The W
Views: 98944211
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.14 1646
The W - Current Events & Politics - Fly paper (Page 2)
This thread has 14 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.88
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(1778 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (46 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1232 days
Last activity: 1029 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by -proletarian-
    Yeah. The only bad thing Israel has ever done is ethnically cleanse Palestine, uprooting millions of people from land they had lived on for thousands of years, and ushered them into cramped plots of land in Gaza and the West Bank where they face terrible humanitarian conditions and frequent military forays at the hands of the IDF.....oh, wait.

Uh, if memory serves me correct, aren't the Palestinians not really form Palestine(Yasser Arafat being Egyptian and all)...and wasn't it Jordan expelling them from their country that started this mess in the first place?




MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Oh Christ. Yes, Yasser Arafat is actually Egyptian (although his parents were expatriate Palestinians - although they left voluntarily before 1948), but the the vast majority of the rest of the Palestianians are of course from Palestine. I mean, they're not from Botswana. There's an argument that Palestinian is somewhat of a contrived identity, but a)there was an area called "Palestine" before 1948 and b) people lived there. A little known fact - The PLO considers all people who's ansestors lived in Modern-Day Israel before 1917 to be "Palestinians" regardless of ethnicity or religion - which is why Yasser can claim to be a "Palestinian" despite being born in Egypt. It also means that there's more than a few Jewish Palestinians out there.

This history is a very complicated thing. Yes, Jordan, Egypt and the Arab world at large certainly bear a great deal of the blame for this mess, but there's more than enough blame to go around for the situation - including a very large share for Israel. And you Prol, should really look at the history of Middle-Eastern and North African Jews - who numbered in the millions and were in their homes at least as long as the Palestinians were in their's - and what happened to them. Contrast the number of Arabs currently living in Israel (and I mean Israel proper) with the number of Jews living in Arab countries before you accuse one side of "ethnic cleansing."

There was a great article entitled something like "how to talk about Israel" in the weekend before last's New York Times Magazine that did a great job explaning how different people view the situation and the history behind why they take certain positions, but it'll cost you money to read it now. It's $2.95 well spent in my book though. Here's the link. Click Here (query.nytimes.com)

(edited by MoeGates on 11.9.03 1914)

"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 268 days
Last activity: 8 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
Nature abhors a vaccum. We took out the Soviet Union & communism...so, SOMETHING had to take their place. So instead of something large, lumbering and imposing...we get terrorists with basically few political ties. We can't blame a country (for the most part) because you can pin them on any single administration. And even if you could, you can't hold a government responsible for the actions of all of it's people. Did we hold the government responsible for the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh? Or the snipers? No.

You can't blame the Iraqi people for the actions of a few of them, nor can you blame the government. And as for "setting up a strong government and getting out of there", there's no money. Most of the infrastructure was probably damaged or destroyed during the two Iraqi wars...and the country is basically being held together by the US armed forces.

And hell, if the armed forces tuck tail and run...who's left to defend the country against the terrorists just hanging around there?



Your winner and 3-time Stanley Cup Champion...the New Jersey Devils! Their title defense begins in 4 months!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1232 days
Last activity: 1029 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Incidentally, check out this asshole:

Biden says we must win the war. This is precisely wrong. The United States must learn to lose this war a harder task, in many ways, than winning, for it requires admitting mistakes and relinquishing attractive fantasies. This is the true moral mission of our time (well, of the next few years, anyway).



spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 48 days
Last activity: 22 hours
AIM:  
#25 Posted on
I think the article brings up an interesting and for us right now fundamental question. What do you do with people who don't really want a democracy? Sure the Iraqis don't want to be slaughtered in their beds or have towns gassed for disagreeing with their leader, but do they really want US Constitution V. 1.1? Can democracy work where it's not particularly desired, wanted, and in some ways anathema to the beliefs of the majority of the population?



Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler

blogforamerica.com
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1232 days
Last activity: 1029 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by spf2119
    but do they really want US Constitution V. 1.1? Can democracy work where it's not particularly desired, wanted, and in some ways anathema to the beliefs of the majority of the population?

But did the Japanese want it? The Emperor was divine. The government for over a decade had been run by a militaristic junta of admirals and generals. Before that it was an empire, and even before that there was the rule of the Shoguns. It too was anathema to the beliefs of many of the Japanese...

Last time I checked that turned out ok.



spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 48 days
Last activity: 22 hours
AIM:  
#27 Posted on
I think these situations have a lot of apples/oranges tendencies. Yes the Emperor was "divine" but in Japan you had/have numerous religious practices which ran people's lives, many of which weren't particularly concerned with governmental systems. Iraq on the other hand has a almost wholly uniform religious base, where the religion has an extremely detailed view on day-to day life and governance.

Also in Japan there was no one around them who had any interest in democracy not working there who were willing to actively intervene in their day-to-day affairs. Sure China and Russia would have loved to take them over, but there weren't thousands of Russians coming into Japan to fight against the US invaders.

Lastly, Japan was too beaten into submission to really put up any fight. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki they had to confront the idea that very possibly the entire populace of the country could be blown to oblivion without our risking one single troop. I guarantee if we blew up Baghdad and Tikrit with H-bombs right now that the populace would become eminently more pliable regarding our will. It wouldn't be a good idea in the long run, but it would make the situation more akin to Japan.



