Does Bush want to win the war?

[meafyTFLord]

then why is he saying and doing such completely stupid things like this? Surely he must know that this will swell the ranks of the terrorists. Another slap in the face for Blair from Bush

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1193096,00.html

(story about the recent shift in american foreign policy regarding the [illegal] Isreali settlements in the west bank and the "dis-engagement" from the gaza strip)

[littlegreencube]

Because his beliefs are stupid.

[SquidDNA]

Yeah, I gave that a big ol WTF too.

[EchoEffect]

i'll try to contain my amazement.

[Capella]

Apparently yes, and at any cost, by any means, and over as many bodies as is required.


See story below on the US administration decision process leading to the Iraq war.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20040416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_woodward_book_3

[Zurgnoff]

Just when I thought he couldn't do it again Bush continues to break new ground in stupidity, incompetence, and ignorance. As for the question, yes of course he wants to win the war, he just seems to want to drag the entire middle east into it in the process.

[Moe]

I would really love to read millys post on this, but for some reason I'm afraid he will just ignore this thread...

[Capella]

I have noticed the people defending the Bush administration are getting more quiet as time goes on, wonders why.

[Reignfire]

Here's a quote I found online (I can't prove it's true since I don't actually have the book, but I've seen the quote at several places) predicting the outcome if we took Iraq and it's right for the most part:

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

And you know who's book it's from? None other than George Bush Sr.'s book, 'In A World Transformed'. A bit ironic don't you think?

[dmille]

I would really love to read millys post on this, but for some reason I'm afraid he will just ignore this thread...



I'm here.


I have noticed the people defending the Bush administration are getting more quiet as time goes on, wonders why.

As essentially the entirety of those "people," I can answer your question: my political urges have been directed towards writing editorials and history papers lately. I could also post my AIM logs of conversations with Ceejayoz in which we discuss mostly politics. I'm not absent, in other words, because I don't believe the policies can be defended or don't believe they're not worth defending.



I'll freely state that I disagree with the President on a number of issues. Foreign policy is generally not one of those issues. His approach to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis is fundamentally balanced. He opposes settlements, but, unlike many of you, is not willing to allow their presence to excuse a terrorist campaign directed at civilians.

I find the European / liberal / Arab-world belief on the matter of Israeli disengagement to be hilarious, foolish, and dangerous. First it's "Israel must withdraw because that illegal Jewish state is ruining the world!" Then, when an Israeli Prime Minister (who, I'll be the first to state, I dislike) decides that Israel will, in fact, vacate a substantial section of Palestinian land in order to restart the process of forming a more peaceful region, you're all angry that the Israelis are withdrawing under conditions other than the ones that you think would make the world a safe, happy place for tunnel-vision afflicted suicide-bomber apologists everywhere.



The statement that Palestinian refugees will return only to the Palestinian state is inherently logical - that's why the state is being created. I suppose that if Iran, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia all agreed to allow the return of the Jews they expelled (and whose gravestones they repaved streets with, etc), there might be some room for negotiation on this point. You'd never demand that, however, because it goes against the "blame the Israeli-American imperialists!" urge.

RE: The Yahoo! news link - That the US Defense establishment keeps and updates war plans for any number of scenarios, specifically dealing with the neutralization of hostile countries, surprises only those who willfully blind themselves to reality, or fools. This is akin to the conspiracy theory that since the US had attack plans for Afghanistan, it new about the September 11th attack: utter and complete nonsense. It's entirely logical. I'm reasonably sure we have war plans for North Korea, Russia, China, and probably even France, in some drawer in the Pentagon. Does that mean we're secretly planning regime change in Paris? Probably not (though, I suppose, I can hope).

To address the focus of this thread: Yes, President Bush wants to win the war. He wants to win the war, not piddle around Camp David producing nothing of consequence, leaving an unfinished war characterized by the apperance of weakness to his sucessor in 2008. The Sharon plan provides the opportunity, despite being imperfect, to change the situation in the Middle East for the better. The Palestinian Authority will control more of their own territory, allowing them to demonstrate, hopefully once and for all, whether or not they're even capable of putting their own house in order (or whether they simply find it easier to focus on slaughtering Israeli civilians rather than doing tricky things, like, say, organizing municipal government) and decrease Israeli military actions. I suppose it's logical that you're not celebrating a likely decrease in Israeli military activity, as it reduces the number of dead Palestinian civilians (who, you conveniently forget to mention are usually being used as human shields by their own side) you can use to champion your own personal social justice / anti-evil-American-Empire crusade.

Quoting from the article:

In France, President Jacques Chirac said Mr Bush had set an "unfortunate and dangerous precedent", and flatly rejected any unilateral changes to the borders of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

...

