11 Aug 06
Originally posted by jammerThat pretty much sums up why everyone else disagrees with you. It the world were instead, say, a cràp film starring Jean Claude Van Dam or Arnie, then you'd definitely be onto something.
..............................................................................................
"Anyone who doesn't accept the state of the world today is a whining liberal for you?"
..............................................................................................
Never used the word "liberal" at all did I?
Never said "accept the STATE of ...[text shortened]... ough perplexed I feel it necessary to confront evil whether anyone agrees or not.
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by jammerJammer....my apologies for posting a reply 3 months late, but that was a very interesting thread... I don't live in Calif. I'm way up north, but I'd really be interestied in how you would apply your philosophy:
"We" don't.
Who decided where you get to live?
Not tricky at all .. you decide where you live .. I decide where I live.
Quote:
Who decided where you get to live?
Not tricky at all .. you decide where you live .. I decide where I live..
Unquote
to the situation in California re illegal immigration from the South.. It seems quite possible that the end result may be "Aztlan" or the annexation of the Southwest US to Mexico, if not legally, then at least de-facto...
Does this fit with your "live where you want to live" philosophy? Does your philosophy advocate the elimination of the border between Mexico and the US?
04 Jan 07
Originally posted by jakejjkNot at all.
Does this fit with your "live where you want to live" philosophy? Does your philosophy advocate the elimination of the border between Mexico and the US?
It's a fact ... that border (40 miles south of where I live) is wide open 24/7/365
Where I live, about 35-50% of the people are illegal.
90-99% of these people are hard working, honest, straightforward people .. no problem at all IMHO
I have no idea on how to solve the problem of illegals swarming my Country other than a big wall coast to coast .. not a pleasent idea at all.
The reason they come is the same reason my ancestors came .. oppertunity for a better life.
The USA = oppertunity .. do doubt on that one.
I can't fault honest hard working people taking the bull by the horns .. that, to me, is what makes them Americans (in spirit) The willingness and belief that hard work and personal responsibilty is the path to success in this life.
If I had been born Mexican, i'd do everything in my power to get to the USA and build myself a future for myself and my family .. wouldn't you?
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by jammerJammer says: "If I had been born Mexican, i'd do everything in my power to get to the USA"
Why limit it to Mexicans? There are billions of people in the world much more needy than Mexicans. The people in Darfur, Rwanda, Bangla Desh make Mexicans look wealthy. In fact, we would probably be saving Darfurian lives if we brought them to the US....
My point is this: If you're not willing to strictly regulate who comes to live in your country, then you should be fair and allow anyone who can get here to remain. Since probably 90pct of the world would rather be in the US than where they are now, this could be problematic.
Jammer says: "90-99% of these people are hard working, honest, straightforward people"
I agree. But so are the Americans already here, and so are the legal immigrants and so would the people from Darfur be. That's not the point. The question is: who gets to come and stay? Your "live where you want" philosophy doesn't address this critical point.
Also, with the current border situation, if you were a criminal, rapist, gang member, murderer etc. in Mexico, it wouldn't make any sense to stay there since the pickings are so much better in "el Norte" and you could always skip bail and go home if you get caught.
05 Jan 07
1 edit
I can't find anything you say to disagree with so I won't.
Just a few words to try to clarify my point.
I don't limit it to Mexicans. I used Mexicans as an example because that's what's happening here, where I live. I believe the same thing applies for any man/woman regardless of Country of origin.
As an American, I AM willing to regulate who comes and goes across our borders .. my Government, unfortunately, isn't.
All i'm saying is .. I understand and would probably be an illegal myself if born into that situation.
The question of "who gets to come and stay?" brings me back to my original point and my answer is .. whoever can.
I don't decide for you and you don't decide for me. It's a question of how bad do you want it. Many have (and will) risk life and limb to get here. I admire that in a person, IMO most people sell themselves short and accept life as it comes to them rather than taking the action required to change it.
My point about this whole question from the beginning has been that I"M the one that decides where I live. I"M responsible. If I wanted to live in Darfur bad enough, i'd find a way to make it happen. If I failed, i'd try again .. and again until I made it.
I think I haven't been clear enough on this, so i'll try once more.
I don't speak for my Government or from a political point of view. Who gets to stay isn't up to me, all i'm saying is that I, PERSONALLY, am the one responsibile for ME and where I live and what i'd do to try to change it. All the stuff about walls, fences and who does or doesn't get to stay legally is meaningless to me .. I have no control over that. What I have control over is my own actions and conclusions about where and how i'll live my life.
I live where I want, and if I didn't, i'd do just about anything to make it happen.
Legal/illegal has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
My point was .. and still is .. each of us decides for ourselves where we live. Not everyone will take responsibilty for it, but it remains true.
