Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Hah, the Israeli government would have to be nuts to do that, it would be pure manslaughter. No doubt the terrorists could shoot a thousands of civilians showing no resistance what so ever before they started pondering whether they were doing the right thing or not.

I must have missed the bit were they stuck thier hands up in the air and lined up to be shot, its a non-violent resistance but if some terrorist came in shooting and i would allow room in my non-violent defiance to shoot back in that case, so if you agree that palestinians won't blow themselves up if thiers no reason and israel's main problem would be gunmen that would be a huge improvment, you could just have regular solidiers (and police?) posted around israel and im sure the vast majority of them would outmatch a palestinian terrorist in a gunfight, sure the would be losses, probably at a far lower rate than today, and just as you'll struggle to find terrorists willing to blow themself up over an enemy that doesn't attack them i highly doubt that you would find too many recruits for suicidal shooting sprees after israel starts its non violent defiance

No terrorist want to share the resources.

Well neither does israel by the seems of things, but as it is now and would be if israel was carrying out non-violent defiance, the terrorists wouldn't really have a choice about having all the resources, just because israel isn't carrying out precision strikes and checkpoints doesn't all of a sudden mean the palestinians are the bigger power.

---

Then let me quote:

Quote:

---

...some Ghandian style resistance..

---

Then let me quote:


Quote:
...some Ghandian style resistance..

ok to fit into my example properly israeli soldiers would be drafted into the police force and would act like a police force, i don't see why a police force would be outside the concept of ghandian style resistance, the ghandian style resistance would be the act of non-violence from israel, the police force would simply maintain law inside israeli borders.

But ok i would be happy to call it some other name to meet the need of crazy gunmen storming israel, if we call it grizzly style resistance would that make you happy ?

Or was it something other than the term i used to describe the non-violent method they could use that bothered you ? (in other words did you see my plan as unworkable or were you just nitpicking about the ghandian style resistance bit ?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Little Grizzly

Then let me quote:


Quote:
...some Ghanaian style resistance..

ok to fit into my example properly Israeli soldiers would be drafted into the police force and would act like a police force, i don't see why a police force would be outside the concept of ghandian style resistance, the ghandian style resistance would be the act of non-violence from israel, the police force would simply maintain law inside israeli borders.

But ok i would be happy to call it some other name to meet the need of crazy gunmen storming israel, if we call it grizzly style resistance would that make you happy ?

Or was it something other than the term i used to describe the non-violent method they could use that bothered you ? (in other words did you see my plan as unworkable or were you just nitpicking about the ghandian style resistance bit ?)

---

No nitpicking here. I saw the plan that I read out of your as a poor one; though one with the aspects of self defense intact, as something in the right direction. The term ghandian resistance does really hint to a scenario of no violence what so ever.

The term ghandian resistance does really hint to a scenario of no violence what so ever.

Well it doesn't really apply to any actual state or palestine as it is now either, any actual state uses violence even if its just through the law but i was going on the type ghandian style for palestinians would be similar, except i think if the palestinians were doing it it would be other palestinians as the crazy gunmen mowing them down, so i figured my use of the term was as accurate as banquo's....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Oh dear...
I do not see the U.S a a bumbling giant trying to do good, your nation is nothing of the sort and you know it. The U.S is a tyrant to the weak. You picked apart Latin America and left it to the desires of your state educated fascist pigs. You also support a fascist regime in the Middle East, that is what it is really.

---

We are both a "bumbling giant trying to do good" and an aggressive "playuh" pursuing our own interests -- I wasn't putting us up for international sainthood. We marginalized our abo' population (sometimes murdering them, even a few quasi-pogroms though we never had the stomach to follow it through methodically), we picked one war with a neighbor (Mexico 1842/1843), tried to conquer Canada every time we fought with Great Britain, and threw our weight around in China and in Latin America on a haphazard but pretty frequent basis from 1880 through 1940. During the Cold War we supported a number of loathsome regimes in order to out-compete the Soviets in that global conflict. On the other hand, we've had the whip hand over many nations in the last few decades and have not run amuck or fashioned ourselves much of an empire. It even pays pretty well to lose a war to us (Sellers' did a wonderful send-up of this in The Mouse that Roared). We're a far cry from perfect, but other nations who held a club have used it far more visciously -- Belgium's playfulness with the Congo, Japan's co-prosperity sphere, the Mongols savaging Europe etc. We may get it wrong, but a surprising portion of the time, we really do believe we're doing some of these things for the greater good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

The underdog? Idrael has not been the underdog for a long time, it has held the whip hand over the Palestinians for decades and it has used this to kill and terrorise innocents with your silent approval.

---

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore. As you are aware, perceptions continue to influence evaluations even if the perception is no longer fully valid unless and until a more accurate perception is internalized by the audience in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

You admire their determination? What aspect? The rabid determination to ethnically cleanse the Holy Land? or to allow their soldiers to shoot old ladies on their way to hospitals? Or their determination to allow women to die while giving birth at an Israeli check point to a hostpital? Which aspect is it?

---

No, the part that appeals is that they forged a nation with a democratic tradition while having to fight for their existence for more than a quarter century. Israeli mis-applications of justice rarely get much media play in the USA, so they do not influence public opinion as broadly as the earlier, "plucky underdog" perceptions. This is why, in my opinion, Banquo is in the right of it, however difficult it would be to effect a Ghandian stance in practice. Once Israel is the ONLY participant acting violently (note, not defiantly as Ghandian tactics are quite confrontative albeit non-violent), the media coverage would have to change and support for Israeli hardliners would erode both in Israel and in its biggest financial backer, the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I suggest that the U.S.A changes its tactics in the Holy Land because a toss load of good they have done so far.

---

Now that is an interesting comment. While I disagree with your overall opinion of my nation (I believe Decatur had it right), you make a fair critique when you point out that the previous strategies employed certainly haven't created any meaningfully different results in the past 20 years. I'm still waiting for a new idea that can work on a practical level -- but it's a tough playing field for rationality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Maybe you should switch off the flame of liberty, we all know its fake, it probably says Made In China somehwere...

---

:laugh4: Reminds me of the Communard who commented about our bidding on rope sales. Now who was that....Kruschev?

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

---

Well said and with remarkable restraint as well, given the hate that Bopa has been spewing.

I am another non-American that has been quite incensed by some of the crap you've been throwing around this thread, Bopa.

Sounds like a simple case of penis envy to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Well said and with remarkable restraint as well, given the hate that Bopa has been spewing.

---

Well, yeah...

Quote:

---

but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

---

Some people see faults and call them out when they see them. Others look for fault and call it out whether they see it or not. America has a litany of "Wish we hadn't done that" actions, but honestly Bopa, we are not the Fourth Reich you seem zealously convinced we are. But with all that cotton in your ears, I doubt you can hear me.

By the way, for all you "George Bush is satan" types, why don't you go see what those Nazi wannabes Bob Geldof and Bono have to say about Bush's Africa policies.

On topic: I actually heard a fascinating debate today on NPR on my lunch hour that really has altered my whole view of all of this, but as it deals more with militant Islam and less with the Palestinian question specifically, I should probably start a new thread.

Quote:

---

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore.

---

Just wondering Seamus , from the time of the underdog when your president was wondering about what to do with the seemingly impossible situation of carting off a large number of people to where they were not wanted and making them at home...what was it he said was inevitable about the underdog when he got a seat at the head of the table ?

Guys talking that Israel always had to defend itself is just a b...t
Into 1956 they just attacked Egypt without shadow of reason - they wanted stop Nasser from taking control on Sues Channel. Into 1948 and 1967 they were outnumbered but with much better soldiers and weapon. Every year USA is giving 100.000.000.000 USD to Israel - thats why they have so good army.

Anyway watch on Israel policy into Lebanon. Last years when Hezbollah absolutely controlled that country everything was ok and Israel did not attack Lebanon. But when Hezbollah influences fallen at the beginning of this century (due to good economical development of Lebanon), Israel attacked Lebanon - of course official reason was "save our soldiers". Hezbollah was not destroyed, regained its influences (few months later they took absolute control over country) and now everything is calm on noth border (strange :D).

I have to mention previous attack on Lebanon into early 80ties when Jews helped into killing 20.000 civilians. I wonder why do we want catch Karadzic for 7000 people into Srebrenica and we never wanted Sharon for these 20.000.


Tribesmen would call it WORLD JEWISH CONSPIRACY. I never belied it but TRIBESMEN OPENED MY EYES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Just wondering Seamus , from the time of the underdog when your president was wondering about what to do with the seemingly impossible situation of carting off a large number of people to where they were not wanted and making them at home...what was it he said was inevitable about the underdog when he got a seat at the head of the table ?

---

Don't know that one Tribes'. Please give us the quotation.