German and Russian reaction was more muted, welcoming the withdrawal from Gaza while calling for a negotiated final settlement.





Germany and Russia have logical attitudes about this: the Israeli pullback, provided the Palestinians don't use it to increase their attacks on Israelis, is a good thing. Negotiation between the two parties will still be required to ultimately settle the situation, but the Palestinian Authority has demonstrated itself incapable of successfully preventing its citizens from attempting to obliterate another nation. Israel's right to self defense is thus exercised.


France's attitude is typically illogical and I'm tempted to wonder if it is Chirac, and not President Bush, who is pandering to extreemists within his own nation (one in which, I might add, Israel is reviled as a war-criminal state, but people who firebomb synagogues are not considered to have committed hate crimes).

This raises an interesting sidenote: When Chirac opposes a war that a majority of his citizens oppose, you praise him for listening to "the people." When President Bush supports a compromise and a United States ally that an overwhelming majority of US citizens oppose, he's a stupid evil dictator.

Let's go over the checklist of things you seem to want vs. what this deal provides:

(1) Israeli troops are pulling back. - Check
(2) Settlements are being dismantled (not all, but it's a very good start) - Check
(3) Palestinians have increased control over "their" lands - Check
(4) The United Nations successfully mediates a major conflict for the first time in its history - Ok, here, well, I suppose we'll have to keep trying.
(5) Israel is wiped from the face of the Earth - ah... this isn't happening. I see the problem with the plan.

I leave you with a few quotes quotes, ideas which have helped to illustrate and shape President Bush's policy for winning the war and doing the right thing :
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."--John F. Kennedy (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html), Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961

When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt


The United States remains the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation. America is no stronger than its people - and that means you and me. Well, I believe in you, and I believe that if we work together then one day we will say, ``We fought the good fight. We finished the race We kept the faith.'' And to our children and our children's children we can say, ``We did all that could be done in the brief time that was given to us here on earth
--Ronald Reagan


America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom. - George W. Bush


For further commentary, please read my signature.

[littlegreencube]

Free McMeals for everyone!


"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire."

HEH.

[Soulblighter]

I have noticed the people defending the Bush administration are getting more quiet as time goes on, wonders why.

there is no point in pandering to a liberal board that has members that:

1. can not vote due to their age (more than likely they are simply vomiting out the garbage that they hear at home)
2. can not vote due to the fact they are not citizens of the united states

there is no point in arguing/debating, because even if i change their opinions, they can not do anything of importance to sway the vote one way or another, come election day. frankly i am still a believer in the silent majority of a time long ago, despite the fact that it unfortunately has become the minority.

although i respect dmille's constant effort to defend his party... often times all his efforts fall on deaf ears who are so against bush, that no matter what the man does, it will not change anything.

as of right now, i can honestly say i have no idea who i will vote for come election day. i am rather disgusted at both parties due to the insane amount of negative ads that are appearing everywhere.

[Capella]

Nice long rant dmille.

To be short an to the point, the Yahoo story was about Bush asking for the Iraq invasion plan to be updated and then he didn't tell anyone on his own staff for fear of leaks and the policitcal fallout.

And then that little piece on his breaking his word about giving Sadam 48 hours to leave Iraq then launching an attack before the deadline. Any means to an end.

Please don't focus on the obvious to deflect attention from the real issues. That is a standard political ploy.

c

PS: I do not think you are by yourself here.

soul - What is the pooint of GD if you can't disuss points that people wish to discuss? If no one whats to discuss something then the thread will just slide to page 2 w/o any replies.

Also the youth will grow older and vote, a lot of advertising is aimed at future voters. For the international group, they may or may not read all this, depending on thier interest.

[bluevorlon]

Settlements are being dismantled (not all, but it's a very good start) - Check

Problem is Dmille, that the deal precludes the settlements in the West Bank becoming permanent. With Sharon stating they "will be there to the end of time" or somesuch. By making this appear a withdrawl from the much less desirable Gaza strip, Bush and Sharon have completely ignored the Roadmap by announcing permanent settlements allowing Israel a huge chunk of the hugely sought after West Bank.

My personal problem, (nothing to do with American domestic politics soul, this is a global problem concerning the international community as a whole, as a Brit my opinion is as valid as yours, shown by Blair flying to washington to try and beg Bush to for once, listen to him) is this blatant disregard for the Roadmap that was agreed upon by all parties sod the illogicality of the french, or the brits, or the americans, or the israelis or whatever. I don't see how Bush can endorse something that goes against a plan he (justly) took most of the credit for...

[Capella]

Are you saying Bush flip-flopped Blue? Horrors.

[Soulblighter]

Also the youth will grow older and vote, a lot of advertising is aimed at future voters.

and i weep every night because of this fact.

