15 Apr 04
4 edits
An new important change in the US handling of the Israel/Palestine conflict was revealed during the Sharon visit to Washington:
The Israelis will withdraw from the Gaza strip and , "in the light of new developments" (Bush), the US will allow Israel to keep certain settlements on the West Bank and there will be no return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel. They can return, if they want, to the future state of Palestine.
Why this change in the US foreign policy ? Do you think it will bring us closer to a lasting peace in the Middle East ? Does Bush want to be sure of the Jewish voters in this election year ? What do you think ? In any case the Palestinian leader Arafat is furious ...
.
15 Apr 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeHey Joe,
An new important change in the US handling of the Israel/Palestine conflict was revealed during the Sharon visit to Washington:
The Israelis will withdraw from the Gaza strip and , "in the light of new developments" (Bush), the US wil ...[text shortened]... nk ? In any case the Palestinian leader Arafat is furious ...
.
Absolutely not closer to a peace of any kind. It is the (Bush) acknowledgement that you can't compromise with terror. I don't know why Bush changed his mind, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the last couple of weeks dealing with urban terror and what Israel faces daily. Bush has to be eating his heart out every time one of our soldiers is killed.
Can we then say to Israel that they can't defend themselves in any way they can? I think he has just realized that when you deal with unreasonable killers... politics and reality must be divorced and left in their apartment... maybe to be revisited, but certainly to be ignored for now.
Mike
15 Apr 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeTo answer this, one has to understand the situation.
An new important change in the US handling of the Israel/Palestine conflict was revealed during the Sharon visit to Washington:
The Israelis will withdraw from the Gaza strip and , "in the light of new developments" (Bush), the US will allow Israel to keep certain settlements on the West Bank and there will be no return of the Palestinian refugees to I ...[text shortened]... election year ? What do you think ? In any case the Palestian leader Arafat is furious ...
.
I'm going to use the US as the example, because they're so deep in it, but it could just as well be Britain (who offered the idea to the UN) or Russia (who were expected to abstain, but didn't).
Imagine, if you will, America. Not the whole of America, the USofA.
And the French.
Imagine the french being persecuted in Europe for being French. Millions of them die and eventually the UN decides that the French should have safe residence. But where?
Two options are put forward by (Britain) a country: "Gambia (This was seriously the British alternative to Palestine) or the US."
The UN chooses the US.
This is because the French were there before the Americans and anyway, they helped the Americans kick the English out.
The whole world feels the French should be allowed to have a safe country in the US.
In the course of a few years the French out-number the Americans in certain States, with a majority of US citizens now residing in Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas and Florida.
Canada and Mexico find this unfair towards the Americans and start a war against the French.
The world feels sorry for the French, especially Angola (which is a very rich African country) and Angola supplies the French with all the weapons they need. There is no way the Mexicans and Canadians can win against such power. They lose.
The French decide to take Alabama. All Americans in Alabama are forced into refugee camps in Nevada and Arkansas.
This because Alabama has very good water supplies and is needed to protect various States in the surrounding areas from insurgents.
Over the course of the coming years the French offer asylum to every French citizen throughout the whole world. So the French start flocking in from Montreal, Zaire, Australia, but especially Angola.
There's not enough room in the US for all these new French people so they start making settlements in Nevada and Arkansas.
The US citizens don't like it. They protest against it.
The settelements are protected by the French army with tanks and helicopters.
The americans have only guns and such. Mexico tries to supply them as best they can, but the borders are closed.
How would the average American feel? How about this offer:
Americans can get Nevada, Arkansas and Florida and south Alabama.
Not even the whole of Alabama, but south Alabama.
Would the americans accept such an offer?
So a deal is struck. The Americans get N, A, F and south Alabama. They get their own country, split over various regions, but not Washington DC. Their capitol has to be somewhere else and the settlements in the States they are living in have every right to stay there.
Would the americans accept this?
