Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on January 04, 2006, 04:16:37 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4582574.stm
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has suffered a "significant" stroke and is unconscious, doctors at Jerusalem's Hadassah hospital say.
Officials said the 77-year-old leader was on a respirator and had experienced "massive" cerebral bleeding.
The Israeli leader's powers have been transferred to his deputy Ehud Olmert.
Mr Sharon, 77, felt ill at his ranch in south Israel weeks after having a mild stroke and the night before he was due to undergo a minor heart operation.
He suffered a minor stroke on 18 December which doctors said could have been the result of a blood clot caused by the hole in the heart.
His doctors said he recovered fully then but required minor surgery for the heart problem.
Dr Shlomo Mor-Yosef told reporters at the hospital on Wednesday night that Mr Sharon had "massive bleeding and was being transferred to an operating theatre."
An Israeli TV station reported that Mr Sharon was suffering from paralysis in his lower body and had been taken into the hospital on a stretcher.
Mr Sharon, who has been prime minister since 2001, is severely overweight.
He had been planning to run for a third term in office under his newly-formed centrist party, Kadima, after quitting the ruling Likud party in November.
Polls suggest his new party is in the lead ahead of the election. [/i]
To be honest, he did strike me as a bit of a cardiac arrest waiting to happen; I wonder how this will affect politics in Israel, though.
-
Oh, Ariel Sharon! From the thread title I thought you were talking about the BSG character.
Whew, scared me for a second there!
-
Holy crap. This puts Olmert in charge in the meantime. :ick:
-
Well, politically, I'm not sure what impact this will have, but I'm sure the world will be cautiously watching.
As a person, I wish him the best, as I would anyone.
-
My guess is that, even if he recovers, this will hurt his chances at March's elections tremendously. Nobody likes to vote for someone who's in such bad shape medically. Which would basically leave Netanyahu and Peretz to battle it out.
-
How strange.
An influential man changes his politics and somehow as if by sheer coincedence his health fails him.
Haha. Man this world is ruthless.
-
I'm not too happy about this... not happy at all.
-
Wasn't he like 300 pounds* or something? No idea if that's correct, just heard it somewhere.
I hope he gets alright, but I seriously doubt he'll try to run at March. Maybe he retires totally, at least that would propably be the best for him.
*Imperial system is ****ed up and I hate it
edit: OK, he's massive.
V V V V V V V V V V V V
-
Wasn't he like 300 pounds or something? No idea if that's correct, just heard it somewhere.
I hope he gets alright, but I seriously doubt he'll try to run at March. Maybe he retires totally, at least that would propably be the best for him.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41183000/jpg/_41183292_getty_working416.jpg)
I read 350lb somewhere, but not sure if it was a proper source or not.
-
Hmm, this probably signals the death of Sharon's new party, no? Given that it's still a baby, and its main patron is apparently in no shape to take on all commers.
Hope he pulls through.
-
Always nice to see such touching concern about a man who presided over the massacre of innocent women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. :rolleyes:
The only concern I have about Sharon is what effect his poor health will have on the region. I couldn't give a toss about him personally.
-
Whilst I agree that he's done some terrible things, I'm afraid I don't 100% agree with that sentiment, it would feel to me, in some way, like condoning the Death Sentence. 'I don't have any sympathy because he was a murdering bastard'.
Still, I can understand how a lot of people would feel differently, particuarly the relatives of those he ordered killed.
-
I'm not saying that he should be killed for his crimes. Just that I'm not going to show any more sympathy for his death than any other person who was complicit in war crimes.
-
Yeah, it's absolutely shameful he figured out that 'maybe' he should try something new, like emptying Gaza of the Israelis. The whole 'giving up of land for peace' thing. He's truly a monster. Oh, the humanity.
Of course, he was thanked by the Palestinians with more bombings, more of the same. Coulda told you that would happen.
I'm hoping Sharon's successor will realize that his enemies only understand power and will hopefully deliver on that.