[charlesesl]

how about we not quote two-page posts in their entirety to make a five line response to it? - cj
Hello Moses:
Please put in more facts into your post. I read through most of it, and most of what you wrote is america is good and all other countires are evil. Everything their leader say is non-sense and you want to laugh at them. And please don't use quotes from past american presidents. The arerican interest remains the same regardless of which adminstration is in place.

[Capella]

Oh God why did you re-quote that entire tome.

[Moe]

Dmille, if you avoid sentence structures like "France's attitude is typically illogical" you would make it a lot easier for me to accept your point of view. I thought some of your points are valid ones, but the last paragraph just makes me want to post something negative. I could actually get on board with the first quotes. FDR's comment makes perfect sense, and even Reagan has a point there. Bushs comment, however, is just too cliche. I also find it a bit unfitting for him to be talking about "a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman".

[NovaBurn]

I'm just going to post to say bush has yet again put his foot in his mouth. I believe my signature speaks for itself

[Gyokuran]

From what I understand the main problem is that the Israelis proposed the plan, and the US backed it up without consulting with the Palastinians. The plan its self might actually be good, but we shouldnt be supporting it until both sides agree to it. I think it was president Reagan who started up our curent policy about dealing with the Palastinian/Israeli conflict, which is to try and remain neutral and act as a negotiator so they can more easilly come to an agreement that will hopefully help stop the conflict.

[ceejayoz]

"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him."
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Ah, shit!"
--Franklin D. Roosevelt, 7 December 1941.

[Genetic Bryy]

Everytime Bush speaks, I want to crush myself under something very heavy.

[Captain Pierce]

Bush already has won the war. Don't you remember? He told us so. And he was on an aircraft carrier, so he must have been telling the truth.

[/sarcasm]

[TacticalVirus]

The United States remains the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation. America is no stronger than its people - and that means you and me. Well, I believe in you, and I believe that if we work together then one day we will say, ``We fought the good fight. We finished the race We kept the faith.'' And to our children and our children's children we can say, ``We did all that could be done in the brief time that was given to us here on earth
--Ronald Reagan

For further commentary, please read my signature.


Why oh why did you have to use that quote? Amazingly, I even surprised myself by agreeing with DM, except for that quote. My issue with it is that it simply says "We're better than everyone else." I mean, in the first sentence, he slaps every non-american in the face. If I could I would whope Reagan's ass just for that single sentence.

I'm Canadian though, so I guess I'm an evil Soviet that should be fed to the dogs, Eh?

[Vijil]

I'm almost with DM on this one. The sheer amount of crap that Bush is getting, and which is severely biasing the opinions of the uninformed, has meant that to this day I have no opinion on him or his actions, as it is nearly impossible to see through all the crap.

As for the middle east, the fact that many Palestinian leaders have stated their main goal as the complete destruction of the Israeli state makes peace seem incredibly unlikely, now or any time in the forseeable future. Not to mention the fact that this is a religious conflict far more than it is a land based conflict:- removing the desire for conflict will require a rewrite of some of the fundamentals of the Islamic faith as they see it. Even if Israel competely pulls out of all "occupied territories" and declares peace with Palestine, the violence will not stop.

An intriguing side note:

The future of this conflict is known, however, as to date its all been rather accurately predicted by the Bible including the loss of the Jewish homeland yonks ago, anti semitism worldwide (climaxing in ww2), the subsequent reclaimation of the land in 1948 (also a rather interesting example of God using all things, even evil things, for good), the current situation being surrounded by enemies, the winning of all conflicts so far against rather amazing odds, and the fact that the middle east would pose a major problem for the world (hence threads such as this).

Biblically, the really big conflict in that area, perhaps after several more smaller ones, will be Armageddon. The prophet desribes scenes of "flesh rotting while people still stand" and weapons of extreme power. This could well describe nuclear war. Until after this conflict, there will be no peace in Israel.

[Starfisher]

There'll be peace alright. Forever. "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato

The war isn't about religion or land, it's about ingrained hatred on both sides. To fix the situation you would need to remove an entire generation from the violence, from birth. Then people will be able to grow up objectively instead of while being shot at and bombed. Good luck with that.

[Vijil]

The palestinians, judging by their actions, seem to have far greater hatred than the Israelis. And I would contend that the hatred is religious in origin.

[TacticalVirus]

It's a holy war, plain and simple, and has anyone ever stopped a holy war in our history? I believe not.

[Starfisher]

In origin? The hatred got started a hundred years ago when the zionist movement first began. I suppose you could call the original catalyst religious but right now it doesn't need irrational mumbo-jumbo to keep going. So long as people on both sides keep dying, it doesn't matter if their children believe that god is a whalechicken or a candy bar. The hate and killing will go on.

