112 replies to this topic

[Evil]

You see, this is where I'm conflicted. When we deal with hard liners, and people who see no worth in your life or your child's because you are an infidel, I feel that a person with the capacity to view the world in black and white is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm not going to tell you that CX or Merl are wrong, however I think the only thing that's really going to decide whether Bush's course was the right one, will be the future. When we look back on this, our views may be entirely different and we may find, that the right choices were made, and that we did the world a great deal of good.

But that's another debate, for another time, years and years from now I'd venture to say.

Merl: "Being neutral in a conflict isn't anti-Semitic". The Israeli-Palestinian issue is a complicated one and is their's to solve. We've tried interfering and mediating, as have others, but they're the only ones who can decide what happens in Gaza/Israel/Palestine.

And I've never heard Bush say that it was a "one sided" moral conflict. Ever. What I've heard is the same vague thing we hear from almost every leader worldwide (except for the Malaysian PM and practically every Arab PM). It goes something like this, "The Israelis have a right to defend themselves. The Palestinians have a right to exist by the means of their own sovereignty".

Bingo.

Edited by Evil, 01 June 2004 - 01:00 PM.

[merlinski]

You see, this is where I'm conflicted. When we deal with hard liners, and people who see no worth in your life or your child's because you are an infidel, I feel that a person with the capacity to view the world in black and white is not necessarily a bad thing.

The problem with a person who sees the world in black and white is not that they consider those hard liners to be "black". It's that they also consider those who are slightly darker than gray also to be "black", and responds to them in the same way they respond to the hard-liners.

I'm not going to tell you that CX or Merl are wrong, however I think the only thing that's really going to decide whether Bush's course was the right one, will be the future. When we look back on this, our views may be entirely different and we may find, that the right choices were made, and that we did the world a great deal of good.

Agreed, only time will tell, and even then it might not be conclusive.

And I've never heard Bush say that it was a "one sided" moral conflict. Ever. What I've heard is the same vague thing we hear from almost every leader worldwide (except for the Malaysian PM and practically every Arab PM). It goes something like this, "The Israelis have a right to defend themselves. The Palestinians have a right to exist by the means of their own sovereignty".

Ok, that statement was a little exaggerated. Bush isn't taking too many steps away from Europe, but I think that the "black and white" viewpoint has hurt him in his treatment (or lack there of) of the conflict. Even in the days of Clinton I was opposed to the Support-Israel-No-Matter-What-They-Do policy.

Edited by merlinski, 01 June 2004 - 02:08 PM.

[Vintage]

Israel and Palestine are equal participants in the conflict, and it's not the one-sided moral conflict that Bush likes to believe.

The topic concerning Israel and Palestine is a very interesting one here. Israel once owned Palestine, until Arabs moved in and because they outnumbered the native Israelis, they took over the government. Israel has always been despised by the Arabs, so in order to stop the advance of territory of Israel, Arabs moved into Palestine in greater numbers than the Israelis. They took over the land by vote, and pushed Israel's borders back.

It is a similar concept as if Florida were taken over by Cubans who turned the vote to their ends. Then they use terrorist attacks under the name of some religious figure to attack the USA from right across the border. We would have a moral duty to not let these religious fanatics terrorize our borders. This is essentially what happened to Israel.

Here is a brief history of the clash between the Israelis and the Arabs. Enjoy!

~Vintage

Edit: Sometimes it is necessary to view things in black and white. Certain things such as murder, theft, diddle, treason, and especially terrorism should not ever be viewed as gray areas.

Edited by Vintage, 01 June 2004 - 03:12 PM.

[Evil]

Yea, and those wars didn't help too much either. Definitely cemented the anti-Israeli sentiment.

[nosferatu]

I know that this is kind of off topic here, but it's been bugging me for a couple weeks. What the hell happened to the revolt in Haiti? Did the rebels win? Did the U.S. Pull out? It seems like all of a sudden it just stopped being covered by the news, because of the abuse scandal in Iraq (which is the fault of the U.S. military, not Bush).

[Evil]

It seems like all of a sudden it just stopped being covered by the news, because of the abuse scandal in Iraq (which is the fault of the U.S. military, not Bush).

Well it's the fault of the 6 people who are going to get court martialed and maybe (I'm guessing here) the ten more who will be found and punished as well.

I remind you we have an army in Iraq of roughly 138,000 people.