Now the up and coming French leader of 'new France' comes to Arkansas and strolls around the American churches. Smiling and pointing, fat and over-fed.
How would the Americans feel about that?
The new plan by the French is to give Nevada, parts of Arkansas, Alabama and Florida back to the Americans, but 6 settlements in Florida remain under French control.
And as an after thought. Imagine Miama being the centre to which hundreds of thousands of Americans have fled, after their land has been anexxed by the French. And each of these settlements in Florida has more water than the whole american region together...
This is the situation. This is why the Palestinians are pissed off.
The ultimate solution is one state where the Palestinians and the Israeli's can live together in harmony.
Alas, there is a higher chance of me waking up without a hangover tomorrow than that ever happening.
15 Apr 04
Originally posted by shavixmirHey Rat,
To answer this, one has to understand the situation.
I'm going to use the US as the example, because they're so deep in it, but it could just as well be Britain (who offered the idea to the UN) or Russia (who were expected to abstain, but didn't).
Imagine, if you will, America. Not the whole of America, the USofA.
And the French.
Imagine the ...[text shortened]... there is a higher chance of me waking up without a hangover tomorrow than that ever happening.
I alternated between laugh and cough.
You don't have the problem of mixing apples and oranges. You have mixed apples and sheep.
By the way... I hope you read this crap when sober and ask yourself again if dope makes you smarter, or stupider.
The french are not welcome here. We will sell utah or nevada to the jews. They can afford it. But the french have never paid for anything. To hell with them.
Seriously. I am at a loss for words. I guess all I can say is thank god I am not an apple ... or a sheep. Food and sex being the biggest needs of humanity.
15 Apr 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Hey Joe,
Absolutely not closer to a peace of any kind. It is the (Bush) acknowledgement that you can't compromise with terror. I don't know why Bush changed his mind, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the last couple of weeks dealing with urban terror and what Israel faces daily. Bush has to be eating his heart out every time one of our soldie ...[text shortened]... d left in their apartment... maybe to be revisited, but certainly to be ignored for now.
Mike
Hey Mike,
What I'm asking myself is what brought about the weakening of the Palestinian/Arab side in the diplomatic negotiation process. Has it got something to do with the recent developments in Iraq ? There is an awful lot going on at the moment. Of course what's most visible is the battlefield action, then the Bush visit to Egypt, the Sharon visit to Washington and his proposals backed up by the US. Furthermore the hostage taking which is in my opinion a certain sign that there is a lot of relevant diplomatic negotiations going on. Certain factions want to put pressure on their counterparts. There is more: The Bin Laden "truce" proposal that can better be understood as a genuine threat in the direction of the European countries. Even Iran has been asked to play a part in this process as an intermediate between the Iraqi Sjiites and Japan ! The Russians are pulling out. It's amazing what is going on.
I hope something good will come out of it .......
.
15 Apr 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs there a weakening of the Palistinian position? I don't think so because they have never been a real "power player". I have watched the PLO and other organizations shoot themselves in the foot since I did my freshman english argument paper about it in 1969. The argument then was whether they were doing themselves harm or good in hijacking airliners.
Hey Mike,
What I'm asking myself is what brought about the weakening of the Palestinian/Arab side in the diplomatic negotiation process. Has it got something to do with the recent developments in Iraq ? There is an awful lot going o ...[text shortened]... going on.
I hope something good will come out of it .......
.
The argument has escolated... the mayhem has escolated, but the question remains. Do they increase or decrease their chance for autonomy with each act of terror? I don't see it as debatable. They decrease their chance of reaching their goal at each punt.
Then... one must ask... "Are they rational"? to continue with terror as method?
No.
The Brotherhood move to separtate the US from Europe was began on 311. The kidnappings of all "non-iraqi's" and further efforts are proof that it is a coherent policy. As was the here-to-fore unseen urban attacks in Fallujia etc. It is being well orchestrated. Will it succeed in separating the US from Europe? Probably. Will it help the murderous bastards when the nukes start falling in ten years? No. Can you spell "Extinction"?