As for Bush's change of direction... so what? On the issue of the settlements that have been there for fifty years, all he did was acknowledge reality. They've been there long enough that moving their inhabitants will just piss off a bunch of fanatic Jews. Before Isreal came into being there were plenty of Jewish terrorists - ideology has little to do with the tactic.

On the right of return... I believe there was a poll taken a year or so ago of the descendants of those exiled during the formation of Isreal. While nearly all said that the right of return was essential to the peace process, most said they would not take up the offer if it existed. I mean come on. Do you really think these people who have never set foot in the land they purport to want to return to are going to just pick up and leave their established lives wherever, waltz into a situation they know is hostile and then democratically subvert Isreal?

[dmille]

It's a holy war, plain and simple, and has anyone ever stopped a holy war in our history? I believe not.Well, the Crusades are over. Those were a quasi-religious war. That's only because the Europeans found some Native Americans to kill instead, though.

I'll reply more to the Israel-Palestine stuff later.


Why oh why did you have to use that quote? Amazingly, I even surprised myself by agreeing with DM, except for that quote. My issue with it is that it simply says "We're better than everyone else." I mean, in the first sentence, he slaps every non-american in the face. If I could I would whope Reagan's ass just for that single sentence.

I'm Canadian though, so I guess I'm an evil Soviet that should be fed to the dogs, Eh?I agree that there are other wonderful, productive nations out there, and Reagan did too. The quote isn't anti-other nations so much as an assessment of the fact that when force or a massive influx of money is needed (say, to rebuild Europe after World War II) it's the United States (and her allies) responsible. It's a topic for another time, but I certainly don't believe the US is the only great nation on the planet (perhaps I'll start a thread on constitutional re-unification).

PS: I like Canada and Canadians.



Everytime Bush speaks, I want to crush myself under something very heavy.Will a 2004 election victory convince you to do so?

I remind everyone of the attempted talks after both the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars:
Israel: We'll return your land (and it was Egypt, Syria, and Jordan's land... they were all pretty busy butchering "Palestinians" themselves) in return for recognition and lasting peace.

Arab nations: Die Jews!

On one final note, the name of one of the "settlements" most Palestinians want removed: Tel Aviv.

[Vijil]

The hatred started in 375 AD or whenever Muhammed first showed up, perhaps earlier. The Zionist movement was when the Jews decided they wanted their ancestral homeland back (which had been forcibly removed from them on religious grounds) rather than being spread all over the world. They got their wish in 1948, being given land that was at the time largely unused. Of course, now the descendants of the same people who originally kicked them out want to kick them out again.

Note also that the Zionist movement is religious in origin. The prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures said that they would get their homeland back again, and so they made it happen.

As for Jewish terrorists, do give some examples of Jews violently attacking innocent people in the name of the Zionist movement or otherwise inflicting terror, and we will compare them with the current forms of terrorism running around.

[dmille]

Vijil, there are examples (though, from what my grandfather told me, that had stopped by the time he got to Israel from Germany in 1949/50). The attacks weren't targeted at women and children, but they're still regretable and shameful.

edit: Until the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols (and perhaps beyond), Jews lived peacefully, for the most part, in Arab nations despite being denied nearly all rights (the common populace didn't have many either). Certainly better, at times, than they did in European nations. Now it's sometimes hard to tell who hates Jews more.

[SquidDNA]

Milly, Sadat accepted the deal. Of course, he was assasinated for it, but much of Egypt agreed with his decision.

[Vijil]

anti semitism is still totally rife in both western and eastern society, even though we dont like to mention it. I find it amazingly difficult to believe that people could be so irrational as to support palestine in this conflict.

[dmille]

Squid: The Camp David accords and Sadat's willingness to talk peace with Israel were in 1978/1979, not 1967 or 1973. The primary agitator behind the 1967 war was, of course, [Egyptian President] Nasser, Sadat's predecessor.

[Captain Pierce]

I'm reminded of a joke I just saw Jon Stewart do on some bad Comedy Central special on the 100 greatest comedians or something... he was talking about how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all started to close to each other that Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed went to the same high school... ;)

The other thing I'm reminded of is that article on the Onion shortly after 9/11, that purported to be an interview with God Himself... the practical upshot of which was him saying "How much simpler could I have made it than 'Thou shalt not kill?' It's four words of one syllable each--it's not that tough to understand."

[dmille]

The current year on the Jewish calendar is 5764, I believe. So, give or take 3700 years, I suppose. :-p

I saw the Onion article. Amusing.

[Chimera]

I am underinformed about this conflict. But could somebody please tell me what is stopping the palestinians from going into the Isralei cities and living normal lives? Are they not being allowed to practice their religion or is it something else?

