been a country. Hell, it was given that name when the Romans made it a province. As to the "However" part, has it been over anything but their support and shelter of terrorism and terrorists, respectively?

    Oooh, I don't know about that... the extremists would probably look at where in Jerusalem the asteroid hit to determine who God favored.

    No, you get out of the way of a hurricane because it will kill you, with the mindlessness being a side effect. And the thing is, if any Palestinian is willing to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel, and does not have terrorist ties (admittedly difficult). they can become a citizen of Israel.

    Actually, you have that particular one ass-backwards. The Ultra-Orthodox believe Israel should not exist until the coming of the messiah, and have even committed terrorist acts to destroy Israel (though at least they only target military and government installations rather than school busses)

    Sounds good until the pocketbook part, but I don't understand what you mean "stall out the impending reaction of the Bush Administration"? I would think it would make more sense to not attack an ally of the US., if you didn't want them involved. And as for the oil, last time I checked the Bush family's oil is in Texas. And last but not least, of COURSE it's all special interest groups. But what you have wrong is that you fail to mention is that one of those groups IS the American people, who desperately don't want to be killed by another terrorist attack.

    I'm done... for now.
     
  16. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #17
    Re: Re: Thank you to both Taft and Lemon.

    You make it sound as if any moron with a bit of radioactive material can put together a nuke. Its not so simple. And the material isn't nearly as available as you are trying to imply.

    Also, intellegence suggests that Saddam has never and does not have missles with the ability to reach the US. If he has them, they are short-mid range (watch out Israel :eek: ).

    You talk as if Saddam was considered our most dangerous threat. The Bush administration is now downplaying the supposed Iraq ties to terrorist networks because of a lack of evidence. No doubt Saddam is a madman, but he probably has little power to harm the US significantly. More likely, he'd hit other targets like Israel or Europe.

    And lets not forget the worlds other nuclear powers, such as North Korea with its ever so composed and humanitarian heads of state...oh, wait...they are as unstable as anyone in Iraq and we KNOW they have nukes and missle capabilities. Why don't we attack them? The wrath of China and WWIII. Why doesn't our administration focus on their disarmement?? Because we don't have a vested interest in that area of the world. Our nation (and our industrial and manufacturing special interest groups--auto industry??) doesn't have a dependancy on any of their nation products, nor does North Korea have such a relative monopoly on a natural resource.

    WTF. What does it matter if they've ever been a country? Why is that even a point of debate??

    They are a group of people with some sort of national identity that, to one extent or another, is currently being held down and being rendered unable to have normal fulfilling lives. You may say it is because of their terrorist bombings, etc. But the fact of the matter is, a whole group of people is being held down by a nation, and that group of people is lashing back because of it.

    You seem to have oversimplified to make the Palestinians look like a nation of terrorists. That is just wrong.

    More later. I've got work to do.

    Taft
     
  17. Gus macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #18
    So let me get this straight...it is ok for the Palestinians to be blowing up innocent people because they are oppressed people who want THEIR land back?

    So by that rationale, it would be ok if the Native American tribes to start blowing up Americans because we are on what was once their land (even though they they would tell you that no one "owns" the land) and drove them off? If it is ok by you on one count, it has to be ok by the other.

    Israel has said that if the Palestinians would stay on their territory, that they will abide by that, but the Palestinians want what Israel has. And by the way, if the Palestinians are ok to blow up people for being on what they say is their land, then the Israelis have a similar argument. They've had a claim on that land for a long time too, you know. I will concede that the way the U.S.-led UN initiative to create the nation of Israel iin 1948 was sloppy, but that doesn't change the fact that what Yassir Arafat and his"soldiers" are doing is wrong. If they want to wage war and fight for what they think is theirs, then they should fight the military of Israel, not the women, children and other civilians out for a night of dancing or shopping. I don't know why it is so hard to see that what is going on there is no different than blowing up 3,000 people with an airplane. It is a different means to the same end. It is evil, cowardly and fruitless. Do you honestly believe that if the Palestinians ever did take over Israel that the rest of the U.N. nations would let that stand?