I assure you, as an American raised in the latter 60s and early 70s, I'm not mis-representing the mindset of most Yanks on this issue -- even if they're beliefs not well grounded in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

We are both a "bumbling giant trying to do good" and an aggressive "playuh" pursuing our own interests -- I wasn't putting us up for international sainthood. We marginalized our abo' population (sometimes murdering them, even a few quasi-pogroms though we never had the stomach to follow it through methodically), we picked one war with a neighbor (Mexico 1842/1843), tried to conquer Canada every time with fought with Great Britain, and threw our weight around in China and in Latin America on a haphazard but pretty frequent basis from 1880 through 1940. During the Cold War we supported a number of loathsome regimes in order to out-compete the Soviets in that global conflict. On the other hand, we've had the whip hand over many nations in the last few decades and have not run amuck or fashioned ourselves much of an empire. It even pays pretty well to lose a war to us (Sellers' did a wonderful send-up of this in The Mouse that Roared). We're a far cry from perfect, but other nations who held a club have used it far more visciously -- Belgium's playfulness with the Congo, Japan's co-prosperity sphere, the Mongols savaging Europe etc. We may get it wrong, but a surprising portion of the time, we really do believe we're doing some of these things for the greater good.

I was referring to the early days of Israel to explain why we had such an attachment to that ally. The "underdog" mindset still strikes a chord with many in the US audience, even if it really isn't accurate anymore. As you are aware, perceptions continue to influence evaluations even if the perception is no longer fully valid unless and until a more accurate perception is internalized by the audience in question.

No, the part that appeals is that they forged a nation with a democratic tradition while having to fight for their existence for more than a quarter century. Israeli mis-applications of justice rarely get much media play in the USA, so they do not influence public opinion as broadly as the earlier, "plucky underdog" perceptions. This is why, in my opinion, Banquo is in the right of it, however difficult it would be to effect a Ghandian stance in practice. Once Israel is the ONLY participant acting violently (note, not defiantly as Ghandian tactics are quite confrontative albeit non-violent), the media coverage would have to change and support for Israeli hardliners would erode both in Israel and in its biggest financial backer, the USA.

Now that is an interesting comment. While I disagree with your overall opinion of my nation (I believe Decatur had it right), you make a fair critique when you point out that the previous strategies employed certainly haven't created any meaningfully different results in the past 20 years. I'm still waiting for a new idea that can work on a practical level -- but it's a tough playing field for rationality.

I live in a country where your birth is only tangentially relevant and you can, with hard work and a dash of luck, make yourself the richest person on the planet and be lauded for doing so. Or, conversely, you can found a movement calling for the abolition of private property and the scrapping of the Constitution in favor of Pastafarianism and the government will not prevent you from preaching your ideas or garnering followers even though you are calling for the destruction of that government. On the whole, we've got a fair handle on the freedom thing.

If you want to revel in the joys of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, go rent The Holy Grail or re-read your copy of the Little Red Book. I'll happily stick with the US of A.

---

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom. I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

@Frag
You gonna actual;ly say something of worth or point the finger at the undefined Euro-elites?
Surprise you that I do not like the EU, that I do not hate Americans? I just really hate Israel.

@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

---

Its a democratic tradition if you VOTE IN the next leadership cadre and those REPRESENTATIVES authorize those brutal and torturous policies. The morality of a government's actions is not necessarily guaranteed by free and fair elections. So, you find the governmental actions of the state of Israel to be loathesome and immoral -- fair enough. You'll find that quite a few people agree with you on that. Even those who are supportive of Israel don't approve of all of their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom.

---

Okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

---

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag. We've aided in the overthrow of governments and fought to free some countries. We've supported factions using death squads and worked to bring death squad participants to justice. We've spent millions on aid when disasters occur but spent billions to import (and try to stop the importation of) illegal drugs. Our intentions haven't always been honorable, but many times they were (which didn't necessarily mean what we were doing was effective). We conquered Mexico but gave most of it back. We've invaded a goodly number of the nations bordering the Carribean -- but never stayed (save Panama, and that we eventually gave back as well).

Our current support for Israel does help to keep Israel in business -- though not to the extent that this once was true. I'm not sure I'd label it fascism, though I can see how you'd interpret a number of their policies and actions as a form of tyranny (whatever the label). A Palestinian living in the Authority is facing a heap of difficulties that do restrict their freedom on a number of levels. After 60 years, it is difficult to say what level of suppressive tactics are justified by previously demonstrated threats coming from the other direction. Still, many of the policies and actions I see taken by Israel are harsh, whatever the justification, and you could make an argument that many of them are counterproductive as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

---

You never claimed to support communism. You do seem, however, to be falling into the trap of perfect idealism in your political thinking that the examples I jokingly referenced do represent. Ideals are important goals to strive for, but expecting a perfect consistency between those ideals and policies and actions in practice is almost a pipe-dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

---

So Jews may live wherever they wish as individuals but have no right to a Jewish state? Why?

Have they abrogated this right through their tyrannical actions? If so, and we apply this rubric globally, there will be very few states left aside from Costa Rica and Monaco.

Have they abrogated this right by taking land which wasn't theirs in the first place? If so, and you believe the U.N. was wrong to assign part of the mandate area to a state of Israel, then who was responsible? The Brits? The Turks? It is not as though an autonomous non-Jewish state of Palestine has existed since the time of the Philistines.


You deride me for America's not living up to its own ideals but also for us "falling for our own bollocks." Don't the two points run counter to one another? Besides, its those "delusional" values that we've "fallen" for that have kept us on a better course of action than we might have taken at many points in our history. Do you REALLY want to see a USA that takes power as its sole objective and views all others as targets or obstacles? Don't mock the angels of our better nature -- the world would be worse of without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

A democratic tradition? Sounds like bollocks to me, the democratic ideal to brutalise and torture thousands of people? Pull the other one mate.
You are spouting the ususal American crap about democracy and oh well we tried so hard but we just got wrong stuff, you never tried anything that did not seem to advance selfish national interest. But you know what, I am not blaming you for it, you are the super power and great powers do as they want, I am disliking you for falling for you're own bollocks. When the U.S.A is no longer top dog I expect that you guys will have it tough because you believe in this lie so much. If you are going to act like realists at least think like one aswell.

---

Oh someone seems to have trouble understanding what a democratic tradition is. Since Seamus explained it very well, I will just mock this statement for the utter bollucks that it is. Where is my mocking emoticon......

Quote:

---

I really enjoyed your bit on America the Land of the free and all that, but its just Hollywood isn't it?
I am not condemning your actions at home, yep you people do have freedom. I am condemning your actions in Latin America and your support for tyranny in The Holy Land, you see there if you are born a Palestinian you cannot make of yourself what you will, because of American funded Fascism. Just think a while on that.

---

Oh another half thought out mis-representation of what happened in Latin America. So we were bad in Latin America for periods of time, just like we did lots of good in Latin America during other periods of time.

As for support of the Holy Land the biggest backers of Israel up until the late 1960's was not the United States, but a few other European Nations. Now that criticism is valid for the time period after the 1973 war, when the United States started provided the majority of finicial and military aid to Israel.

But then if your born a Palestinian you also have to deal with your own internal organizations fascism, so its a lose-lose situation to be born Palestinian in Israel. And Jordan, and Syria, and yes even Lebanon.

Quote:

---

And when in heck have I ever been in support of commies or anarchists?
You missed the point of my jibe.
re-read perhaps? Or even better, re-think...

---

Ah the pot calling the kettle black. If you speak bullocks dont be surprise if sarcasm results from such use.

Quote:

---

@Frag
You gonna actual;ly say something of worth or point the finger at the undefined Euro-elites?
Surprise you that I do not like the EU, that I do not hate Americans? I just really hate Israel.

---

Oh so the venom in your use of language is not hate but severe criticism. Sorry there, when one uses venom its not severe criticism.

Quote:

---

@Don, no I actually want Palstinians to be incorporated as citizens of Israel, thus and end to Israel.

---

You cant have both - Palstinians becoming citizens of Israel makes them Israelis. Now you might be arguing that you want the end of the current Israeli government's mindset toward the Palstinians but you have lost that point with the amount of bullocks that you have spewed regarding the subject.

Emotional arguements are all well and fine, and even useful - but it often loses its logical flow because of the emotion involved.

I am not following an Idealistic point of view in terms to Palestine, I know that nothing will ever get done that way. I am being very realistic, I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like. That is how I approach any problem involving the U.S.A. You are the idealistic one, you have fallen for your own bollocks time and time again, not me.
The best example is that U.S leaders have the audacity to call themselves Leaders of the Free World.I almost vomit when I hear it, its just so awful and funny at the same time.

As for Latin America your School of the Americas defines for me your feelings towards the continent, Fascists are us. You are not alone in this, my own dear home country is just as complicit.

As for the right for there to be Jewish state, well I don't know about that bust it most certainly does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. But it is there to stay, and so I await for the day when Paletinians are goven citizenship and peacefully dismantle that fascist state. It would be good for the West if it was complicit in this.

Your Ideals do not keep your agression unchecked but merley allows it to be given a nice shiny gloss.

@Redleg, ok so democracy is all good with the U.S.A even though nut cases are often elected, so why hate Hamas?
Because they hate Israel right? Its all very realistsic really.