[Vijil]

Side note: Two Israeli Mossad secret agents were just arrested in Auckland here in NZ trying to obtain false New Zealand passports. Just saw that on todays paper...

surprising.

Chimera: there is too great a risk of suicide bombers and extremists being let in with them.

[dmille]

I am underinformed about this conflict. But could somebody please tell me what is stopping the palestinians from going into the Isralei cities and living normal lives? Are they not being allowed to practice their religion or is it something else?
There are quite a number of Israeli Arabs. Some serve in the Kenesset (Israel's Parliament) and many others (non-Muslim ones, for the most part) form some of the most aggressive units of Israel's military.

[TacticalVirus]

The quote isn't anti-other nations so much as an assessment of the fact that when force or a massive influx of money is needed (say, to rebuild Europe after World War II) it's the United States (and her allies) responsible.

Umm, need I remind you the US bankrolled the Nazis just before WW2 broke out?

[SquidDNA]

While there have been demonstrated connections (transactions) between corporations in the US and the Nazi regime, I'd hardly say it was the United States bankrolling the Nazis. Are you talking about something else?

[dmille]

He might be talking about the US companies that did business with Nazi Germany. That, however, was not the source of the Nazi war machine.

edit: Squid said that.

[punkz]

Vijil, I am very interested in your response to this website

http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/jewsfjustice.cfm

- Mac_Bug

[Gyokuran]

I find it amazingly difficult to believe that people could be so irrational as to support palestine in this conflict.

I find it irrational for anyone to support either side of the conflict, as both sides continue to agravate it. Both sides continue to seek revenge for things done to them out of revenge.

[General Nuke Em]

Two Israeli Mossad secret agents were just arrested in Auckland here in NZ trying to obtain false New Zealand passports. Just saw that on todays paper

Yep, those damned Israeli spies everywhere, all countries except for the evil Americans and their Israeli puppets are honorable enough not to use slinking spies against their "allies".

FYI - everybody spies on everybody else. Live with it.

[meafyTFLord]

As for Bush's change of direction... so what? On the issue of the settlements that have been there for fifty years, all he did was acknowledge reality. They've been there long enough that moving their inhabitants will just piss off a bunch of fanatic Jews. Before Isreal came into being there were plenty of Jewish terrorists - ideology has little to do with the tactic.

So what if they have been there for fifty years the Israeli’s are stealing the land. Dam right they should be removed


Well, the Crusades are over. Those were a quasi-religious war. That's only because the Europeans found some Native Americans to kill instead, though.

the majority of the Native American population was killed by the USA not the Europeans nations


The hatred started in 375 AD or whenever Muhammed first showed up, perhaps earlier. The Zionist movement was when the Jews decided they wanted their ancestral homeland back (which had been forcibly removed from them on religious grounds) rather than being spread all over the world. They got their wish in 1948, being given land that was at the time largely unused. Of course, now the descendants of the same people who originally kicked them out want to kick them out again.

That is complete crap, people lived in that land so how was it “largely not used”. A leader of the newly formed Zionist council at the turn of the century proposed that a Jewish state be created in either Palestine or Argentina, It was a choice of practically. (I can’t find the link)

Bold from what i have been reading this isn't particularly true either

link (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinian_territories/history.htm)


As for Jewish terrorists, do give some examples of Jews violently attacking innocent people in the name of the Zionist movement or otherwise inflicting terror, and we will compare them with the current forms of terrorism running around.

The Jewish terror campaign against the British prior to the formation of Israel, but as Dmille pointed out that was the last. (unless you count the Israeli’s killing their own prime Minster because he actually wanted peace)


anti semitism is still totally rife in both western and eastern society, even though we dont like to mention it. I find it amazingly difficult to believe that people could be so irrational as to support palestine in this conflict.

I support the right for the Palestinians to have their own homeland (does that sound familiar?); I do not support the Palestinian terror groups, or condone what they do. Israel has occupied and stolen Palestinian land (by land I mean the west bank and gaza). They have no right to that land; Dmille has pointed out that America has no desire for empire or colonies (which I agree with) can the same be said of Israel?

And please do not mix up anti-Semitism with criticism of the Israeli government policy over the occupied territories. I am not anti-Semitic.


My initial question was not only aimed at the war in Iraq but also the “war on terror” surely the US government must know that such a change in direction without consulting the Palestinians would be met with outright hostility. This has simply played right into the hands of the terror groups. I have read numerous times how some people in the US don’t understand why there is so much hatred aimed towards the USA from around the world, with actions like this I don’t know why.

oh and i am not an anti-US european either i actually agree with the UK-US alliance just not with american policy on this issue

[Starfisher]

meafy. The entire conflict started when the original Zionists came in, started buying land and evicting the peasants that lived there. Your solution to this problem is to evict people from the land that their great grandfather's bought. Do you not see the problem here? You forcibly remove anyone from what they perceive as home and you create a big swell of anger and hatred.