    Nothing you could ever say could make the slaughtering of innocents "right".


    This will never be settled because you have the world's three largest religions sharing the same city as the center of their holy beliefs-the Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews.

    I am not Jewish nor do I have any ties to the Nation of Israel or the faith of Islam, however, I know my history, I know my facts, and I know right from wrong. I am done.

    Gus
     
  18. Gus macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #19
    Sorry

    I want to apologize for the aggressive tone of the last post. I guess I get worked up about issues like this. It's just discussion.


    Gus
     
  19. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #20
    My only question to you is this:

    Why would most people who are wholly informed of this situation disagree with your simplistic viewpoint of the situation??

    I'm not disagreeing that what the bombers are doing is wrong. Very wrong.

    But the situation is completely different than what the 911 attackers did. ISRAEL IS OCCUPYING PALESTINIAN TERRITORY AND OPPRESSING THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!!!! Even if you don't believe Palestine was a state, the palestinians are a group of people with a sense of nationality. Israel took over the territory in the six day war and has since occupied it and oppressed the people who live there.

    And you are not totally right in your facts. Recent negotiations have revolved around making a Palestinian state as a way to resolve the issues. Israel has rejected this.

    None of this is to say that I agree with what SOME militant and zealous Palestinians are doing. Or that I don't agree with Israels decision to not consider a Palestinian state right now. But the issue is not black and white. The Palestinians aren't evil as a people.

    I maintain that peace in the region will be impossible unless things change on both sides.

    Israel must ease its control over the Palestinian people and its occupation of some territories taken in the wars since its creation. They must begin to consider the possibility of a future Palestinian state complete with territory. They must reject the idea of forcing order and military retaliation ending in civilian deaths. They must work toward giving the Palestinians a real life. They live in settlements for gods sake. They have no real life, little sense of property and no sense of land ownership. They are oppressed. The violence is a direct result of this, wether or not its justified.

    The Palestinians must, as a clear majority, reject the idea of terrorism. They muset demand from their leaders measures to end and actively thwart terrorist attacks. Right now the leaders do not have the courage to oppose the terrorists. And this is because the will of a significant part of the Palestinian population sees violence as the only answer. If the leaders tried to stop it, the violence would turn against them. The people must be the first to reject the violence, and they must find leaders with the courage to end the violence. Finally, they muset accept that Israel is a state that they must live beside (though not IN).

    Unless both side work simulteneously towards resolution, no real change can come about. They are at a stand-off right now and the only way to end it is both at once. If you can only see Israel in the right here, then you ignore a significant portion of the history of the region, including current events.

    I again reference the book Six Days of War. It give insight into the events that shaped the region into what it is today. It was written by an Israeli and yet is unbiased. A good read that lets you see both sides as they really are and in a historical light.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-9276039-5266361?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

    Taft
     
  20. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #21
    First Taft and Gus I agree with you both.


    Taft...


    How can there be diplomacy when the goal of the militant palestinians (which is a small part of the palestinians as a whole) is to destroy isreal? Are you aware of this goal? Or am i the only one? They hate the jews and see the jews as well as christians as "infidels" who need to be destroyed. How can anyone negotiate with such people? If these types of palestineans werent there then it be easier for both sides to co exist. Lets face it these terrorists own whoever is in charge there. The person who is in charge (arafat) is under thier influence. If he doesnt work with them he is a dead man. So arafat must appeal to the terrorists. Am I wrong? Perhaps I need to read more about the issue. Im not saying that this is really whats up im simply laying this out as another possibility of what may be going on. Ah hell I really dont know whats up its all so confusing sometimes. A lot of crap goes down over there its hard to keep track. I think I need that book I saw the other day in Barnes N Noble "The Middle East for Dummies" .


    :D
     
  21. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #22
    One more thing. This is ridiculous.

    First you imply that Arafat has soldiers that are performing the bombings. I don't believe this to be true. I think Arafat is powerless and needs to be replaced, but to say he is orchestrating the bombings is a biiiiig strech.