So. Point-of-order please. If we magically took away the US's nuclear arsenal, and their ability to place a large boomski anywhere in the world...

Would they still be a so-called 'super-power'? Would they have the influence economically, militarily, morally, to bend the rest of the world to its will?

Well morall power I think went out the window a long time ago, though some still see the U.S.A as a guide in that respect. Economically, yeah I reckon the U.S.A has alot of leverage in this area though not as much as it did say, ten years ago.
Millitarily, well sure it would still be the best funded and best equipped armed forces in the world, but I reckon without nukes any millitary push would be met with threatening gestures and derisive comments, unless it came with large international backing.
A better way to do things IMHO, it's no where near as expensive as going it alone.

Quote:

---

So. Point-of-order please. If we magically took away the US's nuclear arsenal, and their ability to place a large boomski anywhere in the world...

Would they still be a so-called 'super-power'? Would they have the influence economically, militarily, morally, to bend the rest of the world to its will?

---

It depends on when you say 'large boomski' anywhere in the world. We could lay a large 'boomski' with a couple B-52s from Diego Garcia, would other nations loose the 'boomski' as well, but besides that...
If we were to lose the possibility of nuclear retaliation, we would still have a sizable economic impact. Our military is one of the best in the world.
Morality? Heck. I don't care.

Bend the rest of the world? Yes. Through a combination of financial, military, covert, and overt actions we could possibly overthrow or launch a conflict into almost any region on the globe. If we make it legitimate enough, we could even install a friendly president (like SWAPO, except for the Communists).

I could honestly care only so much about world opinion. Just let me live my life, and I'll be happy :2thumbsup:

It's like those obnoxious Brits who come to Orlando, thinking their so hoity-toity as America's best friend. Jeesh. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I am not following an Idealistic point of view in terms to Palestine, I know that nothing will ever get done that way. I am being very realistic, I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like. That is how I approach any problem involving the U.S.A. You are the idealistic one, you have fallen for your own bollocks time and time again, not me.
The best example is that U.S leaders have the audacity to call themselves Leaders of the Free World.I almost vomit when I hear it, its just so awful and funny at the same time.

---

I would say you are not viewing it as realistic given some of your rethoric regarding the events in Israel. Don't confuse pointing out your errors with an idealistic approach. Now audacity is often viewed as a good thing for leaders to have, so again it seems your failure is to attempt to generalize one group into how all think. Your missing the lessons of men like Martin Luther King, Malcom X, and even some other figures in American History. Democracy allows for freedom of speech. All other forms attempt to curtail that freedom.

Poor attempt there on your part. Calling any nation that supports freedom of speech a fascist state is nothing other then bullocks. Calling it incorrect, calling it misguided, calling it false, and having severe and pointed criticism on its failures is one thing and often apporiated, but calling it fascist is the language of the old anarcy and marxist schools as refered by Seamus with the little red book comment.

Quote:

---

As for Latin America your School of the Americas defines for me your feelings towards the continent, Fascists are us. You are not alone in this, my own dear home country is just as complicit.

---

Actually the military training portion was just one of the many programs of the School of the America's. That it ended up being one of the major portions of that program does not necessarily equate to the charge of Fascism that you are applying toward it. You might look more into the history of our dealings in Latin America, give you a hint look into the several decade long program of sending the Army Corps of Engineers down into Latin America to build infrastructure for several of those nations. Does it make up for some of our more notorious actions - nope, but it shows a side to the issue that so far you seemly continue to ignore.

Quote:

---

As for the right for there to be Jewish state, well I don't know about that bust it most certainly does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. But it is there to stay, and so I await for the day when Paletinians are goven citizenship and peacefully dismantle that fascist state. It would be good for the West if it was complicit in this.

---

Again you are attempting an emotional appeal arguement. Claiming that it does not have the right to exist on stolen territory. Care to guess how many current nations exist on "stolen territory?" Are you upset because you fail to understand and acknowledge the history of the actual UN Mandate that established Israel? Now pointing out the use of terrorism during 1948 that lead to the creation of the current Israel state would be something to discuss, but saying it was stolen actually is sort of laughable. That is like claiming all whites in the United States stole the land from the orginial peoples. Guess what the orginial native american tribes are also land thiefs by your current arguement.

Or are you only complaining about the lands taken by Israel after the 1967 War? Now while one can claim conquered terrority is stolen you will have a hard time proving that Israel on the whole is "stolen territory?" Unless of course you wish to discount the fact that the jewish people have lived in the area for several thousand years just like the other people's within that area.

Quote:

---

Your Ideals do not keep your agression unchecked but merley allows it to be given a nice shiny gloss.

---

Actually it does a bit more then this. Now if our Congress actually upheld the standards imposed on it by the constitution some things would be more then just a nice shiny gloss

Quote:

---

@Redleg, ok so democracy is all good with the U.S.A even though nut cases are often elected, so why hate Hamas?

---

Did I say I hated Hamas as the elected representives of the Palenstian authority? I think thier election demonstrates how fundmentally screwed by their leadership the Palenstine people have become. They traded the facsists of Fatah for the facsists of Hamas. (Using your rethoric) Actually Hamas has a useful purpose if they would renounce the use of terrorism to reach a political end. They are well organized and actually have some decent social programs established to take care of the people. They need to correct themselves on teaching children to be suicide bombers, stop using the rethoric of terrorism and seek a peaceful solution to the issues that they face.

The funny thing about a free society is that it allows people to say what they feel on an issue, be they right, wrong, or confused on the subject. An examble is just this board in fact. The government of the United States has the ability to decide which countries they deal with and how based upon whatever determining factors it wishes to use. And it can even be changed by the nature of who we elect into government. So if the current government of the United States does not want to deal with Hamas - and I am against that position - I can activitly protest or even seek to change that position by voting for someone that see the issue the way I do. Oh wait - the United States is a fascist state.... Laughable

Quote:

---

Because they hate Israel right? Its all very realistsic really.

---

Actually it has nothing to do with that fact they hate Israel. So until your willing to address that point your veiw is not very realistic at all.

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag.

i think thats putting it nicely, all rich developed countrys give aid, helping them fight drugs is simply part of the drug war in america, i would call america's history with latin america fairly bad...

So Jews may live wherever they wish as individuals but have no right to a Jewish state? Why?

Have they abrogated this right through their tyrannical actions? If so, and we apply this rubric globally, there will be very few states left aside from Costa Rica and Monaco.

Have they abrogated this right by taking land which wasn't theirs in the first place? If so, and you believe the U.N. was wrong to assign part of the mandate area to a state of Israel, then who was responsible? The Brits? The Turks? It is not as though an autonomous non-Jewish state of Palestine has existed since the time of the Philistines.

For a start i don't see why there needs to be an exclusive jewish state, secondly thier treatment isn't so much a reason for them to be incoporated more like the one the reason's the situation has come to this, thirdly yes the U.N was wrong to do it, i think most people agree, I have heard UK played a role in the mandate i don't know how much though. Im not sure what you mean by that last bit but there where people living in the area before the immagration after ww2.

Ok Redleg, your governmen does not support fascism at home, well done, but I already knew that.
It does support fascism abroad, no question, oh wait thats right you can wave reconstruction programs in my face. Highstreets sure look nice, just keep those huge slums out of the way.

You also perhaps realised that after screwing Latin Americans over and over again that some fake smiles and cheap money might help you out, well done.

I cannot believe that you are actually defending The school of the Americas, it was nothing but repugnent, training nut cases on how to be fascists.

As for the charge that Israel does not have the right to exist on stolen land. You are right, it exist now and to force those people off their land would be horrible and un-christian. So perhaps the U.S.A wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. No I was talking about the occupied territories mainly, though I despise the way Israel was created.

The case of Hamas I think highlights the expendability of America's defense of Democracy, you could have talked, instead you starved people. Yep well done there, even more extremists to kill us!:2thumbsup:

A nation that supports Freedom of Speech? Yeah right and I'm Bill Gates, get over it Redleg the U.S.A supports this ideal for its own people and for everyone else when it's a useful tool, but then again cheap oil is more important right? The comfort of your own people first right? Just admit it.

Quote:

---

Don't know that one Tribes'. Please give us the quotation.

---

Here you go Seamus , President Truman....

Quote:

---

Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.

---

Would you like the longer version or some of the other quotes (some of which could be deemed as rather nasty) .

Quote:

---

Tribesmen would call it WORLD JEWISH CONSPIRACY. I never belied it but TRIBESMEN OPENED MY EYES.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Strange how the mind of a rabid anti-semitic nationalist works

Sorry but when I see your post then
better be anti-semite than Tribesman :):) :) :)

You keep talking that there have never been jewish conspiracy but75% of your post include words
"jewish conspiracy". I think that is just a mental illness - you see people who yell about jewish conspiracy everywhere but ... no one else see them.

Co oznacza misiek ze jestes chory psychicznie - leczyc sie trzeba.