[merlinski]

The topic concerning Israel and Palestine is a very interesting one here. Israel once owned Palestine, until Arabs moved in and because they outnumbered the native Israelis, they took over the government. Israel has always been despised by the Arabs, so in order to stop the advance of territory of Israel, Arabs moved into Palestine in greater numbers than the Israelis. They took over the land by vote, and pushed Israel's borders back.

You left out one important fact:

Palestinians were the only inhabitants in what is now Israel until 1948. Look at it from the side of the Arabs - all of a sudden, Britain puts a bunch of Jewish immigrants in the middle of their land, and then the Israelis kick the Palestinians out of their own territory during a war.

So, in essence, to make your Cuba/US example accurate, Florida would have been occupied by the Cubans for 1000 years before we came in the 40's and kicked them out. Makes our claim to the land in that example a lot more ambiguous, doesn't it?

Well it's the fault of the 6 people who are going to get court martialed and maybe (I'm guessing here) the ten more who will be found and punished as well.

There's an interesting duality here:

The Iraqi Prisoner Abuse scandal was the fault of 6-16 people who took extreme action and don't represent our 138,000 troops.

The beheading of Nicholas Berg was committed by 6-10 people who took extreme action yet represent the whole of the Iraqi opposition to US rule.

[Evil]

The Iraqi "movement" as a whole is a geurilla-esque movement. So yes, I will go as far as to generalize that much, and say that the few that beheaded Nick Berg represent, though unintentionally, a majority of those we are fighting in Iraq.

[merlinski]

The Iraqi "movement" as a whole is a geurilla-esque movement. So yes, I will go as far as to generalize that much, and say that the few that beheaded Nick Berg represent, though unintentionally, a majority of those we are fighting in Iraq.

Since when is geurilla warfare inherently immoral? Reagan seemed to be a fan of it.

[Accord]

Yea, but didnt North and Poindexter explain how he was "out of the loop" and blame it all on themselves? Anyway, I find it pretty obvious that he was involved in it.

[Vintage]

You left out one important fact:

Palestinians were the only inhabitants in what is now Israel until 1948.  Look at it from the side of the Arabs - all of a sudden, Britain puts a bunch of Jewish immigrants in the middle of their land, and then the Israelis kick the Palestinians out of their own territory during a war.

I didn't leave out any important fact. The Jews also lived there over a thousand years. Maybe Cuba isn't the best analogy. Here's another:

I live in Minnesota. This state was once controlled by Indians, largely the Ojibwe. Say that the Ojibwe take over the state of Minnesota that was once their's a couple hundred years ago, and started terrorising the borders of Wisconsin and Iowa. What possible reason would the USA as a whole have against stopping these insurgents and even going as far as demanding that the government of Minnesota deal with these people?

If they start firing rockets into other states, driving car bombs into malls, and shooting out of windows, all under the name of some proclaimed medicine man, we would have to deal with them. Even if it takes driving tanks across their borders.

The Israelis are handling this as best as possible. It would be nice if Jews could once again live without the fear of a Arab shooting them in the streets and churches.

~Vintage

[merlinski]

You left out one important fact:

Palestinians were the only inhabitants in what is now Israel until 1948. Look at it from the side of the Arabs - all of a sudden, Britain puts a bunch of Jewish immigrants in the middle of their land, and then the Israelis kick the Palestinians out of their own territory during a war.

I didn't leave out any important fact. The Jews also lived there over a thousand years. Maybe Cuba isn't the best analogy. Here's another:

I live in Minnesota. This state was once controlled by Indians, largely the Ojibwe. Say that the Ojibwe take over the state of Minnesota that was once their's a couple hundred years ago, and started terrorising the borders of Wisconsin and Iowa. What possible reason would the USA as a whole have against stopping these insurgents and even going as far as demanding that the government of Minnesota deal with these people?

If they start firing rockets into other states, driving car bombs into malls, and shooting out of windows, all under the name of some proclaimed medicine man, we would have to deal with them. Even if it takes driving tanks across their borders.

The Israelis are handling this as best as possible. It would be nice if Jews could once again live without the fear of a Arab shooting them in the streets and churches.

~Vintage

Ok, if you want to switch to a Minnesota analogy, I'll deal with that too.

Say that the Ojibwe are the only inhabitants of Minnesota in 1950. At this time, the US government wants to deal with a group of people, so it takes a large portion of Ojibwe land, renames it "Minnesota" and gives it to this group of Americans. Obviously, the Ojibwe are upset, so those who live next to Minnesota attack it. The Minnesotans beat the crap out of the Ojibwe, and in the process kick out all the Ojibwe who still live in Minnesota. Now, for the next 50 years, the Ojibwe perpetrate terrorist attacks in Minnesota while the Minnesotans fire missiles into Ojibwe villages. That's a more accurate analogy.