Vijil: Give me a few days to get to the library. There are a few very good, unbiased looks at the origins of the conflict that you should read if you are interested. There were many Jewish terror attacks during the early days of the zionist movement, and many were just as heinous as the ones the palestinians are pulling today. The only reason you no longer see Jewish terror is because they got what they want, and now they have an army.

Also, to say the hatred started with the founding of Islam is ignorant. Before the late 1800s early 1900s when the actual migration of Jews began, there were plenty of Palestinian Jews living and working in the area now known as Isreal. There was little if any hatred and killing.

Hell, for a while when the zionists first started showing up the palestinian Arabs actually welcomed them. They brought jobs and an influx of money to the region. Things went downhill when Jewish companies started discriminating in favor of incoming Jews, and when the Zionist movement began buying the land of wealthy Arabs who didn't care about the peasants who lived on it.

There's not enough room here to do the thing justice. I'll try to post those books later today - they're long and somewhat dry but they do a much better job than I of showing how the whole thing is mostly a cultural conflict that now only needs a show of ideological motivation to continue burning.

Just a footnote: When it comes to 'supporting' a side, I can't really support either. If this were 1910, I'd support the Palestinians as they were getting displaced and were unable to do much about it. Now? I can't support a people who have institutionalized hatred to such a degree. Isreal I can't stand because of its insistance that it has the moral high ground. Bleh.

[meafyTFLord]

meafy. The entire conflict started when the original Zionists came in, started buying land and evicting the peasants that lived there. Your solution to this problem is to evict people from the land that their great grandfather's bought. Do you not see the problem here? You forcibly remove anyone from what they perceive as home and you create a big swell of anger and hatred.

Sorry i should have explained myself better. When i say land i am refaring to the West bank and the gaza strip, the territories occupied in the 1967 war. I agree that Isreal can not be wiped out and i do not agree with people who propose this course of action; But the settlements in the occupied territories are wrong that isn't Israeli land.

[dmille]

So what if they have been there for fifty years the Israeli’s are stealing the land. Dam right they should be removedThe Israelis, in both 1967 and 1973 didn't want the land. Didn't want to be on the land. Wanted to trade the land for recognition and peace. The Arabs rebuffed this offer time and time again. What was Israel supposed to do with the land but hang onto it and hope to be able to trade it for true peace later? How else do you secure the land for that purpose and convince the Arabs that time, when it comes to peace, is of the essence but by putting people on it? I don't support Israeli settlement efforts, but I think it's important to remember that these were never Palestinian lands. They were under the control of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, countries which have all killed more "Palestinians" than Israel has. Jordan forcibly removed PLO offices from its country (in a rather bloody manner) and only re-admitted them when Arab league and popular pressure to support what had turned into an Israel-destruction movement became intense.



the majority of the Native American population was killed by the USA not the Europeans nationsReally? I might have missed all of the bits about the USA decimating the Aztecs and the other peoples of South America (who are, too, Native Americans) in my history courses, but I doubt it. Cortez wasn't flying the US flag. Nor, for that matter, were either French or British soldiers (and their colonial allies, who were not yet citizens of the US) during the Seven Years War. We certainly did our part, but the European nations are just as blameworthy. Especially in South America.



Argentenia was offered as an attempted half-measure. As was the proposal of a state within the United States. The Nazis originally wanted to deport the world's Jews to Madagasgar. The Jewish choice was Israel.
The Jewish terror campaign against the British prior to the formation of Israel, but as Dmille pointed out that was the last. (unless you count the Israeli’s killing their own prime Minster because he actually wanted peace)

[quote]I support the right for the Palestinians to have their own homeland (does that sound familiar?)Technically speaking, this nation is called "Jordan." At this point, however, I'm willing to agree that a separate Palestinian nation should be formed, provided it doesn't demonstrate the level of corrupt and incompetent government of other members of the Arab League.

Israel has occupied and stolen Palestinian land (by land I mean the west bank and gaza).I again point you to the circumstances under which these lands were "stolen." Israel, invaded and fighting for its life pushed attacking armies back and captured lands of aggressor nations. Were they supposed to hand it back and say "please don't try to hurt us again" to virulently anti-Semetic Arab states? They offered to return the land in return for peace and recognition; and were attacked again six years later. They followed this war with the same offer and were again rebuffed. Jordan and Egypt only ceeded the lands (lands they no longer controlled) to "the Palestinians" after the lands were under Israeli control so as to be able to use the "Palestinian" population to regain the lands and accomplish what they failed to do in four wars.