<Daily report for Tribesmen - words above shows us that KrooK believe into world jewish conspiracy.>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Our actions in and regarding Latin America are a rather mixed bag.

i think thats putting it nicely, all rich developed countrys give aid, helping them fight drugs is simply part of the drug war in america, i would call america's history with latin america fairly bad...

---

I meant that we were both aiding to combat illegal drugs and providing all of the funding FOR drugs with our nearly insatiable appetite for cocaine. The whole Drug War is rather mixed up and internally counterproductive.

I suspect that many Latin Americans would agree with your overall summary -- with a fair deal of justification. I just don't think "El Norte's" poor choices explain more of Latin America's problems than do the actions of Latin Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

For a start i don't see why there needs to be an exclusive jewish state, secondly thier treatment isn't so much a reason for them to be incoporated more like the one the reason's the situation has come to this, thirdly yes the U.N was wrong to do it, i think most people agree, I have heard UK played a role in the mandate i don't know how much though. Im not sure what you mean by that last bit but there where people living in the area before the immagration after ww2.

---

The argument was, following the Holocaust, that the Jews had been singled out for pogroms and the like more than any other sub-group. One of the reasons this was felt to be the case is that there was no nation that was uniquely "Jewish" in character to serve as a protector/conscience. Without such a state, the Jews anywhere would be a minority and subject to marginalization etc. This viewpoint pre-dated the Holocaust, though the scale of that pogromattic effort generated far more of a groundswell in support of the zionist cause than had anything previously.

Certainly there were people living in the region. This has been the case for more than 3 millenia. My comment was that there hadn't been an independent "Palestine" (believed to be etymologically linked to Philistine) in 23 centuries or more at the time of the UN decision to create Israel. The region had been the property of someone else. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the region was part of a League of Nations mandate administered by Great Britain. This mandate was then assumed by the UN. The UN can be faulted for failing to take into adequate consideration the opinions/preferences of the local population, but to argue that the decision to create Israel superceded the sovereignty of some existing autonomous entity is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Ok Redleg, your governmen does not support fascism at home, well done, but I already knew that.
It does support fascism abroad, no question, oh wait thats right you can wave reconstruction programs in my face. Highstreets sure look nice, just keep those huge slums out of the way.

---

To bad your blind - only looking at the negatives. So the United States did no good rebuilding Germany and Japan. Has done no good in South Korea. Has not done any good in Latin America. Yep as stated before we have also done very bad things in Latin America so your attempt at sarcism here is completely misplaced. To bad your having a poor time arguing your position.

Quote:

---

You also perhaps realised that after screwing Latin Americans over and over again that some fake smiles and cheap money might help you out, well done.

---

Good thing I never stated something like that now isn't? What I have stated is that we have done both.

Quote:

---

I cannot believe that you are actually defending The school of the Americas, it was nothing but repugnent, training nut cases on how to be fascists.

---

Some of the postive programs - as in teaching sound argiculture practices should be defended. Now that doesn't excuse the training of right wing death squads that abound in the late 1970's and 1980's, but those programs demonstrate that not all of the school was based upon military training. Your having a very difficult time actually reading what is written versus what you wish to believe.

Quote:

---

As for the charge that Israel does not have the right to exist on stolen land. You are right, it exist now and to force those people off their land would be horrible and un-christian. So perhaps the U.S.A wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. No I was talking about the occupied territories mainly, though I despise the way Israel was created.

---

Oh the anti-American stance is definitily showing there. What is it that makes you hate the United States so much that you continue to believe we are facsists? Is it because you want us to play the world police supporting the world with our resources and wealth? Sorry bud - that is not how the real world works.

Israel has a right to exist as a nation - they have demonstrated that they have that right to exist by defeating their enemies not once but several times. Compline all you want about how Israel came to exist - but that was a direct reflection of the guilt that Europe had concerning the genocide committed by Germany on the Jews - and most of Europe's complacy in that genocide. The United States supported the creation of the jewish state and the old USSR decide not to veto its creation.

So what we are left with in the political reality is that the state of Israel and the Palenstine's have to learn to live with each other. What the United States does or doesn't do to help that along is not near as important as what both of those groups have to do.

Quote:

---

The case of Hamas I think highlights the expendability of America's defense of Democracy, you could have talked, instead you starved people. Yep well done there, even more extremists to kill us!:2thumbsup:

---

Since most Western Nations also boycott the Hamas elected Palestine Authority - your anger is just marginally mis-directed. Its not the United States straving the Palestine people - Hamas has been given some conditions to recieve aid - so it seems that the Palestine Authority is who is straving its own people. So if you only going to look at one side of the issue - you can not claim to be grounded in reality.

Quote:

---

A nation that supports Freedom of Speech? Yeah right and I'm Bill Gates, get over it Redleg the U.S.A supports this ideal for its own people and for everyone else when it's a useful tool, but then again cheap oil is more important right? The comfort of your own people first right? Just admit it.

---

Never stated that the United States did not look toward the welfare of its own people first and foremost. In fact it seems you have been misreading what has been written.

Are you attempting to claim that the United States does not support Freedom of Speech? Its very easy to provide evidence that the United States does indeed support Freedom of Speech, so again attempting such rethoric with me only weakens your arguement, and demostrates that your position is not based on any real merit - but an anti- stance if you like.

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

---

Utter poppycock. While I will not claim that "material gain" has not and does not influence American policy to a significant extent, history demonstrates that the USA is not motivated solely by the acquisition of power and resources. Were we to always "act real" as you suggest, then:

Mexico would have been annexed in 1843, not paid poorly for territory we had already conquered.

The divers Indian tribes would have been assimilated or anhilated promptly and efficiently (instead of haphazardly over the course of more than a century) -- and we certainly would not let them set up casinos to fleece us on an ongoing basis today.

Cuba and the Phillipines would have been annexed and maintained as terrotories and never allowed to acquire independence.

Panama would not only have been stolen from the Columbians, but occupied as a U.S. state, thus providing us with a springboard from which to acquire the rest of Central America and possibly the Northern tier of South America with its oil resources.

During the First World War, we would have a) never intervened, thus allowing the participants to bleed even more and for Germany -- and possibly France -- to have followed Russia into internal collapse (leaving us Britain's sole rival), or b) intervened early, allowing our limited ground forces but decently sized navy to be used to acquire German overseas territory without any real losses to ourselves without ever suffering the Argonne.

I'll set aside World War II, simply too many variables to consider.

We could have used atomic weapons on massed Chinese "volunteer" forces during the Korean War. This would have ended the intervention. They made an ideal target and the results would have saved thousands of American lives and allowed us to expand South Korea to include about half of present-day North Korea without including the blighted zones.

During the Hungarian Crisis of 1956 we could have intervened on behalf of the non-communists and launched a strike against the Soviet Union when they failed to withdraw immediately. Remember, Soviet abilities to deliver nuclear weapons were limited (which is why sputnik, not long after this, scared us silly). We were well aware that their liquid-fueled rockets were not reliable intercontinentally -- but that SAC was. A few European targets would have been immolated (omelets and eggs you know), but the Soviets would have been crushed, their armies gutted with nuclear weapons, and then we could have used latent separatism in the USSR to break them up into pieces (but working to establish wonderful relations with Azerbaijan and outright annexing large chunks of thinly-populated but resource-rich Siberia).

I could go on, but I'll cease throwing examples and summarize. There are NUMEROUS occasions where a strictly rational and totally self-interested USA could have acted differently and rewarded itself far more. Our morality may be imperfect and certainly has been imperfectly and sometimes unevenly applied -- but I believe the world is better off for us having that outlook. We are not the saints we sometimes like to consider ourselves, but we are a far cry from the viscious bastards you seem to see in us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

---

Mid-East stability is a pipe dream. It has never been stable for more than a decade or so at a stretch. US efforts have been no more successful -- and not much less successful -- than anyone else's. If the locals ever decide on stability, that might change. However, as the Middle East is the quintessential example of the normal form of human governance -- warlordism -- I don't think this likely. Note: If you don't think Warlordism is the norm and nation-states the abberation, you need to read more history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

---

I thought you were the champion of us getting "real?" Wouldn't it be more logical for us to encourage them to kill each other by the cart-load so that our acquisition of resources would be that much easier? No thanks, I'll take our current best efforts -- flawed though they be -- over your absolutist answer [Israel must be phased out and and Arab dominance re-established -- not that you put it quite that clearly].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Utter poppycock. While I will not claim that "material gain" has not and does not influence American policy to a significant extent, history demonstrates that the USA is not motivated solely by the acquisition of power and resources. Were we to always "act real" as you suggest, then:

Mexico would have been annexed in 1843, not paid poorly for territory we had already conquered.

The divers Indian tribes would have been assimilated or anhilated promptly and efficiently (instead of haphazardly over the course of more than a century) -- and we certainly would not let them set up casinos to fleece us on an ongoing basis today.

Cuba and the Phillipines would have been annexed and maintained as terrotories and never allowed to acquire independence.

---

Without trying to hijack the thread, but Bopa has a point you somewhere. What the USA did in her past with those mentioned examples was -most of the time- the best it could do for itself. Or do you believe that a nation, now the most powerful in the world that's having great difficulty sustainting two foreign wars could have occupied/annexed countries that were about as accessible and hostile a century and a half ago when said nation was far from the most powerfull around.