-
Yeah, it's absolutely shameful he figured out that 'maybe' he should try something new, like emptying Gaza of the Israelis. The whole 'giving up of land for peace' thing. He's truly a monster. Oh, the humanity.
I seriously doubt that Sharon was doing anything other than solidifying his claim on the West Bank. Where do you think the settlers removed from Gaza went? Pretty stupid to move them to the West Bank if you had any intention of thowing them out of there too.
-
I hardly believe a dying man's thread is ripe for political discussion, regardless of what you may or may not think of him.
-
I hardly believe a dying man's thread is ripe for political discussion, regardless of what you may or may not think of him.
You're right. I stand chastised. Sorry about that.
-
I hardly believe a dying man's thread is ripe for political discussion, regardless of what you may or may not think of him.
Actually most people are probably more interested in the political ramifications of his death or illness than the man himself. I'll confine myself to discussions of that though.
-
/me considers a Flipside joke involving sharon and heavy strokes... decides it'd be in bad taste
-
And not original. There was one in the last Sharon has a stroke thread :)
-
Yeah mine was first tho. ;)
-
<---- Looks innocent
-
Well, general talk around here is that Sharon's not coming back politically, regardless of what happens. The doctors haven't even begun to asses how much brain damage has been caused, and there has been brain damage. Either way, the recovery period will be long and hard - IF he recovers - so there's just no future for him in politics.
Now, Ehud Olmert, the interim PM, is probably the most corrupted politician in the government. God have mercy while he's in charge. Anyway, politically, unless Olmert's a Clark Kent, there's no way he's gonna be able to keep the centerist Kadima party anywhere near as strong as it would have been under Sharon. With the elections 2.5 months away, there's not enough time for anybody new to step to the front and take the reins of Kadima. Which basically leaves the question of Peretz (Labor / left wing) vs. Netanyahu (Likud / right wing), and as far as I can tell, that's no competition at all. The only chance Netanyahu has of losing the elections, IMO, is if Olmert drops out and urges all the Kadima voters to vote Peretz... which I can't imagine him doing, since Olmert came from Likud, not Labor.
So, in the end, and in my very amature assesment, Bibi Netanyahu will be PM in 3 months. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
-
What if Peres took control of Kadima? Ha'aretz still predicts that Kadima could do pretty well, although their poll is a "what if the election happened today?". http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/666984.html
My guess is that Sandwich is right and that Bibi will get the PM spot after the elections in a few months.
-
Peres has a history of always losing elections. I don't see him breaking the mold now.
-
Your new prime minister will be a complete surprise and generally a very boring guy.
-
Always nice to see such touching concern about a man who presided over the massacre of innocent women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. :rolleyes:
The only concern I have about Sharon is what effect his poor health will have on the region. I couldn't give a toss about him personally.
First of all, it's just shows basic respect for a nation to not wish death on their elected leaders. Secondly, half the world's sitting heads of state have blood on their hands, including a certain Mr.Blair. Throw a dart at a map of the world and you're more than likely going to land within a hundred kilometers of a recent massacre. And yes, that included the oceans as well. Those sharks can be ruthless when they get organized.
But finally, Sharon has proven to be more moderate (or at least that's the way it appears to me) than Netanyahu, who is likely going to be sitting in Sharon's seat in a few months. So if you care about peace, stability and all that good stuff, better to have a relative centrist than an avowed right-winger.
-
So if you care about peace, stability and all that good stuff, better to have a relative centrist than an avowed right-winger.
I'm not even going to begin to address this, especially not in this thread. :doubt:
-
Bring back Bill Clinton, he almost had them behaving.
-
First of all, it's just shows basic respect for a nation to not wish death on their elected leaders. Secondly, half the world's sitting heads of state have blood on their hands, including a certain Mr.Blair.
Difference between wishing death and not particularly caring if they live. I'm firmly in the second camp. I'm merely surprised that I'm alone there cause quite frankly that's my position on Blair, Bush and a whole host of other tossers.
