[Kellan]

Okay, just to wrench us back on-topic, rather than talking about that "clash of civilizations" (bah )...

Bush's speech was a pile of crap. There, that's got the vitriol out of the way. However, I have some serious points as well, rather than unsupported insults. Basically, Bush's speech:

• Offered no incentive to Palestinians; in terms of what their state might look like and so on - only a vague idea of a market-led economy without Arafat.
• Did not deal with the possibility (probability?) that if Arafat was replaced, the new leadership would be more militant still.
• Was unrealistic in its demands of the Palestinians - they democratically elected Arafat, which is a hell of a lot better than most other Arab nations. However, although there is no precedent at all for the kind of state he suggests, Bush wants it right away.
  
• Put no pressure on the Israelis to withdraw or stop building settlements in the way that the Palestinians are pressured. Peace will only work both ways.
• Made progress entirely conditional on the removal of Arafat.
• Most importantly, it gave no timetable. The Palestinians, in effect have to depose their leadership and install a more subservient one whilst taking it on trust that they will eventually get the state they have been promised. No guarantees, no date for the state. Bush was even clever enough to make the date, vaguely "within 3 years", by which time of course he may no longer be in the White House.
  
• Oh, and the provisional state is only 60% of the original Occupied Territories. Given the history there, why should the Palestinians believe that they'll get the other 40% back?

So yeah...ummm, that's all for now.

[Zeronet]

The PA is very corrupt, everyone knows that. The best thing the Palestinians can do is stop blowing themselves up. The more they blow themselves up, the more the IDF will lock down there areas to try and prevent them blowing themselves up, once the suiciding bombers stop, the peace process could resume possibly.

[CP5670]

I also thought that the Bush speech was mostly nonsense but for different reasons. In my opinion this whole "peace process" the way they are doing it right now is a useless effort; the ideas of "blowing yourself up for your god" and the "evil West" have been firmly embedded into the minds of the common Palestinian people. Both sides says they want peace, but that really means nothing as they will readily sacrifice the peace to hold or to reclaim their lands. The best solution would be for Israel to set up a full military campaign and occupy the entire region (a piece of cake considering the size of the PA), and immediately begin heavy media-based propaganda conditioning along with defamation of existing leaders. They really made a big mistake when they let Arafat go IMHO; it was a perfect opportunity to capture him there.

Okay, if CP starts his speeches again I'm gonna kill someone, and it won't be painless!!

I would be happy to oblige, but someone needs to start a fight first.

[Stryke 9]

Y'know, Sitting Bull was a militant, too. I think most of us armchair politicos here (which I'll tentatively include myself in, since I haven't been in anything really significant or headed off to the trenches yet) have lost sight of a simple fact: there are (famously) only two ways to change something, politically. The Palestinians, driven off their land, oppressed, colonized, pushed onto reservation-ghettoes and shot at regularly for something one of their number whom they have never even heard of, lack the privelidge of the ballot to improve things. Replace Arafat and you'll either get a weakling who lets Sharon send his people to the gas chambers and take over everything, a zealot who will kill thousands more innocent people on both sides, or another puppet. No other solution. So they opt for Arafat and the bullet, in the hopes that if they die, at least they will die gloriously in what is to them the greatest cause of all. Thus, the war.

Israel has the problem of being stuck in between its most virulent enemies, and, as a state, of having been created by unjust means in the first place. Whatever it may be now, right or wrong, the way in which Israel was created was flat-out wrong, and thus sparked hostilities that will never be assuaged. Israel has a similar problem- caught between two equally fatal situations. One, they elect a peacemaker, who doesn't order tanks off to murder civilians every time a Palestinian kills himself and others- this guy would, quite naturally, get screwed, and be no defense, as local hatreds run too deep on both sides to make anything much better under the current conditions. Two, they elect a warlord, a murderer like Sharon- someone who can HOPEFULLY scare off the enemy. Problem there is, as Sharon illustrates, these warlords seem to have a penchant for civilian massacre and genocide, and at any rate you honestly cannot frighten a people who have nothing to lose, such as the Palestinians. Sharon can certainly keep his legitimate-state neighbors at bay, but as far as Palestine goes he can only bloody Israel's otherwise good name, and make his nation become (slowly) the greater of two evils, so that when the reckoning time cones Israel is worse off for bargaining than ever. A fatuous imbecile like Bush, who gets his opinions from the papers he is handed and knows only vaguely what the Palestinian and Israeli causes are, can make this last disadvantage seem less influential in external relations, but in the end can only do that.