I highly doubt the USA was capable then of pulling such actions. Hawai and the Phillipines resisted a lot already. Annexation of Cuba and the Phillies wouldn't have lessened that resistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

I highly doubt the USA was capable then of pulling such actions. Hawai and the Phillipines resisted a lot already. Annexation of Cuba and the Phillies wouldn't have lessened that resistance.

---

We did face significant opposition in the Phillipines (1901-1905) -- and bested it.* The tactics used were "acceptable" according to the standards of the time, but totally unacceptable today. Opposition in Cuba would have been no more difficult, and the logistics of applying force would have been vastly easier. Hawaiian resistance to U.S. control was minimal.

* Yes, I am aware that resistance was never completely eliminated and that the current Mindanao separatists can actually trace their origins to those groups founded to oppose U.S. occupation following the elimination of the Spanish presence. In practice, however, the opposition forces were marginalized and kept so throughout the period of U.S. control of the Phillipines.

Wait wait, you could have divided the mid-east for your own good?
You did divide the mid-east and get them to wage war on each other, you did it pretty damn well, though I must say when looking at History you are not so adept as the old colonial powers. But then again Israel really fudges the scene.

Being short sighted does not equate to realism, it equates to being stupid. If you really want to expand and protect your interests then you need to force reform in Saudi Arabia and an end to the racism of Israel, I would honestly have thought that the Cold War taught you that this is your only real option.

Look we both obviously see U.S history in a different way and look at certain situations in a different way so I will drop it, though you can keep it up if you want.

The answer that Mid-East peace is a pipe-dream is a lie and an attempt to justify the current state of affairs there. I will never accept that war and destruction is the only way for the region, its a dream. Or a nightmare, such an existence is not realistic. Peace is more common than war, thats realistic.

I'm not going to touch your own opinion about the natural state of human governance and the civic body except to say that such broad concepts are far too white tower for my liking.
Warlordism? Man there are like 1000 new 'ism's every day:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Hahaha, oh man, I have already told you I fully appreciate why the U.S.A does what it does. It is a superpower and so it don't give a toss about any principles unless they secure it some material gain. I totally get it, so i find it funny when you decry the actions of so called terrorists from a supposedly moral point of view, it just so damned funny. Act real and get real.

---

This is as Seamus alreadly states such a load of bullocks that its just so darn funny. So your discounting the relief efforts to those stricken last year by the Tusmia that hit several nations in the Indian Ocean. Where is the securing of material gain from that action?

So again your reality is not a true reality.

Quote:

---

I was also arguing the case against Israel froma realistic point of view, you want a more stable Holy Land and by extension Mid-East? Sort out those fascists in Israel. As I said your nation is not alone in its support of fascists, my home country does the same. But you guys are the big wolf and so as I said you are the major target, sound realistic to you?

---

I would say your not arguing from a realistic point of view - realists understand that both sides have created the problem. So when one argues only against Israel - I find it very doubtful that they are being realistic, because avoidance of the whole picture is not realistic. I find all sides have done wrong and continue to do wrong in regards to Israel and the Palenstine issue.

Quote:

---

Or feel free to continue being short sighted and idiotic when it comes to the Holy Land and watch as people get blown to pieces...

---

Frankly this statement is completely laughable. When one group has as its manifesto to destroy Israel nothing an outside power can do will prevent the violence from happening. While I detest Jimmy Carter - he did do one thing right during his Presidency - and we see where that has gotten the peace process in Israel. Or have you forgetten that bit of history also?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Wait wait, you could have divided the mid-east for your own good?
You did divide the mid-east and get them to wage war on each other, you did it pretty damn well, though I must say when looking at History you are not so adept as the old colonial powers. But then again Israel really fudges the scene.

---

Sorry Incorrect once again the United States did not divide the Middle-East for the United States own good. You might look a little closer to home in Europe for the two nations with that honor. Again trying to base your reality on a terrible understanding of history shoots you in the foot.

Quote:

---

Being short sighted does not equate to realism, it equates to being stupid. If you really want to expand and protect your interests then you need to force reform in Saudi Arabia and an end to the racism of Israel, I would honestly have thought that the Cold War taught you that this is your only real option.

---

End racism in Israel - first one would have to end racism in the United States and all of Europe first. So again unrealistic expectations do not make for a realistic viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Look we both obviously see U.S history in a different way and look at certain situations in a different way so I will drop it, though you can keep it up if you want.

---

Are you begining to realize that your view is history is distorted from reality. Blaming the United States for the divisions created by Britian and France after WW1 when the Ottaman Empire was desolved because of their defeat in that war?

Quote:

---

The answer that Mid-East peace is a pipe-dream is a lie and an attempt to justify the current state of affairs there. I will never accept that war and destruction is the only way for the region, its a dream. Or a nightmare, such an existence is not realistic. Peace is more common than war, thats realistic.

---

You might want to look at your own history a bit more closely - warfare has been part of mankind and is just as common as peace. Middle-East peace can only come from within the people that live in the middle-east. No outside power will force peace. To claim that the United States can force Israel and Palenstine into a peaceful co-existance falls flat on its face when faced with reality.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to touch your own opinion about the natural state of human governance and the civic body except to say that such broad concepts are far too white tower for my liking.
Warlordism? Man there are like 1000 new 'ism's every day:yes:

---

Whats the problem - can't cope with the reality of the world? Care to guess how many conflicts are going on in the world right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You might want to look at your own history a bit more closely - warfare has been part of mankind and is just as common as peace. Middle-East peace can only come from within the people that live in the middle-east. No outside power will force peace. To claim that the United States can force Israel and Palenstine into a peaceful co-existance falls flat on its face when faced with reality.

---

Might I inquire then why the USA stations troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

Might I inquire then why the USA stations troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

---

We're trying, with our blood and treasure, to buy enough time for the locals to establish relatively stable and somewhat democratically-driven systems of governance and to allow those new forms to begin the process of institutionalization. This transition is something that took us in the USA at least a decade -- without a guerilla opposition to face. Not an easy task.

Numerous voices -- some our own -- think that the project is a pipe dream.

:hijacked:

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.

If the US were a conquering nation we certainly wouldn’t be helping so many others who live in countries that are unfriendly to us and we surly wouldn’t be loosing lives everyday in an effort to build stability in the Middle East.

I would love to run out a scenario where grandma and grandpa sent their money to the “Conquer the world fund” instead of the fund to help country X with disaster Y. I am confident that the vast majority of Americans are moral and feel obligated to help others less fortunate but there are a lot of powerful corporations and selfish government officials who don’t feel the same and make America look bad.

But look at it like this…The average household in America gives $1,620 a year to charity. If that money (if my math is right, 186 billion dollars) was sent to the “Conquer the world fund” I think the people that bitch about the selfish USA would be justified but instead they are just wrong.

:idea: 186 billion would pay for a sweet merc army!

Wait.. theres a Conquer the World fund? Where's my checkbook...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Wait.. theres a Conquer the World fund? Where's my checkbook...?

---

As a bonus, I believe it is a 501(c). ~;)

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.

Almost all developed countries give aid, it is not a get out jail free card, ohh sure we did this and that but look at all the aid we've given surely were still the good guys ?

I suppose the other part of it is Americas claim that it does things for the good of the world, the majority of the time its just its own national interests guiding policy, which is fair enough just don't claim to be helping when your just acting through national interest....

Quote:

---

The US government and the independent people of the US thru non-governmental organizations like the red cross and the thousands of church sponsored programs give more money, time, food and medical aid to countries in need than most other countries combined and we still get spit at by people who cant see past their predigests.

---

There was this carpenter a while ago that told a story about someone that gave lots of money and thought it made him special .

Ok, Redleg the U.S.A has never attempted to divide the middle-east for its own gain, never ever...

When I said the racism in Israel I was talking about political racism, you know like you guys had 60 or so years ago, and I think you knew that. If you attempt to refute this you are either increadibly pro-Israel/zionist or you do not care to read.

Peace cannot be forced! Yes well done we are both starting to get somewhere. You cannot force peace very well, though I expect it can be done. Innstead you can start being reasonable and realistic when it comes to The Holy Land, and please don't give me that crap about a Mid-East Road map, because Israel is still building settlements and the U.S.A does not give a toss.

The U.S.A has every power to force Israel back to its borders but you seem to feel that you cannot do this, perhaps ten more years of suicide bombings will make the U.S.A see sense.

I am not realistic for not indulging myself in White Tower generalisations about the state of man's civic society reminiscent of Aristotle's? Yeah and pigs can fly.
C;mon give me more of ya 'ism's.:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Almost all developed countries give aid, it is not a get out jail free card, ohh sure we did this and that but look at all the aid we've given surely were still the good guys ?

---

So you don’t think we are the good guys?


And Tribes, I am not looking to be considered special I am just defensive about comments like this.