They have no right to that landUnder the circumstances, that's debatable. I think it's fair to say that they won't want the land if they can be assured that giving it up allows Israel to survive in peace; but every reasonable offer has been rebuffed.


can the same be said of Israel?Under the above explanation, yes, I think it can.
I illustrate the above with a size comparison map to demonstrate just how big a land-grabbing, Arab-hating menace it is you all enjoy bashing so much:
http://www.iris.org.il/images/arabwld3.gif
Could you find Israel if it wasn't in blue or labeled?


I am not anti-Semitic.Perhaps not, but a good number of Europeans (and an overwhelming number of Arabs) are. It's not exactly the type of attitude that makes us (Jews) feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

The US is seizing an opportunity to move the peace process ahead. If the Palestinians are consulted, who do you talk to? Arafat? We've declared him a terrorist, for legitimate reasons, and won't talk to him. A Prime Minister with no power? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Given the two options Israel has, pulling back to try to achieve peace or imposing peace on the Palestinians themselves, I think you, I, Israel, and everyone else with some degree of sensibility, prefers this option.

What other policy is there? The "road map" is stalling - the Palestinians are going through Prime Ministers at a rate only exceeded by that at which they're going through suicide bombers. Why not try something unconventional that cannot actually damage the situation on the ground (though it might very well result in more dead Israelis)?

I remind you, furthermore, that it's now UK policy on the issue too. Britain was apparently consulted before the Bush-Sharon press conference.



Hell, for a while when the zionists first started showing up the palestinian Arabs actually welcomed them. They brought jobs and an influx of money to the region. Things went downhill when Jewish companies started discriminating in favor of incoming Jews, and when the Zionist movement began buying the land of wealthy Arabs who didn't care about the peasants who lived on it.
If you don't count a major Muslim religious official in Jerusalem during World War II hanging out with every Jew's favorite person, Adolf Hitler, then yes, I suppose things started going downhill only then. :rolleyes:

[Dimension]

dmille, while the arab world is pretty large overall, this is not something that will matter much to palestinians claiming the land they have lived on for a long time. its like saying "hey, I'll take this land you lived on for a long time. don't hate me tho, because you can always move to sudan, there's plenty of space there!"

even if israel did aquire their land justfully, this mentality doesn't quite fit right with me.

[Moe]

This thread is a hot candidate for the omnislash 2004 award.

Nuke em, think about what you said there. "Everyone spies, live with it". Well, about 65 years ago everybody in Germany thought Jews should be gassed. What if people had said "Tough shit, live with it"?

[dmille]

That's not at all on the same level.
Spying is an internationally recognized institution practiced by every nation (and the Vatican). The United Nations in New York, for instance, is acknowledged to be crawling with spies. Intelligence services operate out of every embassy in the world. I'm not sure how you draw a parallel between that and gassing Jews.

[meafyTFLord]

If you don't want to get into a political debate on this issue don't open the spoiler (dmille a reply to your post is in the spolier)


The Arabs rebuffed this offer time and time again. What was Israel supposed to do with the land but hang onto it and hope to be able to trade it for true peace later? How else do you secure the land for that purpose and convince the Arabs that time, when it comes to peace, is of the essence but by putting people on it? I don't support Israeli settlement efforts, but I think it's important to remember that these were never Palestinian lands. They were under the control of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, countries which have all killed more "Palestinians" than Israel has

I would disagree that they where never Palestinian lands since the Palestinians lived on them, and the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian control only came after the creation of Israel not prior to its creation.


Really? I might have missed all of the bits about the USA decimating the Aztecs and the other peoples of South America (who are, too, Native Americans) in my history courses, but I doubt it. Cortez wasn't flying the US flag. Nor, for that matter, were either French or British soldiers (and their colonial allies, who were not yet citizens of the US) during the Seven Years War. We certainly did our part, but the European nations are just as blameworthy. Especially in South America.

I didn’t take south America into account, but you are correct about that.


I again point you to the circumstances under which these lands were "stolen." Israel, invaded and fighting for its life pushed attacking armies back and captured lands of aggressor nations. Were they supposed to hand it back and say "please don't try to hurt us again" to virulently anti-Semetic Arab states?

By saying “stealing” I don’t mean occupying. They are actively building settlements on Palestinian land and moving Israeli citizens to live in them. This is not occupying a land for national security, what they are doing is colonialism. The British did the same when it moved British citizens to the US, Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand to name but a few.


Under the circumstances, that's debatable. I think it's fair to say that they won't want the land if they can be assured that giving it up allows Israel to survive in peace; but every reasonable offer has been rebuffed.

Does the US and UK have the right to remain in Iraq indefinitely because they deem it necessary for the security of both nations? If your answer is no then what you have said above doesn’t make sense. If your answer is yes then you are agreeing to a Neo-colonial US foreign policy (but the above statement does make sense :) )


Under the above explanation, yes, I think it can.
I illustrate the above with a size comparison map to demonstrate just how big a land-grabbing, Arab-hating menace it is you all enjoy bashing so much

To be a colonial nation does not require a large amount of land, remember the first UK colonial city was Belfast.


