_BiB_ Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 But I do know how many people are a$$ out because Israel wants to play the shell game instead of working towards a real peace. 48613[/snapback] Didn't I talk to you about going native? I know what you are saying, but both sides have a lot of fault and a long way to go. Weave it all into the big tapestry.
chicot Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Anti-Israel, of which I am a part of, is NOT anti-Jewish.... that's like saying because you are Anti-Syria that you are anti-Muslim. Until Israel backs off its shoot first, token attempts at peace attitude, I'm in that category. COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't worry chicot, I am one of the few Americans on this board who understand that Israel kills just as many people as Palestinians do. They are terrorists with a country. 48346[/snapback] Thanks, but I don't take Ed's posts too seriously. As for his absurd claim that I am an "anti-Jew muslim"? As I've pointed out several times on this board, I'm not a muslim. Unfortunately, this fact doesn't seem to register with Ed for some reason. As for the anti-Jew part, as you yourself pointed out, being critical of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians does not equate to being anti-Jew. If that were the case, there must be many thousands of Jews who are themselves "anti-Jew", since there is nothing I have said on this board on the subject of Israel/Palestine that has not been said by people of Jewish origin. I suppose it makes life a lot easier to just label someone a "jew-hater" or "anti-semitic" rather than actually address the issues and, unfortunately, many people seem to prefer the lazy option.
chicot Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Damn, Dave. You know one can't post more than three sentences here. In spite of what everyone might think or what they want to believe, the US is THE last Super Power, for the time being. We watch over many. They rely on us to do so. Our nuclear deterrent is a huge part of that. We are also responsible with not only the use of the weapons, but the related security of them as well. In the interest of civilization as a whole, we would be irresponsible NOT to be heavily involved in non-proliferation and counter-proliferation. Were Iran to cap Tel Aviv with 25KT, what do you think would happen? 48379[/snapback] And what would happen if Israel were to cap Tehran with 25KT? This is the problem - double standards. Why is Israel to be allowed atomic weapons but not Iran? Is Iran's government really more irresponsible and likely to start a war than that of Ariel Sharon? To be honest, I would be far happier if no one at all had atomic weapons but that isn't going to happen. The cat is out of the bag now and the technology cannot be wished away. Like it or not, regimes that the US considers "dodgy" are going to get atomic weapons one day, but is that really a more scary prospect than Mao or Stalin having them?
_BiB_ Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 And what would happen if Israel were to cap Tehran with 25KT? This is the problem - double standards. Why is Israel to be allowed atomic weapons but not Iran? Is Iran's government really more irresponsible and likely to start a war than that of Ariel Sharon? To be honest, I would be far happier if no one at all had atomic weapons but that isn't going to happen. The cat is out of the bag now and the technology cannot be wished away. Like it or not, regimes that the US considers "dodgy" are going to get atomic weapons one day, but is that really a more scary prospect than Mao or Stalin having them? 48749[/snapback] Yes, it is. This can't be answered in a post. It's a shame the board has died so many times. If you are really interested in my take, there are several postings going back over a couple years that put together a big picture. And don't be such a do-do, I, for one, know you know better than that. The short answer is, because Israel won't launch, unless it's armeggedon time.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 Didn't I talk to you about going native? I know what you are saying, but both sides have a lot of fault and a long way to go. Weave it all into the big tapestry. 48685[/snapback] No, I did not. I have read the history of the entire conflict, and it saddens me to realize that they are both at fault in this case. My opinions go back to 2000, when I was so enlightened by the very first book I ever read about the region, on deployment. I KNEW then that I wanted to know much more; WHY exactly everyone seemed to want to kill each other. Now, the answer is as plain as day... Netinyahu reversed EVERY GAIN made under Oslo, which started the intafada, things got worse, Sharon was elected, as the peace process is STILL at a halt. Netinyahu and Sharon, two main leaders in the Likud, do NOT favor a legitimate peace with Palestinians; in their view, they are to be ignored, and forced out of as much land as possible. Sharon is giving the Palestinians a token gift to make it seems is is somewhat serious. I encourage you to read more about the events of the past 60 years... they will bring you to a new understanding of the situation. Rabin's death and Netinyahu and Sharon's leadership (or lack thereof) are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the events that have occurred over the past few years, and the response to this horrid rule has been terrorists who do exactly what the Israeli army does... have little regard for human life on the opposite side.