Quote:

---

Well moral power I think went out the window a long time ago – Bopa about the US

---

Our government acts big and stupid (like all other governments, we just happen to have one of the biggest therefore its seen acting stupid more often) but to suggest the country is without morals is short sighted. Look a little further and you can see that the country is filled with people doing good.

A few posts later Bopa says

Quote:

---

I understand that you as superpower can do what ever you like

---

If that is true, and we were filled with immoral people wouldn’t we be pillaging countries less powerful than we are rather than sending charity, supplies and soldiers there to help them.

Look at the people on this board that are from the US, do you find them without morals?

Don’t let your predigests for American politics spoil your view of Americans. Name something that the US has done that is crummy to another country and then ask a regular American if they agree with the decision. I don’t think so. I still get pissed that we didn’t send a few troops to the Falklands back in the 80’s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There was this carpenter a while ago that told a story about someone that gave lots of money and thought it made him special .

---

I think he also said something about worrying about your own wrongs before worrying about those of others. :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Hawaiian resistance to U.S. control was minimal.

---

Seeing as they were mainly working on sugar plantations, owned by white Americans (Funny how that works....), who strip the native king of powers and grant powers to themselves at gunpoint, I don't think Hawaii could do a lot of resisting.

Before i start i would like to say i think there is a difference between the US goverments actions and its citizens opinion, i dont think for a second the majority of americans would support death squads in latin america for example...

So you don’t think we are the good guys?

Not so much not nice guys, in the equivelent of the world playground your the big kid and sure you steal the other kids sweets now and again but you tend not to beat on people too much and stick up for the smallest kids now and again, your an improvement on the bullys we had before

I suppose a better example of my point about giving aid not making up for doing bad things would be a fictional afghanastan, imagine if Afghanastan back in september 2001 had been the most generous aid giving nation, the country gave a large portion of its GDP to aid, and many of it citizens gave to charity very generously and went around the world helping people, and then 9/11 happens with the taliban sheltering al qaeda, all thier generousity (even if it alot more than the bad they have done) wouldn't seem quite so important, thats why similar pleas about generous aid giving would fall on deaf ears in latin america and the middle east...

Look a little further and you can see that the country is filled with people doing good.

I think bopa talks of american policy rather than american citizens

I think he also said something about worrying about your own wrongs before worrying about those of others.

Irony right here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Ok, Redleg the U.S.A has never attempted to divide the middle-east for its own gain, never ever...

---

Control aspects of the Middle East would be correct - attempt to divide arguement falls flat on its face when looking at history. The Middle-East was divided by France and England as part of their mandate at the end of World War 2. Your agruement wasnt about control other nations but dividing the total middle-east. This is a false arguement.

Quote:

---

When I said the racism in Israel I was talking about political racism, you know like you guys had 60 or so years ago, and I think you knew that. If you attempt to refute this you are either increadibly pro-Israel/zionist or you do not care to read.f

---

Sorry there Bopa - racism is racism in all its ugly forms. I dont seperate one form of racism from the other. You want racism to end take a closer look at your own nation before criticizing other nations on racism. As for calling me a Zionist - that is laughable since I firmly believe both sides are wrong. So try again with a different label.

Quote:

---

Peace cannot be forced! Yes well done we are both starting to get somewhere. You cannot force peace very well, though I expect it can be done. Innstead you can start being reasonable and realistic when it comes to The Holy Land, and please don't give me that crap about a Mid-East Road map, because Israel is still building settlements and the U.S.A does not give a toss.

---

Again reasonable and realistic is not something you have presented - you have presented just one type of arguement. Nope wasn't taking about the Mid-East Road Map but something else entirily. Do a little research into Jimmy Carter's peace building efforts in the that region.

Quote:

---

The U.S.A has every power to force Israel back to its borders but you seem to feel that you cannot do this, perhaps ten more years of suicide bombings will make the U.S.A see sense.

---

Again the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders - what we can do is encourage them, and even force sanctions onto them to to so - but in the end its up to Israel to do the right thing. I find statement saying the United States can force another nation to do something as not talking a peaceful nor realistic approach to the situation. Maybe ten more years of suicide bombings will force both Israel and the Palenstine people to see a path to peace.

Quote:

---

I am not realistic for not indulging myself in White Tower generalisations about the state of man's civic society reminiscent of Aristotle's? Yeah and pigs can fly.
C;mon give me more of ya 'ism's.:smash:

---

you didnt even come close to smashing the arguement given I didnt use an ism - again you fail to address the actual question.

Quote:

---

Again the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders

---

Why not ? you forced N.Korea back to its line ,you forced saddam out of the province he claimed as Iraqi territory , you forced Russia out of Afghanistan .
Why is Israel so different ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Why not ? you forced N.Korea back to its line ,you forced saddam out of the province he claimed as Iraqi territory , you forced Russia out of Afghanistan .
Why is Israel so different ?

---

Since he is speaking of a peaceful solution - then the answer is we can not force them back, all we can do is encourage them by negoation, concessions, and sanctions.

If you wish to discuss purely military means - we can address that also, but that goes against his initial premise, and if that is what he desire for the United States to do, it would make his whole arguement one of severe hyprocrisy.

But just to play along - for one being where will we start the invasion of Israel at? In order to go to war with Israel how much military force will be required? What is the available military force available given the current committment of troops? Which region are you will to sacrifice to complete defeat in order to force a somewhat allie back to its pre-1967 borders? So if you care to continue with that course of discussion you are going to have to do a lot better with the arguement, and are you willing to make the premise Bopa is arguing one of complete hypocrisy?

Now as for forcing North Korea back to its line - shall we discuss history of that conflict some more? Given that the forcing was done at a significant cost? Given that several times the front line shifted along the hills that make up the DMZ.

Do you wish the United States to fund Islamic Fundmental groups like we did in Afganstan to help force the Russians to leave? Afganstan is not a situation where the United States forced Russia out, we helped to fund the organizations that actually accomplished that task. One of Bopa chief compliants is one of short term thinking that was pursued in doing so, now I might disagree with him regarding how much blame solely rests on the United States in that regard - he is correct short term thinking has created a mess in the Middle-East starting with the British and French Mandates after WW1. By funding more Islamic "Terrorist" groups to force Israel to its pre-1967 borders would be just that type of short term thinking that Bopa is arguing against - which in essence supports the arguement about the United States can not force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders in that way. Unless of course he is willing to make a complete hypocrisy of his arguement.

Now for Saddam its rather easy - we developed a base of operations with Allied nations to do so? Do we have that same ability with the Nations surrounding Israel? Now a collation of sorts can be developed but its another short term thinking type of operation - are you willing to have the Irish troops occupy Israel to maintain the peace between the two groups? I am not willing to put US Troops into such a circumstance at all. Last time we got involved in that type of conflict - a bombing resulted that killed men who were not allowed to defend themselves under the rules of engagement.

So do you wish for more violence in the Middle-East there Tribesy? Does that equation mean its a short term goal or a long term goal?

And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?

I don't agree with what Israel is doing - but its not the United States place to force Israel back to pre-1967 borders? If you want that done - find another world policeman to accomplish that task.
We got enough problems of our on creation to deal with then adding another one to the alreadly burning bonfire that is just barely in control.

I have seen how well the United States plays the policeman of the world - your damned if you do, and your damned if you don't. Let the Irish play policeman for a bit.

What the heck Redleg?
Ok divide can have many meanings and does not have to pertain to people drawing maps on lines, you know this, so stop playing around.:dizzy2:

Racism is racism, oh man Redleg this is awsome!. Are you trying to equate what Israel is doing to something NZ and Britain are doing? Do you even know what Israel does to the pelestinians? Or do you just not give a toss?

Again Redleg I am talking about sorting out The Holy Land, the U.S is not doing it, as long as you allow Israel to act in a fascist and illegal way you aint gonna get spit for anything. So why hold back?
Why is Israel able to drag you down with it in the mid-east? It's nothing but a gian anchor round your neck. Lose it. You are it's purse and you control your own strings.

Oh and what argument was I meant to smash? I just said that I didn't like such state of civic nature type remarks for the reason that they are too generalised and white tower.
As for the 'ism comment, I was just making fun of the term Warlordism, it's awsome:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?

---

Arguably? They're doing both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

What the heck Redleg?
Ok divide can have many meanings and does not have to pertain to people drawing maps on lines, you know this, so stop playing around.:dizzy2:

---

You might want to be clear on which way you mean it then. As stated before the United States did not divide the Middle-East. pretty clear cut what divide means - break apart. Now attempting to control Iran by supporting the Sha is not dividing.

Quote:

---

Racism is racism, oh man Redleg this is awsome!. Are you trying to equate what Israel is doing to something NZ and Britain are doing? Do you even know what Israel does to the pelestinians? Or do you just not give a toss?

---

do you know what racism is given the nature of your statements I don't think you do. As for what Israel does to the Palenstine's yep I know what is going on - just like I know what the Palenstine's do to Israel. Unfortunately for you I also place the blame on who is at fault - Israel and the Palenstine leadership. I dont mix vement hate toward other nations for the problems that are going on in Israel because of the Israeli government and the Palenstine authority. Can you say the same thing?