I'm all for creating a world where Jews don't have to live in fear in Israel. But this is only possible in a world of PEACE!. As long as Palestinians resent Israel, there will be conflict. This can't be solved by the US throwing military supplies at Israel. The military can't protect Israel from terrorists, no matter how strong it is. The only way that military force could create peace in that region would be if they exterminated all the Palestinians. Now, this is only a hunch, but I don't think anyone's in favor of genocide against the Palestinians as a way to achieve peace. However, I think that when your only "solution" to the conflict is a one-sided alliance that gives military supplies, your just asking for war.

[Vintage]

Unfortunately, Merlinski, the Arabs resent Israel's claim to the Holy Land. However, the majority of attacks are performed by religious Arabs who attack under the name of Allah. They want the land because it contains Jews.

You forget that it was the Arab's who refused peace from the UN. The Jews agreed to let the UN decide borders for the two nations, but the Arabs would have nothing of it. This is not a conflict over land. It is a conflict over ideals. The terrorists resent the beliefs of the Jews, and choose to take terrorism over peace. Arabs won't stop. They never have. Until Israel gives up, they will continue to use terrorism tactics to diminish the morale of the Jews.

Hopefully, if you resent my Christianity, you won't come wage Jihad against me! This is exactly what Israelis face.

It would seem that in an age where people criticize anti-Semitism so much, there would be much more support for the Jews who don't want to be persecuted by their Arab neighbors. When the Passion hit theaters, people flipped on their anti-Semitism filters, but when the Arabs hit the churches with car bombs, people turn on their understanding filters.

~Vintage

[Evil]

Here's a thought. Me, Merl, Vacc, and CX make a coalition dictatorship and finally but this shit to rest.

"One nation - under Evil - with liberty and justice for all"

[merlinski]

Unfortunately, Merlinski, the Arabs resent Israel's claim to the Holy Land. However, the majority of attacks are performed by religious Arabs who attack under the name of Allah. They want the land because it contains Jews.

They want the land because it's Jerusalem. If the Israelis were in the middle of a desert that didn't contain a holy city, there wouldn't be nearly as much conflict as there is now. Also, a lot of the terrorist attacks are a result of the Israeli backlash against previous terrorist attacks. It's devolved into a conflict where both sides just try to get revenge for each successive hit.

"One nation - under Evil - with liberty and justice for all"

Agreed. But you don't get to be the only deity

[Vintage]

If the Israelis were in the middle of a desert that didn't contain a holy city, there wouldn't be nearly as much conflict as there is now.

Excuse me, but Jerusalem has always been Israel's only "Holy City." Muhammad came along much later and "decided" that Jerusalem had significance in his religion. So now, Arabs claim Jerusalem is their holy city. Heck, they even built their Mosque over the site of the Jewish temple!

This is a religious war, and yes, the conflict grows worse with each new attack. However, each side has different tactics.

Arabs prefer blowing themselves up with civilians as their targets, Israelis hunt down specific terrorist factions.

Arabs fight as networks of terrorists outside of governmental approval, Israelis fight under their military with full government approval. That should tell you right there that their claim is not reasonable.

If the war really is about ancestral land that rightly belongs to Arabs, why isn't the Arab government funding it? Think about how Americans got their land. They moved into lands occupied by the Indians. In a perfect world, things like that shouldn't happen, but that does not mean we should give all the land back. Where would the "land of freedom" be if we did? Where would Israel be if they gave their land back?

~Vintage

[Accord]

all this religious jibberish is one of the reasons why im an agnostic. Face it, the Palestinians, the Israelis, and the UN have done things wrong in these issues

Edited by Accord, 04 June 2004 - 09:17 PM.

[reversedracula]

I didn't realize that the UN was a religion, Vintage. All hail Kofi Annan, and his godly grand indiference to genocide. It looks like Rwanda Part 2: Electric Boogaloo in the Sudan right now. Perhaps if Annan weren't dependent on the voting support of dictators to maintain his cushy job. Of course, there's only so much one person can be expected to do... unless of course he is a deity! Still, the UN is far to passive and weak-willed. Its security forces are a joke. People complain about America's lack of intervention in instances like this Sudanese problem, but then complain just as much when American body bags start coming home on their flag-draped biers. But for all the overwhelming aid America offers, and for all far-right factions complain, it's really not that much of our budget. Still, more than others sacrifice. Anyway, point is, I'm tired of the UN being the joke that it is. Either we change the UN to strengthen it in a positive way, or we ignore it.