The solution, as I see it, is to sieze the Pentagon and lay siege to Washington with an army of 10,000 revolutionaries.

Oh, you mean for Israel? None, none at all. So long as Israelis and Arabs are in he same region, they will massacre each other. One side or the other might eventually wipe its opponent out completely, but in the process will have waged mass murder greater than any Hitler could have concieved of. Odds are, in the end, things will end up between Israelis and Palestinians much the same way things ended up between the Indian tribes and Europeans on this coast (in the reverse order, of course). In other words, we have the privelidge of watching one of the most monstrous activities man can ever engage in. Observe, and take it instructively- there's little or nothing else we can do about it.

[RoachKoach]

no fear sandwich bro, once ive taken over the world i'll let you shoot Arafat, oh yeah, Bush you can have Saddam too...

[RoachKoach]

that stuff about the gods is bizzarre, didnt know about all that, and hope none of u guys subscribe to it either. lets just say, the gods would not be pleased if they knew.

[CODEDOG ND]

Well the PA might just sucide bomb until they run out of people too.

They need to understand that Israel is not going to let them go and live with it.  No matter how many times they try to make their lives better by blowing themselves up they are just making the situation worse.

Ok now going OT for a little bit.

Bush is not my first choice for President, but he also wasn't my last.  His foriegn policies suck, but most people didn't vote for him because of his foriegn relations.  They voted for him because most were tired of liberal ways with Pro-Abortion(Don't Get Me Started On That), Anti-Gun, and the way Clinton had acted in both Somolia, Bosnia, and Lebanon; not to mention Monica(GASP!).  I really didn't want him for president.  I was hoping for McCain to win the Republican nomination and he would have if he didn't drop out of the race.  However, it wouldn't have matter if Gore or Nader or even Alan Keyes would have won.  The President is the President and I will always stand by the President's choices even if they are not the ones I would have made.

I myself am a "Right Wing Conservative", and also a Capitalist.  I don't like the idea of Socialism and Communism because the country I'm from, the United States, is based on Capitalism and it grew into a thriving country off its Capitalist Views.  What does Communism and Socialism have to offer?  Equality?  I don't think so.  Stalin wasn't begging off the streets when some of his people were he was too busy killing them.  People are more willing to make themselves better educated if they have the ability to make more money.  In Communism, why bother with going to college and becoming a doctor if your just going to make the same amount as your local trashman?  Believe it or not most people do not have ambition about what they want to do for a living.  

All government systems do have their flaws, but why try to bring down the "rich" people in the world?  Are they all bad?  Or are most people jealous because at some point in their lives or their ascentors lives somebody decided to make something of themselves so that thier children and their children's children will not have to worry about money and debt?  So their family could have the good things in life that a Capitalist government lets you have?  I'm not rich, I am middle-class and work at a barely above mininium wage job, and my parents do give me a place to live and food but that is about it.  I've noticed a lot,but not all, of you sit nicely in your parents house with no job and a computer they paid for complaining about a system that lets you have all those things even though others do not because somebody in your family decided to work and earn them.  Capitalism is like a reward system, you go to college and specialize in something, you worked for your specialization skills, bingo.  You earn more money than somebody that did not want to work at high school and dropped out.  

Don't blame others because for your money problems.  Do you think they ask to be born to a wealthy family?  
They were just fortunate to be however.  And then you have people like Henry Ford which worked his way from the bottom to the top and was able to better his way of life and his families, and he also provided for many other families as well by giving them jobs in his factories making a product that changed not only America, but the world.  Another example would be a family friend of ours that was your "Average Joe" that worked on Oil Rigs.  Why should he be marked as a bad corporate man just because he had the idea to make a part, forgot what it was, that saved the company he worked for and other companies a lot of money, while it also secured his family with wealth?  Lacy now owns three banks, a hotel, a marina, and a restraunt.  