Care to guess what Austrilia did with its aborgine's? How about what South Africa? As stated numerous times on this site - I find both sides wrong. So guess what its not a matter of not giving a toss - I find both equally wrong with their racism and hate. However I dont go blaming others for the problems that face the two sides - I look squarely at the two combatants.

Quote:

---

Again Redleg I am talking about sorting out The Holy Land, the U.S is not doing it, as long as you allow Israel to act in a fascist and illegal way you aint gonna get spit for anything. So why hold back?
Why is Israel able to drag you down with it in the mid-east? It's nothing but a gian anchor round your neck. Lose it. You are it's purse and you control your own strings.

---

Actually there you go again only addressing Israel - have you seen the fascist behavior of the Palentine authority? How about the text books calling for the killing of jews that was published by the Palestine authority at one time? Again you haven't talked about sorting out the Holy Land - you have talked solely about Israel. Haven't seen you faced the reality that certain groups with the Palenstine people are also an equal part of the problem. One sided fixes do not fix the problem.

Quote:

---

Oh and what argument was I meant to smash? I just said that I didn't like such state of civic nature type remarks for the reason that they are too generalised and white tower.
As for the 'ism comment, I was just making fun of the term Warlordism, it's awsome:2thumbsup:

---

Again you avoid the answer. Blaming the United States is so much easier for you do to now isn't it? Now care to guess how many conflicts are going on in the world as we speak? Give you a clue its a fairily high double digit number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

Arguably? They're doing both.

---

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

There are Palestinian refugees (if you can still call them that) all over the middle east. I heard that they were one of the hardest hit groups when the violence started picking up in Iraq some years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

---

I wasn't even referring to Palestine, though their actions against the Palestinian Authority could be catalogued as such. I was referring to their war in Lebanon two years ago. They violated the sovereignty of said country, that's war.

Quote:

---

are you willing to have the Irish troops occupy Israel to maintain the peace between the two groups? I am not willing to put US Troops into such a circumstance at all. Last time we got involved in that type of conflict - a bombing resulted that killed men who were not allowed to defend themselves under the rules of engagement.

---

Oh dear Red , its funny you want to mention that event since Irish troops are still there so its a silly question .
And as for the rules of engagement you are on about they did allow the American troops to defend themselves . The problem was they hadn't taken measures to prevent that type of attack and didn't have time to react to it .

Quote:

---

And why is Israel different? Let's see - are they committing acts of War against another soverign nation or are they conducting operations against a non-national group within its own borders?

---

They are committing acts of war against soveriegn nations and as they don't have borders they are not operating within them are they .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Arguably would be correct. However until the Palenstine state is actually declared its a tough arguement to actually pursue.

Anyone ever wondered how Jordan and Syria treats its Palenstine refugee's?

---

Why? The two Mukhabarat states are not really bastions of human rights, are they? Let me know when either of them is referred to as the Only Democracy in the Middle East™ by the western media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

I wasn't even referring to Palestine, though their actions against the Palestinian Authority could be catalogued as such. I was referring to their war in Lebanon two years ago. They violated the sovereignty of said country, that's war.

---

There never was a peace treaty, Israel and Libanon have always been at war, nothing illegal about it.

An armastice was signed in 1949 and no formal declaration of war ever since as far as I know.

No need, formally they are still at war. Armastice and peace aren't the same thing.

Quote:

---

There never was a peace treaty, Israel and Libanon have always been at war, nothing illegal about it.

---

Actually the terms of the armistice make actions by both Israel and Lebanon illegal and subject to intervention by UN member states .
In fact since most of the actions undertaken there are completely illegal your claim that there is "nothing illegal about it" is complete nonsense .:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

your claim that there is "nothing illegal about it" is complete nonsense .:thumbsdown:

---

No, kidnapping of soldiers is an act of war. Israel's reaction was a tad on the harsh side though. Understandable but a tiny bit overkill.

edit, maybe you are right because I can't remember any proof of Hezbollah getting support from government.

Fragony maybe you should have read the armistice document and all the sections of other agreements that it relates to before you said there "was nothing illegal"

Quote:

---

edit, maybe you are right because I can't remember any proof of Hezbollah getting support from government.

---

Errrr ..isn't HezBallah part of the government and even if it was not the armistice agreement applies to all paramilitary forces in the territory anyway (even if they are not formed until after the Israeli invasion and the formation of Israeli supported terrorists in Lebanon each of which is just as illegal as any Lebanese action)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Fragony maybe you should have read the armistice document and all the sections of other agreements that it relates to before you said there "was nothing illegal"

---

If the conditions for the armistice are broken you are back at the state of war without having to declare it, so no nothing illegal, just a bit harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh dear Red , its funny you want to mention that event since Irish troops are still there so its a silly question .

---

Not a silly question at all - again do you want Irish troops involved in occupation duty, which is completely different from what is in Lebanon as part of the UN mission. Where the Irish have committed some troops to the cause, now when one speaks of occupation duty one speaks of divisions and having to pay for it. But then I suspect you know that and are just being you in your response. So I will rephrase it for you, to help you out a bit more, do you want to committ several divisions of Irish troops to enforce peace in Israel?

Quote:

---

And as for the rules of engagement you are on about they did allow the American troops to defend themselves . The problem was they hadn't taken measures to prevent that type of attack and didn't have time to react to it .

---

Again care to replay the circumstances involving that event. Since I have seen several after-action reports regarding that event - its not hard to show where the rules of engagement would not have allowed them to prevent the attack at all, until after it was to late to stop the vehicle. Then again measures were not inplace to channel vehicles to prevent just such an attack, so in that you are correct. And using that event - it shows just how hard it is to seperate two fractions that are bent on destroying each other and anyone that gets in their way of that destruction. So again are you willing to committ Irish divisions to occupying Israel in total?

Quote:

---

They are committing acts of war against soveriegn nations and as they don't have borders they are not operating within them are they .

---

Sticky situation the Palenstine Authority is in isn't? They have no border, yet they have forces within their soverignty that committ acts of war against Israel. Double edge sword your attempting to walk and your not doing to well, especially since I have several times stated my position on the issue - both sides are wrong.

Edit: and here is where you have a problem arguing against my postion - when both sides continue to escalate and break promises to halt violence - its hard for me to take either side on the issue. Hince no need for United States attempting to force peace between the two - neither of them want it, and hopefully my nation learned its lesson in Beriut when you deal with two warring fractions within the same nation, and neither wants peace - you just get caught in the crossfire.

Quote:

---

If the conditions for the armistice are broken you are back at the state of war without having to declare it, so no nothing illegal, just a bit harsh.

---

You really havn't got a clue what you are on about do you Frag .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

So I will rephrase it for you, to help you out a bit more, do you want to committ several divisions of Irish troops to enforce peace in Israel?

---

What divisions ? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Even going by a very outdated study from your government it would take most of the adult population of Ireland to provide the numbers needed to seperate the nutters in Palestine .

Quote:

---

Edit: and here is where you have a problem arguing against my postion - when both sides continue to escalate and break promises to halt violence - its hard for me to take either side on the issue.

---

Not at all , since I take neither side , I only attack those who take a side and say that side is the only one that is right , and as in most cases that is people backing Israel you might get some misperception from it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What divisions ? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Even going by a very outdated study from your government it would take most of the adult population of Ireland to provide the numbers needed to seperate the nutters in Palestine .

---

And you wanted to argue that the United States can force peace in Israel. The laugh is on you Tribesy on that one.

Quote:

---

Not at all , since I take neither side , I only attack those who take a side and say that side is the only one that is right , and as in most cases that is people backing Israel you might get some misperception from it .

---

Neither do I take sides - which is why I found lots of fault with Bopa postions since he seemly is either blaming the United States for the situation, or is wanting the United States to solve it. Niether is correct. The peace can only be established when the two warring fractions decide that they want it. And the only way that is going to happen is for the people to throw the nutters in office out of power on both sides. Whats even worse if one wants to look at history to see who is to blame for the creation of Israel - he should look close to home and the collective guilt of the world (primarily Europe) after WW2.

And we have seen what happens to moderates on both sides in Israel.

Quote:

---

And you wanted to argue that the United States can force peace in Israel. The laugh is on you Tribesy on that one.

---

Not at all Red since occupation isn't the only way , violations of the armistice mean chapter VII , armed intervention is only one aspect of that , financial and economic measures are another , instead of punishing all parties that are acting illegaly your government has chosen to arm one , and not only arm it but also to directly finance its own armament industry .
If they want to force peace the last thing the government should be doing is providing the means for war .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not at all Red since occupation isn't the only way , violations of the armistice mean chapter VII , armed intervention is only one aspect of that , financial and economic measures are another , instead of punishing all parties that are acting illegaly your government has chosen to arm one , and not only arm it but also to directly finance its own armament industry

---

You are correct that armed force is not the only way one can bring about change, but it requires an target that is willing to change. Have you seen any willingness from either side for peace? Because I sure haven't seen any indication they want peace in Israel. Both sides repeatly have their nutters who committment violence over and over again. Economic and financial sanctions won't have much of an impact on them. Since for it to work, it also requires that the both sides truely want peace.

