|
|
Post by Galactus on Jul 18, 2006 10:49:37 GMT -5
I like swinging cats, you can't swing a cat without hitting someone throwing stones I always say.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 10:50:48 GMT -5
I like swinging cats, you can't swing a cat without hitting someone throwing stones I always say. Can I use that as my signature quote? |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jul 18, 2006 10:55:04 GMT -5
Sure
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 18, 2006 11:13:31 GMT -5
...sometimes the fear / refusal to allow a war to happen brings about more conflict than it does peace. I know Bush has been quoted recently as having made comments similar to this but I have to tell you – not a good role model on this stuff. The current conflict in Lebanon is not going to result in a final military victory by Israel over Hezbollah. The Israelis are under no illusions that it will. They're talking about "downgrading" the organization's capabilities, not outright defeating it. The reality of this mess is that peace on Israel's northern frontier runs along the road to Damascus. Israel and Syria actually arrived at tentative agreements on something close to 90% of the issues between them over the course of Bill Clinton's 2nd term but broke off on some of the details just before he left office in January 2000. The Bush administration was unfortunately rather less than helpful in getting negotiations going again and over the years the regional and international climate became progressively less conducive to a resumption. The last time the Syrians made overtures, in 2004, the White House actively discouraged the Israelis from responding favourably. The upshot: Syria's increasing maginalization is likely one of the reasons we're in this now. Bottom line, though – a final resolution to this is going to be political, not military. Furthermore, a successful negotiation with Syria at this point probably depends, or at least is much more likely to succeed, if there is a parallel track with the Palestinians. |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 18, 2006 14:20:24 GMT -5
Wow, I'm not sure how to respond or if I even should... it's nice getting a "Fuck you" from a poster you've always had respect for.
Anyway, I woke up at 3 last night, and was bored so I read this thread, and I'm sorry I might have missed something you said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 18, 2006 14:27:49 GMT -5
Is it just me... When Israel was first created, I was under the assumption that they were attacked... am I wrong on this? Was the state of Israel created and the Jews decided they were going to blow the fuck out of everyone? Goddamn angry Jews. And Skvor, you talk about holocaust? I haven't recently heard anyone talking about killing all the Palestinians, but I've heard quite a few times "Death to Israel." I think the Iranian Leader Douche guy recently say something about destroying Israel. Weird. Am I wrong on that fact, too? The fact of the matter is that Israel would have been destroyed a long time ago if they didn't defend themselves. I find it to be a ridiculous notion that they shouldn't have defended themselves whether you think they should be there or not. The fact of the matter is that they are, and it's time for some of these radical "destory Israel" peeps to wake up and realize... Israel isn't going anywhere... so let's figure out a way to broker a deal. And yes, I don't think Israel has to make all of the concessions. Not to say I'm some huge Israel supporter. I feel for the Palestinian people, and I want them to have their own state, but for fuck's sake, let's be realistic about it. Shit has happened, and not all of it, or even most of it, is Israel's fault. As a matter of fact, and you can disagree if you want, Israel has been more willing to broker peace than the Palestinians. I also believe there was a deal on the table, agreed on and ready to sign, and Arafat pulled out. And seriously, don't tell me that the Clinton Administration was in it just for oil. Stability would have helped the world, and not just the United States. And I'm sorry, but these states that don't want to join the rest of the world can fuck off. Is it just me or is it blatantly obvious that the countries that aren't joining the rest of the world more likely to have rogue leaders, war, poverty, human rights violations and the such? Hmmm... Let's let these countries just go on the way they choose... and maybe tomorrow we'll get a nice shipment of heroin, hear how people are being stoned to death for some stupid reason or another, see women being held down like they're pieces of shit, or, I know, and this is my favorite... make a man marry a goat. Also, it's so cool for people to be killed for dissenting against their government. Back pedaling bullshit response that I was expecting. If you don't agree with Israel's actions then all of a sudden you're "Death to Israel" and some sort of anti-semite. Fuck you, go back and read the post where I said I believe that Israel should exist, just not in a brutal all or nothing way. Again, also asking this for what the 4th 5th fucking time? Do you think giving back a slight sliver of stolen land is brokering peace? How hard would it be to give them access to resources and their religious sites if you're really about peace. Do that and then if the rocket attacks continue, I'll say that the other side is being way too brutal and ridiculous. No, I don't think giving back a slight sliver of stolen land is brokering peace. Does that answer your question? I also don't think the Palestinian militant groups are conceding enough either, and violence isn't going to help ANYTHING. The Palestinians are just as guilty as the Israelis in that respect. It's a crap situation, and both sides are guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 18, 2006 14:32:07 GMT -5
^^^^^^
This is the best analysis of the situation I've seen so far !
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 14:51:45 GMT -5
...sometimes the fear / refusal to allow a war to happen brings about more conflict than it does peace. I know Bush has been quoted recently as having made comments similar to this but I have to tell you – not a good role model on this stuff. I know it'll shock you Drum, since it doesn't go with all that "That dumbass Chrisfan only thinks what Bush programs her to think" MO and all, but I've held that belief since the says when I saw "George Bush" listed as an owner of the Texas Rangers and wondered how and why the President of the United States could own a baseball team. If your only comeback to me can be joining in all the "YOu're doing nothing but repeating Bush" BS, then I am not going to bother anymore. I've shown you enough respect to be deserving of not getting such crap from you. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 18, 2006 16:25:52 GMT -5
I'll agree that both sides are to blame in several instances, Chrisfan, however, I find that it is of American doctrine to subvert Arab Nationalism. The one thing is that concerns me is that we have grown away from our roots. By Bush's definition The Colonies fight to be "United States" would be considered guerilla terrorist behavior and that the World should help in any way they can to squash an agrerian populist revolution. I personally feel that Israel can protect themselves while granting a statehood to Palestine and allowing the citizens of that state access to their holy shrines. However, my tax dollars should not be spent on subverting the wishes of democratically elected bodies of other nations, nor should it be used to bail out a country that knew going into the region that in the best scenario it was unwanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 16:30:53 GMT -5
Matt is the one who said that both sides are to blame. I for one think that he's taken enough time to lay his views out that he deserves to be recognized for those views Skvor, rather than your continually attributing them to me
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 18, 2006 16:35:43 GMT -5
So did Mary, so did you, so did a lot of people, I decided to respond to your post personally. Usually when someone relies on rhetoric and semantics such as your pedantic "cuteness" means that they don't much more to contribute to the conversation.
Go Fish.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 16:41:32 GMT -5
So sorry -- when Matt was the one who said "both sides are guilty" and you said "I agree that both sides are to blame" it seems reasonable to me to believe you'd be responding to MATT's post -- not something I said days ago before I understood that discussing the issue with you was a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 18, 2006 16:42:26 GMT -5
Shut up. Either have a discussion or go be a fucking baby, but don't do both. I'm sorry, but it's fuckinig annoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 16:44:50 GMT -5
And it's annoying to be constantly addressed for points that other people have made. My avatar has not changed in over a year -- if you don't see it next to a post, I did not say it. And if you hear it come out of Newt Gingrich's mouth, I also did not say it.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jul 18, 2006 17:00:46 GMT -5
It's been 4 years now, and I don't think anyone has EVER properly attributed Chrisfan's words to her. How can it be that every single person here has never gotten it right? Weird.
|
|