Some of you guys that are complaining about the US government live somewhere else like the UK, Finland, etc.  That is ok, you don't live here.  And others that live in the United States that are complaining about a screwed up government and how they hate most of the people that are elected.  The United States of America is NOT] a democracy like the media tells you.  Whoever started calling it a democracy should be shot.  It was setup as a Representative Republic and YOU elect people to make descisions for YOU!  Not make the descisions yourself.  If you live in the U.S. and don't like it, then leave!  Or I forgot...for some of you, your mommy won't let you.  You see that flag with the colors of old glory red, old glory blue and white where ever you might see one?  Love it!  Or Leave it!  The U.S. government is not keeping you here.

 A Democracy is where the people vote on everything.  Democracy is mob-rule and mob-rule, it doesn't matter if your religious or not, let a murder go just so they could see an innocent man be crucified.  You know who that he was, or for some including myself still is?  Chirst.  Even I think CP would agree that it is not logical to let somebody go that might kill someone else, since he's done it before, just so some people can see a man that's done nothing wrong be.

Ok...now back on topic please....

[heretic]

you do know you can write in a vote...


I wrote in John McCain

[CODEDOG ND]

I didn't even bother.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by wEvil


I have a standard-issue HLP shotgun in the holster to my left

[public service announcement type voice]Use discretion when blasting poster![/public service announcement type voice]

[CP5670]

Y'know, Sitting Bull was a militant, too.

[rest of post]

I agree with most of your points there; considering the history of that region, I would be quite surprised if a lasting peace came about anytime soon. The most probable outcome seems to me that things will end with an eventual Israeli conquest of all the surrounding nations (they have the military force and technology, regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong"), being followed by a few decades of military occupation. Ideologies can only be eliminated with the passing of time.

Ok now going OT for a little bit.

[rest of post]

I am not of voting age so I didn't have to deal with that this time, but I am not heavily in favor of either of the major parties. (I am essentially an extreme radical but there are things I like and do not like about both parties)

I somewhat agree with what you are saying about the rich people, which is why I am not heavily supporting the Democrats, but if this nation actually operated like that, it would essentially become an oligarchy of the corporation owners. One thing that I would really, really like to see is a law that bans all forms of lobbying with any government officials or institutions. Currently, the ones with the money can simply wave some cash under the government officials' noses and indirectly control the whole system; this is simply ridiculous.

I have lived my entire life in the US but I'm not against communism at all in principle alone - in fact, I really like the system - but it does not lend itself well to the current social and cultural era, since the issue of the incentive is a big problem at the moment. Also, Stalinism is not really a good example of communism, as it operated more like a military dictatorship.

A Democracy is where the people vote on everything. Democracy is mob-rule and mob-rule, it doesn't matter if your religious or not, let a murder go just so they could see an innocent man be crucified. You know who that he was, or for some including myself still is? Chirst. Even I think CP would agree that it is not logical to let somebody go that might kill someone else, since he's done it before, just so some people can see a man that's done nothing wrong be.

I might have agreed with that but I am not sure what you are trying to say; obviously I agree that potential threats should be eliminated, but I didn't quite get the last part. But he an innocent man? bah! He has to be among the worst men who ever lived, right up there with all the other prophets; just look at the incredible influence this one singular individual has had upon the whole world. When such a thing occurs, future paradigms become unpredictable.

that stuff about the gods is bizzarre, didnt know about all that, and hope none of u guys subscribe to it either. lets just say, the gods would not be pleased if they knew.

Like I said, my imaginary man is better than your imaginary man! |>|-|€£/2!

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by CP5670







I might have agreed with that but I am not sure what you are trying to say

I'm trying to say that doing things just because the people want it is normally based upon irrational descisions based upon the times.  Like the anti-drinking laws of the 20's.  They were irrational and worthless.  However, drunken accidents decreased, organized crime counter balanced the objective.  Just because at a certain time or mood in a society calls for some kind of law or a certain descision to be made, you can't rely on the people because in 20 years they probably will want it changed.  Then in 20 years they'll want it back.  That is why we elect people to try and make rational descisions, even though they sometimes don't, like in the 20's, which left a big scar on the Constitution.  I was trying to make an example that, I thought, most could understand.  Even if you think Jesus was a crazy man that claimed to be the king of the Jews, does that mean you can kill him and let somebody you know is evil and will most likely kill again go free just because the people want it?  That is where Democracy fails, and that is why I don't like the media calling the U.S. and Democracy when it clearly is not.

[Carl]

it's like that episode of andromeda. "if you want peace, bless our warriors." *warriors got and blow up their enemies' star system*

the easiest way to have absolute peace is to have no opposition. hence, the palestinians blow up the israelies.