It's not so much the hand you're dealt .. it's how you play it.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell, the reality is that the Jews have controlled much of the Holy Land since 1947. There are millions of Jews who have been born there and millions who have emigrated, severing all ties to there former countries.
How do we decide who lives where? In regards to the Middle East it seems as if racial and religious/historical feuding has taken the place of birthright and humanism.
1) Who on this forum thinks that the Jews claim to the Holy Land is legitmate based on 2000 years of historical/racial ties and 'special religious significance' ?
2) Who on this fo ...[text shortened]... ed and racism and has parallels with Nazi Germany amongst others.
Hmmm - tricky isn't it?
Even if we feel like 1947 start is illegitimate, we would have to come up with a morally acceptable way of dealing with the Jews currently in Israel. It doesn't matter if we all unanimously agree that modern Israel should not have been formed, the millions of Jews living there and subset that have been born there are not going to evaporate.
It is not acceptible to exterminate them.
If we decide to honor historical ties as a matter of principle, I don't know of a good principle to decide how far back we go. Do we go back to 1500BC, 800BC, 50AD, 1775AD or 1975AD? We come up with a different solution depending on how far back we go. Only those born in 1975AD are still alive today.
06 Jan 07
Originally posted by techsouthYou make some good points but I think the fundamental problem in the Pal/Israeli conflict is this: Israel is basically in an expansionist mode. as it has been since at least 1948. There is much disagreement within Israel about what territory defines Israel. One faction claims Israel should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates, the pit-bull settlers want all the West Bank. The small Israeli peace groups are more rational, but the fact remains that Israel refuses to define its borders, while insisting that the Pals "recognize Israel"...recognize what? Recognize that the expulsion of 500,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948 was legitimate? Recognize the illegal annexation of Jerusalem when not one country in the world, not even the US, will locate its embassy there?
Even if we feel like 1947 start is illegitimate, we would have to come up with a morally acceptable way of dealing with the Jews currently in Israel. It doesn't matter if we all unanimously agree that modern Israel should not have been formed, the millions of Jews living there and subset that have been born there are not going to evaporate.
Peace in the region would be quite simple to attain if Israel really wanted it: accept the Saudi Plan which addresses all the issues: Jerusalem, right of return, borders etc in a reasonable way. For all their rhetoric, the Pals would accept it in a minute, Israel would be recognized by all the Arab states and peace would reign....If Israel wanted more security guarantees, NATO or US troops could be placed on the border, etc. etc. it's perfectly doable.
The only problem is that Israel wants more, and isn't even willing to say how much more..
06 Jan 07
Originally posted by jammerJammer says: "As an American, I AM willing to regulate who comes and goes across our borders .. my Government, unfortunately, isn't."
Jammer, in a democracy you ARE the government. Denying any responsibility for what happens only contributes to the problem. Participate.
Jammer says: "My point about this whole question from the beginning has been that I"M the one that decides where I live. I"M responsible. If I wanted to live in Darfur bad enough, i'd find a way to make it happen. If I failed, i'd try again .. and again until I made it."
What you're advocating is breaking any laws you don't like, including those of other nations in order to get what you want. Not a very responsible attitude and one, if adopted by enough people, which would lead to violence and anarchy. Why not accept the fact that living within guidelines (laws) even if imperfect ones, is far better both for youself and your fellow man...
06 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jakejjkI do that.
What you're advocating is breaking any laws you don't like, including those of other nations in order to get what you want. Not a very responsible attitude and one, if adopted by enough people, which would lead to violence and anarchy. Why not accept the fact that living within guidelines (laws) even if imperfect ones, is far better both for youself and your fellow man...
I break laws I don't like.
As one example .. I smoke a lot of weed and don't care F-all for the laws regarding that, I don't agree, I like weed, I break the law everyday.
I decided what I want to do it, I know the laws and what will happen if i'm caught. I take that chance .. everyday.
Same thing if i'm a poor Mexican (or whatever) .. I DECIDE what i'm going to do .. jump the border or accept my fate in hell.
Easy decision for me.
Whether it's right/wrong, legal/illegal in your or anybody elses mind is meaningless to a starving man.
If I see life as a one-shot thing and don't see "accepting facts" as a viable alternative and my family is starving .. then i'm coming over that border .. even if I die trying.
The way I see it, you take life head-on .. you don't accept your fate, you create your own fate.
Right/wrong, legal/illegal mean nothing to a man when his children are hungry.
06 Jan 07
Originally posted by jakejjkThe Saudi plan might eventually be able to lead to peace through the elimination of Israel as we know it. That's why right of return aint EVER happenin. Not a chance. It took about a milisecond for the Palestinians to kill the economy after Sharon pulled Israel out. Now they have civil war. Israel absolutely cannot allow that to happen within their borders.