I personally don't see to many indications of both wanting a true lasting peace.

Quote:

---

If they want to force peace the last thing the government should be doing is providing the means for war .

---

That is the only correct arguement presented so far. If peace is truely desired by both sides, then both sides need to have its funding and base removed from having the supplies given to them to carry out war. There was an interesting picture posted in the papers today concerning a missle made by the Palenstine's for firing into Israel. Kind of demonstrates that neither side is really interested in pursueing peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

That is the only correct arguement presented so far. If peace is truely desired by both sides, then both sides need to have its funding and base removed from having the supplies given to them to carry out war. There was an interesting picture posted in the papers today concerning a missle made by the Palenstine's for firing into Israel. Kind of demonstrates that neither side is really interested in pursueing peace.

---

Which gets back to my "warlordism" point that Bopa has taken too much glee in maligning.

There are a number of "actors" in the Palestine/Lebanon/Israel region whose power derives from being a "warlord" over some group. Actual peace -- as opposed to an ongoing simmer of violence, mistrust, etc. -- would undercut their power. They have a vested interest in taking ANY nascent peace effort and lobbing a rocket on it.

A warlord is NOT a nation-builder nor a peacemaker. She or he is the quasi-feudal ruler of an armed camp. An opponent is almost a political necessity. Note: this label can be applied to any number of the factions involved: Hamas and sub-sects thereof, Fatah and sub-sects thereof, Hezbollah and sub-sects thereof, Druze groups, Israeli "settlers," etc.

Hamas is the democratically elected result of decades of U.S backed Israeli opression, nothing more. You see there is no equating the predicament of the two sides. Israel is a recognised nation-state, the world has refused Palestine that right, and by its support for Israel the U.S has stripped away its historical pretensions. As I keep saying redleg I fully realise my own nations cooperation with Israel, but the U.S was the prime mover there. You had all the power after WWII and you failed to take the steps to prevent the atrocity of zionism claiming statehood. The Jews deserve a state, well why? Why did the Palestinians have to lose everything to assuage your guilt? If it was not about guilt, what was it about?
The installment of a friendly regional power to dominate the mid-east?

The idea that all atrocities are of the same magnitude is false, the amount of carange inflicted upon the Palestinian people is an elephant when compared to the destruction inflicted by Hamas on Israel. I hear Israelis can get an education and running water. But you will continue to deny that Israel is the main offender because...
I don't know. But it is something which rankles with Muslims across the globe, it a rallying cry to blow up innocent westerners and those unfortunate to be nearby.
But it is not the only reason, it is also the U.S's continued attempt to divide the mid-east, yep divide Redleg, divide. You know what I mean so you can apply any term you feel apt to that meaning.
As for my use of racism, again there are degrees of it, aparthied is at an extreme end as is nazism, what is happening in Palestine is just another extreme degree of it, lets say state enforced racism.

Why are you so fixated on my non commital to aristotelean generalisations of politcal community?
"It's so much easier to blame the U.S" umm ok, I'm not some idiotic child Redleg, I actually to think and read up on things. I'm not some damned mouth piece of soundbite media.

Oh and Seamus, what makes you think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Hamas is the democratically elected result of decades of U.S backed Israeli opression, nothing more. You see there is no equating the predicament of the two sides. Israel is a recognised nation-state, the world has refused Palestine that right, and by its support for Israel the U.S has stripped away its historical pretensions. As I keep saying redleg I fully realise my own nations cooperation with Israel, but the U.S was the prime mover there. You had all the power after WWII and you failed to take the steps to prevent the atrocity of zionism claiming statehood. The Jews deserve a state, well why? Why did the Palestinians have to lose everything to assuage your guilt? If it was not about guilt, what was it about?

---

Oh poor misguided Bopa - the United States did not have all the power after WW2. It was also shared with the old USSR. THe middle-east quirimare developed in part because of the two compeating superpowers, it also developed in part because of policies after WW1 with the British and French Mandates. And as I stated before and you have failed to read - it was the collective guild of the world, primaily of Europe. In fact the United States was really not a big help to Israel until the 1973 war - Britian and France share that distintion. So until you actually learn some history on Israel's foundation - its just to easy to tear you anti-US stance apart concerning the founding of the Israel state.

It seems to me that you don't fully realize the situation when you continue to point to one nation as the problem. To bad its been interesting to demonstrate that your position is primirily one of Anti- versus any real understanding.

Quote:

---

The installment of a friendly regional power to dominate the mid-east?

---

LOL - the creation of Israel has a bitter history - the installment of a friendly regional power was not initially one of them.

Quote:

---

The idea that all atrocities are of the same magnitude is false, the amount of carange inflicted upon the Palestinian people is an elephant when compared to the destruction inflicted by Hamas on Israel. I hear Israelis can get an education and running water. But you will continue to deny that Israel is the main offender because...

---

Your problem there Bopa is a failure to actually read - I refuse to claim that only one side is at fault. It takes two to tangle - and the Palenstine Authority and all its previous identies are guiltly of insuring the conflict continues.

Quote:

---

I don't know. But it is something which rankles with Muslims across the globe, it a rallying cry to blow up innocent westerners and those unfortunate to be nearby.

---

Yep and its just as false in their doing so.

Quote:

---

But it is not the only reason, it is also the U.S's continued attempt to divide the mid-east, yep divide Redleg, divide. You know what I mean so you can apply any term you feel apt to that meaning.
As for my use of racism, again there are degrees of it, aparthied is at an extreme end as is nazism, what is happening in Palestine is just another extreme degree of it, lets say state enforced racism.

---

Again the United States does not divide the Middle-East. You do understand what the term divide means do you not? Divide means to seperate. In what why has the United States attempted to seperate the middle-east. The nations were formed after WW1 as part of the British and French Mandates after WW1, and finallized between the World Wars and immediately after. Before the United States was truely involved in the region. Somewhere around the late 1940's we began to get involved in internal politics of selected nations to prevent Soviet takeover by proxy of those nations, and unfortunetly for the current world we also attempted to control a few of them. Now where does divide equate into that equation.

Again racism is racism - all of it is intolerable to me. I also see the racism that the Palenstines equate back to the Israelies in their text books. So I have little support for your arguement here when you discount the preaching to childern to do suicide bomb another culture.

Quote:

---

Why are you so fixated on my non commital to aristotelean generalisations of politcal community?
"It's so much easier to blame the U.S" umm ok, I'm not some idiotic child Redleg, I actually to think and read up on things. I'm not some damned mouth piece of soundbite media.

---

To bad your rethoric is just that of a soundbite media. You focus on one side of a complex issue demanding that one side committ to change without acknowledging that the other side also has to change. You blame one nation over all - without looking deep into how the situation was created in the first place. You incorrectly blame the United States for the creation of the state of Israel - which I find extremely funny given Truman's thoughts on the creation of the Nation of Israel.

So read up a bit before you blame the United States. Its almost as pathic as those that claim the United States built nuclear weapons for Israel.......

Oh and Seamus, what makes you think[/QUOTE]

Hahah, ok whatever Redeg I admit it, I am a complete fool with no understanding of the Palestinian problem. You got me!
Because anyone who actually reads up this can't possibly take a different point of view on it can they? So I must be a complete idiot right?

Again I still do not understand your fixation with the good old nature of the political community philosophy, explain?
But perhaps another time, this exchange is over, since I obviously have to go and read the Oxford English Dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Hahah, ok whatever Redeg I admit it, I am a complete fool with no understanding of the Palestinian problem. You got me!
Because anyone who actually reads up this can't possibly take a different point of view on it can they? So I must be a complete idiot right?

---

Never stated you were an idiot - only that you can not have the reality based viewpoint that you claim if your only looking at one side. So if you wish to be flippant at least understand the position that I have stated. Reality requires an individual to look at all aspects - not just what they wish to look at.

Quote:

---

Again I still do not understand your fixation with the good old nature of the political community philosophy, explain?

---

I detest one-sided viewpoints that claim they have all the answers to the situation, especially one that uses anger rethoric that makes claims that are not founded in actual facts. So if you want to convince me that Israel is wrong - you have alreadly lost, since I alreadly believe that Israel is wrong, your problem is that you have only argued by attack the United States involvement in the situation. Leaving out what the Palenstine Authority and its precedors have also done to continue and escalate the violence. Along with a claim of realistic viewpoint just made me want to tweak your arguement to the point to show how acidine it was.

has the United States made mistakes in the middle-east - sure we have, but lets stick to the ones that are true, not the made up stuff that one side uses to justify their violence. There is enough done wrong that justifies feelings of ill will toward the United States that makes the made-up positions unnecessary.

Quote:

---

But perhaps another time, this exchange is over, since I obviously have to go and read the Oxford English Dictionary.

---

Feel free, and leave the little red book rethoric out of the discussion.