If the Palestinians are consulted, who do you talk to? Arafat? We've declared him a terrorist, for legitimate reasons, and won't talk to him.

Yet the US would speak to and support Jerry Adams? hmmm

I remind you, furthermore, that it's now UK policy on the issue too. Britain was apparently consulted before the Bush-Sharon press conference.

I am assuming that that wasn’t the case. I don’t believe the UK was consulted or that Blair is completely happy with this (from pervious speeches) but what can he do? I would love for him to come out all guns blazing, will this happen no. If he did I wonder what Bush would say hmmmm something along the lines “we really don’t care”

[Bonnet]

I have only one thing to say right now to this thread, and it's a quote from mac bug on irc
"[13:09] <mac_bug> I think blowing up buses is fantastic
[13:09] <mac_bug> cause it slows israeli aggression"
and no that not drawen out of context horribly.

Basically, I can't make a sensible argument with someone like this. After arguing for hourse, thats what it comes down to, and I simply canot under stand how someone born and raised in a household who teaches anything nearing the philosphies of any culture on this planet can think that.

[dmille]

I could get used to posting via spoiler tags... it would make posts considerably easier to read. Reply enclosed.
Convention adopted:



I would disagree that they where never Palestinian lands since the Palestinians lived on them, and the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian control only came after the creation of Israel not prior to its creation.While Gaza, for instance, was part of the British mandate for Palestine, Egypt had effective control before 1949 and the land passed to Egypt officially when the Arabs rejected land deals in 1948. That they become Egyptian land officially around the same time Israel was founded seems immaterial; they were never officially Palestinian land. Hopefully they will be someday, but that has yet to be the case.


By saying “stealing” I don’t mean occupying. They are actively building settlements on Palestinian land and moving Israeli citizens to live in them. This is not occupying a land for national security, what they are doing is colonialism. The British did the same when it moved British citizens to the US, Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand to name but a few.
I'm rather glad the British colonized the Americas, actually. Settlement activity, from the Israeli tactical point of view, makes perfect sense. What better message than moving its own citizens onto the land is there to signify that the clock is ticking on peace and that they will not wait around for one of any number of wars to actually be sucessful in wiping them out?



Does the US and UK have the right to remain in Iraq indefinitely because they deem it necessary for the security of both nations?I hope it's unnecessary, but if it does prove necessary, I would approve of permanent basing there (hopefully, then, we can get out of Saudi Arabia). The US has had troops stationed in Germany, the United Kingdom, and a multitude of other nations for more than half a century. I certainly wouldn't mind pulling US troops out of Germany, but I harbor nearly no goodwill whatsoever towards that nation.



To be a colonial nation does not require a large amount of land, remember the first UK colonial city was Belfast.I suppose. One, then, could then accuse Egypt, Jordan, and Syria of being colonial nations, as they've displaced large elements of their "native Palestinian" populations into refugee camps to increase the pressure on Israel and increase the likelyhood of Arab expansion into (what they hope to be formerly) Israeli towns.



Yet the US would speak to and support Jerry Adams? hmmm
It's not exactly my favorite part of US foreign policy either. It'll only increase, however, if John Kerry is elected. Look at where he's from / his supporters.


I am assuming that that wasn’t the case. I don’t believe the UK was consulted or that Blair is completely happy with this (from pervious speeches) but what can he do? I would love for him to come out all guns blazing, will this happen no. If he did I wonder what Bush would say hmmmm something along the lines “we really don’t care”Blair doesn't seem to love the idea, as he'd prefer an agreement between the two sides but, from his quotes, I get the idea that he's willing to pursue this as Israeli withdrawal is signifigant progress. Unlike many other foreign leaders (or Kofi Annan), Prime Minister Blair is watching the big picture.

Mac's quote explains his views (and him personally) quite well. I have nothing to add.

[punkz]

No.

[SquidDNA]

Hi, this is neither an archive for IRC logs nor a omnislash fest.

Stop abusing the quote function and instead communicate your argument without going point by point by point.

[punkz]

srys in the interest of fairness I have quoted the entire irc log lest zbobet accuse me of editing them. I am not making any assertions about what the context is, only an invitation for others to find that out themselves.

http://www.soulix.com/jianfu/stuff/irclog.txt

[dmille]

Ever heard of posting a text file and linking?

[ionfish]

This thread... well. Where do I start? Spamming, omnislashing, the usual political posturing, no constructive debate.

Next time you lot do your politix thing, try to do it in a spirit of relative sanity.

Locked.