[Evil]

Hey now, let's not forget the UN "Oil for Food" scandal.

And as my liberal friend Shindig always says, "Whenever the UN uses military force, you have to drop the "N" and add the "S".

REUTERS STORY EDIT:

"U.S. employers added an unexpectedly large 248,000 jobs in May, according to a government report on Friday that confirmed a strengthening economy likely to soon bring higher interest rates.

The May tally exceeded Wall Street expectations for 216,000 new jobs and followed an upwardly revised total of 346,000 jobs in April and 353,000 in March. The 947,000 jobs created in the March-May period made it the strongest for any three months in four years.

Virtually every major sector of the economy added jobs in May, from retailing to construction industries. Particularly notable were 32,000 new hires in manufacturing -- a fourth straight monthly increase and the biggest for any month since August 1998 when 143,000 manufacturing jobs were created, the department said.

Nearly 1.2 million jobs have been added since the start of the year, adding fodder for a campaigning Bush to blunt Democratic criticisms fueled by the slow recovery from the 2001 recession."

Who thinks the Dems can villify Bush for creating jobs?

Edited by Evil, 04 June 2004 - 07:27 PM.

[Accord]

I didn't realize that the UN was a religion

jackass, did i ever say it was?

[Evil]

This is a non-name calling debate fucker.

[cxwq]

"U.S. employers added an unexpectedly large 248,000 jobs in May

[..snip..]

Who thinks the Dems can villify Bush for creating jobs?

I'll give it a shot.

I quote from the US Department of Labor Employment Situation news release, February 7, 2003.

--Beginning in January 2003, population controls based on the results of Census 2000 were used in the monthly CPS estimation process, and data for the 3 prior years were revised to reflect these new controls. (Previously, estimates for January 1990 through December 2002 were based on 1990 Census population controls adjusted for the estimated undercount.) The Census 2000-based controls increased the size of the civilian noninstitutional population by over 3 million. As a result, they also increased the estimates of employment and unemployment. Since the increases were roughly proportional, however, the overall unemployment rate did not change significantly.

--In addition to the shift to Census 2000-based controls, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced another large upward adjustment (+941,000) to the CPS population controls in January 2003 as part of its annual update of population estimates. BLS does not anticipate revising historical data to reflect this additional adjustment. This accords with usual practice regarding intercensal population changes. Thus, the population levels for January 2003 (and beyond) and the levels of employment and unemploy- ment are not strictly comparable with those for earlier months. The additional adjustment to the population taken in January 2003 raised the number of employed by about 575,000 and the number of unemployed by about 40,000. The adjustment had a negligible effect on the overall unemploy- ment rate and other ratios.

So the govt changed the way they count people in Jan '03. It shouldn't make any difference though because the percentages are the same. Unfortunately, the current administration (and the 'liberal media') are reporting the number employed not the unemployment rate.

From Dept of Labor historical employment data:

Unadjusted Employment Level

Nov 2000: 137,461,000
May 2004: 138,867,000

So during his entire term in office Bush has added 1.4 million jobs. Except that the way they count people since '03 has added over 3.6 million people to the overall population. At the current unemployment rate (6.0% average this year - it was 4.0% in 2000) that means the employment count has been artificially inflated by about 3.4 million jobs. This brings Bush's net job creation to 2 million jobs lost in 4 years.

During the last 4 years the population increased by approximately 10 million people and there are 2 million fewer jobs for them. Don't hear much of that on the 'liberal media' right now do you?

[Sacapuntas Cabesa]

Unfortunately, Merlinski, the Arabs resent Israel's claim to the Holy Land.  However, the majority of attacks are performed by religious Arabs who attack under the name of Allah.  They want the land because it contains Jews.

You forget that it was the Arab's who refused peace from the UN.  The Jews agreed to let the UN decide borders for the two nations, but the Arabs would have nothing of it.  This is not a conflict over land.  It is a conflict over ideals.  The terrorists resent the beliefs of the Jews, and choose to take terrorism over peace.  Arabs won't stop.  They never have.  Until Israel gives up, they will continue to use terrorism tactics to diminish the morale of the Jews.

Hopefully, if you resent my Christianity, you won't come wage Jihad against me!  This is exactly what Israelis face.