15 Apr 04
2 edits
SVW: "Will it succeed in separating the US from Europe? Probably."
C'mon SVW, you've got to have more confidence in your European allies. Of course there will be a lot of discussions between the US and Europe about how to address the problems concerning the War on Terror. It will be a very bumpy ride, no doubt about it. But in the end they will stick together. Why ? Because it is in the best interests of all the nations involved.
Remember the huge differences during WW II between the UK , the US and the French in the question of whom to support: the "Free French" led by General de Gaulle or the Vichy regime. De Gaulle was not an easy going person. At one point Churchill ordered everyone in diplomatic London to ignore General de Gaulle for one whole week, because De Gaulle had insulted the English. As a reaction to that De Gaulle fired all his English personnel, including the cleaning ladies ...... looool ....
.
15 Apr 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI hope so Joe. I am the worlds first and biggest pessimist. I really took the Spanish vote personally. I guess you are right. We need to see how it all shakes out. I just hope we can hold up for the next few hundred years in this fight with the dark side. I don't have any interest in my grand children, and their children... wearing the burkka and bobbing their heads up and down all day, every day... as they recite their scriptures to Allah.
SVW: "Will it succeed in separating the US from Europe? Probably."
C'mon SVW, you've got to have more confidence in your European allies. Of course there will be a lot of discussions between the US and Europe about how to address the ...[text shortened]... Because it is in the best interests of all the nations involved.
21 Apr 04
Like they say: if you understand the Middle East situation, you are misinformed.
Who was there first, and so has claim to the land? Both arabs and jews wer, they are cousins after all! (Israel and Ishmael, both sons of Abraham, if you have forgotten.)
If we can't solve the whole problem, how about solving just one: why should Israel give back the West Bank which it won by right of conquest in a war of self-defence? In that case, the US should give the West back to the American Indians.
Seriously, can somebody explain to me the logic of me hitting you with a stick, and then when you retaliate and thrash me, ask indignantly to have my stick back??
26 Apr 04
Originally posted by anatmanThe territory you conquer might make your country easier to defend (eg the Golan Heights for Israel). Also, you can see the territory taken as reparations for starting the war in the first place. There aren't really any rules or 'rights' as far as peace treaties concerned; if you beat your enemy badly enough you can get them to agree to anything you like.
Now there's a bit of a paradoxical phrase: "which it won by right of conquest in a war of self-defence"...how is it possible to conquer new territories in self defense?
26 Apr 04
Originally posted by shavixmir
To answer this, one has to understand the situation.
I'm going to use the US as the example, because they're so deep in it, but it could just as well be Britain (who offered the idea to the UN) or Russia (who were expected to abstain, but didn't).
Imagine, if you will, America. Not the whole of America, the USofA.
And the French.
Imagine the ...[text shortened]... there is a higher chance of me waking up without a hangover tomorrow than that ever happening.
surely this example would be bettter considered as the irish.
persecuted by the english, with a huge born-in-a-different-country-but-i-am-still-irish population around the globe following their born-in-ireland brethren to the new haven.
26 Apr 04
Originally posted by AcolyteThe Golan heights is about water.
The territory you conquer might make your country easier to defend (eg the Golan Heights for Israel). Also, you can see the territory taken as reparations for starting the war in the first place. There aren't really any rules or 'rights' as far as peace treaties concerned; if you beat your enemy badly enough you can get them to agree to anything you like.
It's no tactical advantage. Well, it might have been in 1937 or so, before radar, but since 1941 (I believe this is the year the British invented it all), the Golan hights serve no tactical purpose.
On a side note on the Golan heights, I have hung by my finger tips on a cliff inside a valley in the G. heights...and I have vertigo.
And no, I won't be doing that again!