GG Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 No, I did not. I have read the history of the entire conflict, and it saddens me to realize that they are both at fault in this case. My opinions go back to 2000, when I was so enlightened by the very first book I ever read about the region, on deployment. I KNEW then that I wanted to know much more; WHY exactly everyone seemed to want to kill each other. Now, the answer is as plain as day... Netinyahu reversed EVERY GAIN made under Oslo, which started the intafada, things got worse, Sharon was elected, as the peace process is STILL at a halt. Netinyahu and Sharon, two main leaders in the Likud, do NOT favor a legitimate peace with Palestinians; in their view, they are to be ignored, and forced out of as much land as possible. Sharon is giving the Palestinians a token gift to make it seems is is somewhat serious. I encourage you to read more about the events of the past 60 years... they will bring you to a new understanding of the situation. Rabin's death and Netinyahu and Sharon's leadership (or lack thereof) are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the events that have occurred over the past few years, and the response to this horrid rule has been terrorists who do exactly what the Israeli army does... have little regard for human life on the opposite side. 49013[/snapback] Nice to see that your sources come with pre-bolded emphasis points, emphasizing why the first intifada started, and why the second intifada started. Did your book expound on the treatment of Palestinians by Jordan? Perhaps your books also provide the proper timeline to show that you're missing Ehud Barak between Netanyahu & Sharon, who was a former general "dove," who moved IDF out of Lebanon and negotiated peace with Syria. Netanyahu was out of office in 2000, while the KGB freedom fighter welcomed Barak's regime with the Intifada, just when things were progressing, and Palestinians were beginning to grow a semblance of an economy. Barak resigned in embarrassment of trying to strike a peace deal with a scumbag. Any kind of peace treaty assumes that the other side will live up to its end of the deal. Who in their right mind will negotiate any deal with Arafat? As to the disregard for human life, I'm sure you know perfectly well the complexity of conducting a military operation when the targets wrap themselves around women & children. When the Palestinian houses get bulldozed, do you think it's indiscriminate, or do they have some relation to a suicide bomber? I find it curious how people empathize with Russia, who in the last decade killed nearly 300,000 Chechens and uses tactics that Israel wouldn't think of employing, but universally condemns Israel for tearing down a house of a suicide bomber.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 Nice to see that your sources come with pre-bolded emphasis points, emphasizing why the first intifada started, and why the second intifada started. Did your book expound on the treatment of Palestinians by Jordan? Perhaps your books also provide the proper timeline to show that you're missing Ehud Barak between Netanyahu & Sharon, who was a former general "dove," who moved IDF out of Lebanon and negotiated peace with Syria. Netanyahu was out of office in 2000, while the KGB freedom fighter welcomed Barak's regime with the Intifada, just when things were progressing, and Palestinians were beginning to grow a semblance of an economy. Barak resigned in embarrassment of trying to strike a peace deal with a scumbag. Any kind of peace treaty assumes that the other side will live up to its end of the deal. Who in their right mind will negotiate any deal with Arafat? As to the disregard for human life, I'm sure you know perfectly well the complexity of conducting a military operation when the targets wrap themselves around women & children. When the Palestinian houses get bulldozed, do you think it's indiscriminate, or do they have some relation to a suicide bomber? I find it curious how people empathize with Russia, who in the last decade killed nearly 300,000 Chechens and uses tactics that Israel wouldn't think of employing, but universally condemns Israel for tearing down a house of a suicide bomber. 49036[/snapback] I never empathized with Russia; in fact, I don't know much about the conflict there, so I can't say anything there.. however.. Are you telling me that BULLDOZING A REFUGEE CAMP is going after a suicide bomber?? How do you make that correlation?? Maybe WE should invest in bulldozers for Iraq then!!! I was pointing out that the direct cause for these attacks were the hard line stances by members of the Likud like Netinyahu and Sharon. I understand that Arafat is corrupt, BUT they HAD a deal in place in Oslo, and ISRAEL backed out of it, so the argument about the 'other side' living up to its agreements can extend to them as well. AND settlement of this issue goers to the heart of Jerusalem, but first you must have people who are willing to stop extending the cyclical nature of violence. BOTH of them obviously aren't going to do that. The myriad of reports about women and children being treated like dogs comes from Israeli Army tactics. They aren't any more guilty of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
GG Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 If you look hard enough, you can find blame with anything. Just think about the logic of imposing a peace deal with parties whose unbending goal is the destruction of your country, maybe then you will see the folly of blaming Israel for not embracing Arafat or Hamas in a "peace deal." In your analysis of the situation, it's convenient to ignore the peace deals Israel made w/ Egypt & Jordan, when the counterparty can be trusted. The reality is that there will be no peace deal, until the Palestinians get their house in order, and Sharon is waiting out the pending conflict between PLO & Hamas. For all the noise people make about Sharon, he has gone the furthest in disengaging from Palestine, calling everyone's bluff. why isn't he getting any positive press for the Gaza exit? Could it be that by giving PLO what it wants, it further exposes Arafat as the fraud he is, and that he will have to answer the real questions to his people? The biggest mistake sharon has made, IMHO is not helping out Abbas in his efforts to counter Arafat. (But we also don't know the true situation in that house, either) The Palestinians are finally realizing the stupidity of Intifada II, and how Arafat threw away all the gains the Palestinians made economically and politically since 1993. So it's highly disingenuous of you for slamming Israel for not finalizing a deal, when you yourself admit that Arafat is a charlatan.
tennesseeboy Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 It seems to me that if someone included me in a three country "axis of evil" and then invaded one of the three, I'd move real quick to get any kind of arms I could to protect myself when they decide to invade my country. Nuclear, chemical, biological...whatever can be had to defend against invasion. But hey, according to you right wing whackos, Muslims don't think like normal human beings.
MichFan Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 It seems to me that if someone included me in a three country "axis of evil" and then invaded one of the three, I'd move real quick to get any kind of arms I could to protect myself when they decide to invade my country. Nuclear, chemical, biological...whatever can be had to defend against invasion. But hey, according to you right wing whackos, Muslims don't think like normal human beings. As always, it's America's fault. It always comes back to this common denominator among you libs... This is also another fine example of living, breathing hypocracy in action (no, not from Tennyboy ). If Bush had only considered Afghanistan a terrorist threat following 9/11, and if Saddam was in power today with U.N. sanctions rolled back -- you'd be screaming that Bush was inept in fighting the war on terror, asking how he could allow Saddam to stay in power after Clinton handed him a policy of removal, and flouting intelligence that Saddam was reviving WMD programs.
Recommended Posts