    Next, you say that the palestinians should attack the Isreali army. Let ME get THIS straight. A small group of poorly armed militants (we are talking stones, firebombs and a small amount of explosives here) is going to attack the third most powerful army in the world??? Are you nuts?? The reason they don't is because they don't stand a chance. They are at the whim of Israel in many ways. This violence is not a solution, but to suggest that they should "honorably" attack the Israeli army is insane.

    Taft
     
  22. Gus macrumors 65816

    Gus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #23
    Insane?

    Many wars have been fought where one side was GREATLY outnumbered and outgunned without the use of bombs on civilians. Robert E. Lee fought the last year and a half of the US Civil War outnumbered more than 2 to 1 and with less than half of the ammunition of the North. Yes, he lost.

    Ho Chi Mihn fought the entire U.S. Military in Vietnam with men who were not trained soldiers, but believed in what they were fighting for. He was outgunned, outmanned and hiding most of the time. Yes, he won. (He was a student of the tactics of Robert E. Lee, by the way)

    I did not say that Arafat had soldiers who he ordered to bomb. I used the quotes for a reason-they are not dressed as Palestinian soldiers, nor do they have affiliation with the non-existant Palestinian government, but they do affiliate themselves with the PLO, which Arafat is a leader of.

    I am not clear as to your point with the Six Days War. You are mad because the Arab nations attacked Israel and lost, so Israel should give up the land? Please clarify for me, so I understand. I'm not being sarcastic here.

    By the way, can you classify a "small amount of explosives"? Two days ago, a Palestinian car bomber was intercepted in a truck carrying 1,300 pounds of explosives set to be triggered by a cell phone. 1,300 pounds is not a small amount. That will rearrange your neighborhood fairly well.

    Well, of course Israel rejected the propsed plan-the Palestinians want more land every time they propose peace. Each time that Israel tries to back out of Gaza, they get attacked on their way out. I wouldn't bargain with someone who attacks me as I am leaving them alone either. Face it, if Israel wanted to, they could go in and destroy every trace of the Palestinian fighters in a week or less. You were right when you said that they are the third largest/equipped army in the world. I believe Israel has shown CONSIDERABLE restraint with this situation.

    Look, it is clear that we see this in two different ways, and I respect the fact that you are definitely well-informed, but I don't think either one of us will convince the other of our own views. I respect your opinion, but I happen to not agree with it.

    Gus
     
  23. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #24
    I made a *long* post about the six day war earlier (in response to doofy). My point is that its not all cut and dry. Israel attacked first under mounting Egyptian pressure and insecurities about the nuclear power plant they had built, among many other reasons. The way the whole war played out very much shaped the way the region is today--and many of the facts behind the war would surprise most people. Neither side is exactly guilty or innocent and the Palestinian situation is really a by product of the Arab vs. Jew mentality fostered by the other Arab states. Which makes the current situation all the more tragic and absurd.

    Point taken. I guess I was comparing it to the firepower of the Israeli army.

    Yeah. I respect your opinion as well. And it happens that I generally side more with Israel and their politics. But I by no means like all of their policies and practices.

    But as much as we disagree, it does make for some lively debate, doesn't it. I had fun anyway. :)

    Taft
     
  24. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #25
    First, this is somewhat true. There are very militant people in Palestine that weild much power and influence. This makes things very difficult.

    But I think you may be mistaken in the general reasons behind the hatred, resentment and violence. I don't believe that it is simply a matter of "hating the infidels." The reasons go deeper and center around decades of warfare, oppression, terrorism, politics AND religion. Its a cycle of violence that propogated from the rest of the Arab world and was somewhat pushed upon the Palestinians by somewhat unfortunate circumstances. While I by no means think that the Palestinians are blameless or all good, the situation came about because of many complex reasons and the conflict no longer centers on archaic religious beliefs.

    Though the "holy land" will always play a part in this conflict. Its a shame that the center of something that should represent all things good is so tarnished by the petty feuding and pride of mankind.

    Taft
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page