You make some good points but I think the fundamental problem in the Pal/Israeli conflict is this: Israel is basically in an expansionist mode. as it has been since at least 1948. There is much disagreement within Israel about what territory defines Israel. One faction claims Israel should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates, the pit-bull settlers want ...[text shortened]...
The only problem is that Israel wants more, and isn't even willing to say how much more..
And yes, the orthodox Jews that want all the land promised to the Jewish people by god as writin in the Torah are off their rocker.
OTOH, its not unusual for prominent Palestinians to speak of peace in English then turn around and speak of wiping out Israel in Arabic. Abu Mazen is a fine example of that.
So, where does this all lead us? Exactly where we are today. Neither side wants the other around. Constant fighting seems to be better to them then peace. This is something that is not going to be fixed without some sort of major league change in the region.
It doesn't matter where the line is between Israel and Palestine, they're not gonna get along and neither side wants to live together in the same land.
06 Jan 07
Originally posted by jakejjkThe "right of return" can't happen without destroying Israel. I think you have good points, but all this illustrates just how difficult this problem is.
You make some good points but I think the fundamental problem in the Pal/Israeli conflict is this: Israel is basically in an expansionist mode. as it has been since at least 1948. There is much disagreement within Israel about what territory defines Israel. One faction claims Israel should extend from the Nile to the Euphrates, the pit-bull settlers want ...[text shortened]...
The only problem is that Israel wants more, and isn't even willing to say how much more..
Israel is a democracy. The Palestineans within Israel have a much better life in general than those within the West Bank and Gaza. But the Jews have a hard enough time with suicide bombers and such. Imagine if they were suddenly a minortity within their democracy, with a people whose official policy is "wiping Israel off the map" as the majority. How long before Hamas took over the Israeli parliament?
Asking Jews to accept "right of return" is like asking American's to accept Ahmadinejad as their king.
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by Merktechsouth says: "theright of return can't happen without destroying Israel"
Merk says: "The Saudi plan might eventually be able to lead to peace through the elimination of Israel as we know it. That's why right of return aint EVER happenin."
I think we're misreading the Saudi plan. It's a little vague, saying the right of return needs to be addressed. Most take this to mean a token 1-200,000 Palestinians get to return and the rest get generous payments for their property and half a century in refugee camps. This would probably cost less than the billions per year the US pours in there and would be a good kick-start to the Pal economy. This wouldn't be the death of Israel, and might even have the beneficial effect of moving it toward a more multi-ethnic society.
The rhetoric is not helpful. Like you say, the Pals talk peace in English and death to Israel in Arabic, The Israelis talk about Eternal undivided Jerusalem etc. but it's mostly bluster and shouldn't forestall negotiations.
So a peace based on the Saudi Plan is feasible, but I have the bad feeling that Israel just doesn't want it, they'd rather keep expanding and see how far they can go (they just approved a new settlement in the Jordan Valley).
But time is running out..with the ME going nuclear, this may be our last best chance for peace. If it comes to a nuclear exchange, Israel's small size is a fatal disadvantage...2 or 3 well-placed warheads would wipe it out. They may kill 100 Arabs for every Israeli but when it's all over, Israel will be gone and the Arabs will still be there
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by jakejjkAgain. The right of return absolutely is a non starter. No way will Israel allow any significant number of Palestinians move into Israel. They don't want to be diverse. Being a Jewish state is what makes them who they are. Allowing tens or hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to move into Israel changes everything for them because it changes the 1 desire of the nation that overrides all other desires. That includes a desire for peace. Some things are more important to some people than peace. Think of Israelis and Palestinians as single issue voters with each groups single issue requiring that the other not exist in the same place. How in the world does a problem that get solved?
techsouth says: "theright of return can't happen without destroying Israel"
Merk says: "The Saudi plan might eventually be able to lead to peace through the elimination of Israel as we know it. That's why right of return aint EVER happenin."
I think we're misreading the Saudi plan. It's a little vague, saying the right of return needs to be addressed. M ...[text shortened]... eli but when it's all over, Israel will be gone and the Arabs will still be there
Generous payments for their property? What property? The original zionists that moved their bought most of their property from Palestinians.(pre Israel) Israel was a U.N. solution with British roots. If anybody should be paying the Palestinians, it's Britian and the U.N.
07 Jan 07
And if the middle east goes "nuculer" I wouldn't be so sure that much of anybody will survive. Israel would be gone for sure. Israel does have what is called the Samson option. That option is nuking everything. They have never said it officially, but I suspect they have the warheads to do it.
Not only that, but their theatre missile defense us getting better all the time. The arrow missile batteries are pretty good already. Israel might even get lucky enough to stop most of the incoming. Not that it will matter if they nuke everybody around. That will take care of them too.