Throw a dart at a map of the world and you're more than likely going to land within a hundred kilometers of a recent massacre.
Much as I hate Bush or Blair as far as I know not even they can be blamed for anything anywhere near as sickening as Sabra and Shatila. It just annoys me that cause he's the elected official in a western(ish) country he can get away with crap that would have him facing trial in the Hague if he came from some 3rd world country. I know that's the way the world works but that doesn't mean I should plaster on a fake frown and be part of it.
But finally, Sharon has proven to be more moderate (or at least that's the way it appears to me) than Netanyahu, who is likely going to be sitting in Sharon's seat in a few months. So if you care about peace, stability and all that good stuff, better to have a relative centrist than an avowed right-winger.
As I said from my first post I do care about the effect it will have on the region even if that means he had to stay in charge. I agree that it's better to have him than Netanyahu by a long shot but I'd rather the Israelis saw sense and tried electing a real moderate in the first place rather than someone like Sharon who's actions would never actually lead to long term peace.
-
...someone like Sharon who's actions would never actually lead to long term peace.
I'd just like to point out that as long as there is the slightly huge issue of people holding irreconcilable beliefs of hatred and the like, "long term peace" will be unattainable no matter who is involved.
-
I remember someone saying the same thing about Northern Ireland 20 years ago.
Wars don't have to go on forever just cause people don't like each other. You can't completely end the hatred but you can usually cool it to the point were both sides aren't constantly pouring petrol on the fire and then complaining about how they got burnt.
-
Well, the latest is that he is out of surgery and stable at least :)
-
I remember someone saying the same thing about Northern Ireland 20 years ago.
Wars don't have to go on forever just cause people don't like each other. You can't completely end the hatred but you can usually cool it to the point were both sides aren't constantly pouring petrol on the fire and then complaining about how they got burnt.
Oh, I agree. :yes: Refer to the post-Intifada (the one in the 80's), pre-Oslo Israel/Arab relations.
-
Difference between wishing death and not particularly caring if they live. I'm firmly in the second camp. I'm merely surprised that I'm alone there cause quite frankly that's my position on Blair, Bush and a whole host of other tossers.
Nah, you're not alone.. I fully agree
-
...someone like Sharon who's actions would never actually lead to long term peace.
I'd just like to point out that as long as there is the slightly huge issue of people holding irreconcilable beliefs of hatred and the like, "long term peace" will be unattainable no matter who is involved.
When such beliefs cause such suffering it might be a good time to realize that they're wrong. Not just yours, not just theirs, but both.
-
I remember someone saying the same thing about Northern Ireland 20 years ago.
I serioulsy doubt that the north-irish hate thing reached the levels of hatred that a certain faction has for another in the middle east. It's like 1930/40s germany revisited. :ick:
-
Interesting article here by an Iranian guy: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17763837%255E601,00.html
-
I remember someone saying the same thing about Northern Ireland 20 years ago.
I serioulsy doubt that the north-irish hate thing reached the levels of hatred that a certain faction has for another in the middle east. It's like 1930/40s germany revisited. :ick:
You've obviously never seen Glasgow during an OF game - and that's just a microcosm of the troubles in NI of the time.
-
obviously never seen Glasgow during an OF game - and that's just a microcosm of the troubles in NI of the time.
mmh, are they vowing to drive the opposition into the sea (what a euphemism eh), blowing up pizzaparlours and buses?
(I'm not saying that the north-irish thing isn't bad, it clearly was -and worse when it was in full swing- but is it really comparable?)
-
obviously never seen Glasgow during an OF game - and that's just a microcosm of the troubles in NI of the time.
mmh, are they vowing to drive the opposition into the sea (what a euphemism eh), blowing up pizzaparlours and buses?
(I'm not saying that the north-irish thing isn't bad, it clearly was -and worse when it was in full swing- but is it really comparable?)
Yes, they pretty much were (on the IRA side). It is comparable; the methodology may be different through geographic and social factors, but the hate isn't.