It would seem that in an age where people criticize anti-Semitism so much, there would be much more support for the Jews who don't want to be persecuted by their Arab neighbors.  When the Passion hit theaters, people flipped on their anti-Semitism filters, but when the Arabs hit the churches with car bombs, people turn on their understanding filters.

~Vintage

I havn't read through this whole thing yet, but when I came to this, I couldn't read anymore without posting.


You don't know what you are talking about. You don't know both sides of the issue. You havn't bothered to look into the other side, it seems.

Let me explain why the Muslims and the Jews don't like each other and cannot live in peace.

A long, long time ago, the Jews had a temple built in Jerusalem(sp?). I believe it was the Temple of David, although I may have the name wrong. Anyways, it, along with a number of other temples, were destroyed. A prophet told the Jews that their savior and lord would come to save them after this holiest of Temples had been rebuilt.

A long, long time ago as well, Mohamed started a religion out of the jewish religion, much like Jesus did. Now, he had to go to heaven, too, just like the Christians say Jesus did, so he stepped up from this rock and God Himself took him into heaven. The Muslims then built a Mosk around this rock, making it one of the Holiest places in the Islam religion, second only to Mecca and Medina, Mecca being the place where they turn to pray to so many times a day.

Now. The problem is this. That Mosk is built on top of the ruins of the Temple of David. So, obviously, the Jews want to tear it down to rebuild it so they can be saved, and the Muslims don't agree with that plan.

Also, as has been stated earlier, Israel has only been a country for a little over 50 years. In 1948, we(the powers of the world aka USA and Europe) decided to give the Jews a country of their own. Of course, we had to do that on someone else's land, because it was the Jews holy land, and we don't care about the middle east at the time.

And if you want to talk about history and why the "arabs" don't like us, you should read up about the Crusades. Plural. Where, in the name of Christianity, Europe marched into arabia and diddled and pillaged everything in site. That kinda made them mad.

So yeah...I'm tired of typing. My final thought is this:

Remember in the good ol' days before the World Wars when our entire foreign policy could be summed up in "insolation"? Good times.

EDIT: The Bush Administration a while ago reported a raise in blue-collar level jobs, which sounded great, but in reality, the Admin. just decided to start counting fast food and convience store workers (typically part-time work for teenagers) as blue-collar.

Edited by Sacapuntas Cabesa, 05 June 2004 - 12:20 AM.

[Vintage]

A long, long time ago, the Jews had a temple built in Jerusalem(sp?).
...
A long, long time ago as well, Mohamed started a religion out of the jewish religion, much like Jesus did.

I know you mean well, but that has no relevency whatsoever. Islam originated from a man's own conception of Judeo-Christianity. You falsely assume I was comparing the claims of Christians and Muslims. Jews have been around much, much longer than Muslims. About 2500 years longer! Their land was Jerusalem and its surrounding lands. Christianity had been around 570 years before Islam.

Also, as has been stated earlier, Israel has only been a country for a little over 50 years. In 1948, we(the powers of the world aka USA and Europe) decided to give the Jews a country of their own. Of course, we had to do that on someone else's land, because it was the Jews holy land, and we don't care about the middle east at the time.

Wrong, as I said earlier, the land of Israel had been around for a couple thousand years before the Arabs started to move in. They took over the lands of Israel until Europe intervened and created borders for the new nation "Israel." Now, the regions around "Israel" are controlled by Muslim Arabs who attack the Jews solely out of spite for the Jewish faith. They already have most of the land originally owned by Israel, but that hasn't kept them from unprovoked attacks.

And if you want to talk about history and why the "arabs" don't like us, you should read up about the Crusades. Plural. Where, in the name of Christianity, Europe marched into arabia and diddled and pillaged everything in site. That kinda made them mad.

Yeah. One of the reasons the old Medieval Roman Catholic Church died out. They had a warped view of Christianity. No where in the Bible do we see talk of Christians waging war against unbelievers. The church had become greedy for wealth, that is what. And most of the Crusades were utter failures.

I didn't realize that the UN was a religion, Vintage.

When did I say that? I said that the Jews were willing to cooperate with UN borders, but that is as far as I got concerning the UN.

Edited by Vintage, 05 June 2004 - 12:58 AM.

[Evil]

CX that's not true that the "liberal media" isn't reporting the unemployment rate, because they are, it's at 5.6% and I've seen it reported by Fox News and CNN. Haven't seen it on MSNBC though (even though I've watched that the mosy because of their awesome D-Day coverage).