[Grey Wolf]

Sandwich, to truly assess this, you must view this from a 3rd-person perspective, prefferably one which doesn't favor destroying everything

But anyway, the fact that the Palestinian militants want to destroy Israel is not a true cross-section of the Palestinian people. I bet that if we took your standard, mild-mannered, peace-loving Palestinian and your standard, mild-mannered, peace-loving Israeli, they'd probably get along pretty well. If you didn't talk about religion, they probably would be very similar, other than the fact that the Muslim would be sober all the time due to the ban on alchohol. Most people's opinions are based on what they hear in the media, whether independent, corporate, or state-run. You have to remember that all these sources are BIASED. BIAS is BAD. You get misconceptions, which are formed into beliefs. If you were to base your opinions on what the media reports, you'd probably think that all Americans are pot-smoking, acid-taking, drunken bastards who complain all the time and get into accidents (BTW, most of that is wrong expcept for the fact that quite a few people do complain that much.)

But anyway, always use common-sense when considering this sort of subject. Are they all blood-thirsty terrorists? Or are they most likely normal people?

On another note, "Jihad" does not mean just "Holy War". AFAIK, it mean service to Islam in many different forms.

[CP5670]

I'm trying to say that doing things just because the people want it is normally based upon irrational descisions based upon the times.

Ah, I now see what you mean. I certainly do agree there; that is the bad thing about the democracy, but the republic also has that problem. As you said, the average person is an incredible fool and does not have the capacity to make any proper decisions. The solution to this would seem to be something like Szilard's "Der Bund," where the entire nation is run as an oligarchy of a select intellectual elite. However, the problem with this is that the people need to somehow be kept quiet - or they will revolt - while still keeping the production and economy running. (and allowing the generation of new ideas) The alcohol laws were quite a good idea in theory, but just like communism, impractical for the current cultural era.

But anyway, always use common-sense when considering this sort of subject. Are they all blood-thirsty terrorists? Or are they most likely normal people?

The thing is that a "normal person" can be turned into a fanatical suicide bomber very easily (and vice versa), so it would make little difference whether one examined a normal guy or a terrorist. (you might have heard that these terrorist guys were actually quite normal people otherwise)

On another note, "Jihad" does not mean just "Holy War". AFAIK, it mean service to Islam in many different forms.

They say that the original word does mean "struggle," but it has a different connotation to it; something like an inner struggle for the perfection of mind and body. Did you hear about that university student who made the "my American Jihad" speech? That guy must have been quite a character.

[RoachKoach]

hey, is communism that bad? ok the soviet union collapsed, but look at china, look at the progress...

when u need reforms and to turn stuff round u need stuff like communsm, thats why Gen. Musharraf took over Pak, and thats why China seems to run on very oiled wheels (seems, not 100% sure. i know they have their problems, shocking stuff my dad learned when he vsited on work. dyou know a man cant move from province to province there, wihout a permit? this guy he met, he had to live alone, in some big city, while his wife n kids cant stay with hm, cos they arent allowed to, and he gets to seem them every 2 months) ok, stuff like that is bad, but if communism is kept clean and rational, it is by far one of the most efficient ways to run a country. it is sickening to see what politicians of countries, like in ours, have done to it. take india for example, we just won our freedom just over 50 yrs back, after 200 years of bloody struggle, and in 50 years, they have destroyed everything that the great guys who won us our freedom had envisioned. the corruption is complete, and every 2 days u hear of a scam, along with other headlines like "so many dead in kashmir", "so and so kills so many over some stupid reason" , etc. the general public r turning out to be sick minded in cities. this might sound rediculous, but a man actually killed his neighbour for accidently killing his chicken, a few months back.

then we had the **** in gujarat, sheer massacre, i was truelly ashamed of beeing associated with a bunch of nuts like those fellows. my point is democracy offers too much freedom, people donot fear the system, so they bend it to their needs. politicians just look for power, and make "reforms" that just attract votes. as a student, i am filled with disgust by a system of reservations, for people of lower or backward classes, and recently women. the result, with 80% in my 12th standard, i couldnt get a good college, cos 50% of the seats rnt even open to me. i go to college and i see the evil, here i am with 80%, and heres another guy, with just 48%, who isnt even interested in doing his engineering, in my same frickin class!!! with communism, **** like this wouldnt happen, or maybe im looking for a dictatorship. as anakin says, "if it works" , why not?

the israel problem actually is partly israel's doing. no new phenomenon, all major crises in the world are mostly the doing of the very nation most affected, israel n palestine, us and the taliban, though they seem to have partially mopped em up, and right here between us good ol neighbours, the now nuclear nuts. well israels strategy of blowing up the terrorists before they blow emselves up does make a bit of sense, but how do spot a terrorist amongst a crowd? or do you kill em all? stuff like the rocket attack by helicopters on a road, that destroyed 2 cars, killing 6 palestinians saddens me, that isnt right, what did those guys do? they were probably terrified people running away in any case. unfortunately, we dont have a palestinian in our midst to hear the story the other way, israel being a freindly nation to india, causes the media to be somewhat biased in her favour, other than the fact that the situation is similar to our problems, so much so that top officials have said we should do exactly what israel does.

problem is itll never end that way. the solution eludes me, the only way possible, for peace, however uneasy it is, is walls, isolation, better bordr patrolling and screening, if no palestinian can get thru into israel, kinda ends the problem there doesnt it? have shoot at sight orders within a distance from this wall, at least that way, ull kill less people.

and people, this , i really feel, is not about religion, if it was, things would have been worse. if we start hating people just cos theyre different, we're all finished anyways, specially me , not too many of us around

[RoachKoach]

as for bush, i dont know, he gives me the impresion of a puppet leader, sometimes decisive, and the next moment soft about the same glaring issue. dont know what internal pressures exist on him, so mostly im wrong, and for hardcore bush supporters, im wrong anyways

one thing i dont like, and that is the thing of having saddam assasinated. who'll be next? u shouldnt be allowed to, should even think of doing stuff like that. fine ur the superpower, but dont misuse ur status, ull just invite more freaks like osama to eye your liberty (statue included)



heres where i get nuked *runs to afghanistan*

[Kellan]

Wow, this thread has been all over the place since yesterday evening. I'll try and address some comments now, and some later when I've had time to collect them all.

The main thing I have to comment on now is to (guess who) CP. Now there's a surprise.

Basically, whilst I have every reason to believe that your idea of mass conditioning of populations and military conquest of enemies would bring about a more lasting peace than current measures being undertaken, morally it is utterly reprehensible to me. Now I can imagine from what you've talked about in the past that your 'benefit of society' schtick covers the losses that this would lead to in terms of liberty, equality and lives. Not in my book, I'm afraid. It should be fairly obvious why...

1. It would lead to casualties on both sides that could have been avoided.

2. It would be an attack on currently peaceful nations.

3. It doesn't do much for self-determination, and would essentially diffuse the Jewish nature of Israel that makes it unique anyway.

4. It messes with people's free wills in very obvious ways. Now, since it would be building on previous conditioning I don't suppose that counts as a factor. The fact remains though that it would be propaganda, not truth - hardly a step towards a brighter future. It's altogther too Nazi for my tastes.

5. The implementation of such a policy would likely involve restrictions on the civil liberties of the affected groups; they would in effect become second-class citizens. Unless the programme to make them amenable was accompanied by one to make Israelis accept them as normal human beings as well, there might also be a tendency to mistreat them for the crimes of the past.

Feel free to dispute...I shall be back once I have packed for my holiday.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Kellan
4. It messes with people's free wills in very obvious ways. Now, since it would be building on previous conditioning I don't suppose that counts as a factor. The fact remains though that it would be propaganda, not truth - hardly a step towards a brighter future. It's altogther too Nazi for my tastes.

[/b]

Any kind of education can be said to be exploitational conditioning by the establishment.

Of course, if you're educated to the point where you start thinking for yourself, you become an antisocial/terrorist and can no longer easily effect changes in that system.

The biggest problem, IMhO, is that nobody really understands the mentality behind these suicide bombers - maybe if you could just make them understand it doesnt matter who claims the land because you can't exactly own it when you're dead, can you?

Feel free to dispute...I shall be back once I have packed for my holiday.

You lucky.....

[Blitz_Lightning]

An interesting little bit of trivia is that the Jews believe themselves to be descended from Isaac, while Muslims claim to be descended from Abraham's other son (I can't remember the name). Correct me if I'm wrong, OC.

Abraham's other son is Ishmael, who the Muslims are descended from.