Coming to Chicago Nov. 12...I am SO there! - Brenda Weiler

blogforamerica.com
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1232 days
Last activity: 1029 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
The last two points are well stated, but:

    Originally posted by spf2119
    I think these situations have a lot of apples/oranges tendencies. Yes the Emperor was "divine" but in Japan you had/have numerous religious practices which ran people's lives, many of which weren't particularly concerned with governmental systems. Iraq on the other hand has a almost wholly uniform religious base, where the religion has an extremely detailed view on day-to day life and governance.


The one thing about religion and Iraq that works against republican governance is the fact that there is such a diversity of Muslim religions that a republican government may not be able to hold it all together. Iraq was ruled for years by the Sunni minority, even though religion was not necessarily a mitigating factor that held the Baathists together. Baathism was damn near Nazism/Fascism, so there was no real desire to mix religion and politics unless there was some mitigating circumstance calling fo it.



-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4019 days
Last activity: 4018 days
#29 Posted on
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by -proletarian-
      Yeah. The only bad thing Israel has ever done is ethnically cleanse Palestine, uprooting millions of people from land they had lived on for thousands of years, and ushered them into cramped plots of land in Gaza and the West Bank where they face terrible humanitarian conditions and frequent military forays at the hands of the IDF.....oh, wait.

    Uh, if memory serves me correct, aren't the Palestinians not really form Palestine(Yasser Arafat being Egyptian and all)...and wasn't it Jordan expelling them from their country that started this mess in the first place?




Using your logic Grimis, you could justify the Chinese coming in tomorrow and forcibly relocating the American population into refugee camps in the Nevada desert. The Americans aren't really from America, right? They're European/Asian/African etc.

Would that fact make the above scenario fine by you?

Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3796 days
Last activity: 2862 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
That's absurd, when all of the arab countries attacked Israel right after it was created by the U.N. the "palestinians" moved out, because they were promised their land back by arab countries that were sure they would win. Well, they lost, and Israel wasn't inclined to give back that land, seeing as they had just had a WAR launched on them.

The nonsense about "ethnic cleansing" is emotional nonsense. Everytime anyone tries to confirm a "massacre" that the Palestinians claim, it either ends up being a million times less than claimed or a complete lie. Does Jenin ring a bell?

Look at Israeli opinion polls, and look at Palestinian opinion polls. The vast majority of Israelis would GLADLY give up land if it meant peace, whereas the vast majority of Palestinians believe that homicide bombings ought to continue until they have "historic Palestine", which is from the Jordanian River to the Mediterranean Sea. You can't have peace when only one side wants it.

Hamas members repeatedly give interviews where they say that they want to wipe Israel into the sea and have the remaining Jews move to America, and until then, the resistance will not stop. However, every few years, we all get to put our naive hat on and hope that Hamas becomes a friendly group.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4019 days
Last activity: 4018 days
#31 Posted on
Ethnic cleansing doesn't have to mean that the victims of such measures have to be killed. Re-locating a population from lands is just as much ethnic cleansing as it would be were you to slaughter them wholesale.
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#32 Posted on
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    It is an absolutely delusional idea to think that terrorism is a zero-sum game - that if terrorists are killing our troops in Iraq that will keep them busy and away from us. It certainly isn't keeping them from striking Israel, though, is it.

    Of course, the latest attacks in Isreal won't do anything to slow down this hideous "flypaper" rhetoric. The concept has no basis in reality to begin with, so its certainly not going to be disproven by, you know, reality.

    For that matter, dont imagine that another attack on US soil would change their minds. (If that happens, theyll just blame Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks, for criticizing the President, encouraging the terrorists with our disunity.)

    Oh, and by the way, the complete moral abyss you have to be in order to refer to these people as "flypaper" - to infer that they're best used as bait to protect you from the bad guys - is deplorable.


So what you're saying is that every liberal protest in Washington that says we should pull out of Iraq is just an overglorified way of telling America's soldiers "get down from there you might get hurt"?

I don't buy that for an instant.

These people, who willingly signed up to join America's military, fought and died on a battlefield because it was their job to do so. Sorry to be grotesque, but these people got a salary and benefits to either kill or die. It's almost as grotesque as showing a link with the names of dead people to prove a point.

And I do agree that it is terrible that terrorists attack soldiers in a war zone. I think it's terrible we had to wage war on terror to begin with. However, these men and women you pointed to went to fight the war on terror willingly, were prepared to kill arabs, whites, blacks, albinos, midgets, penguins, or whom ever was at cause of terror. Yes, war is evil, but if the enemies to not just America, but American ways of life, such as television, free speech, equality of the sexes, and free trade may get away with justifying their evils, I see no reason we should not promote true equality and justify ours.

A terror attack upon our homeland, further more, would never be put to blame upon Micheal Moore, the Dixie Chicks, or anybody else who says the President isn't that bright. Granted, he'd make a better drinking buddy than President, but the President is not so shallow to condemn free speaking Americans for acts of terror they did not contribute to, nor cause. In fact, it should be noted, that the President has not ever condemned Micheal Moore or the Dixie Chicks as un-American, just as people that did not agree with his point of views. It was, however, conservative media (yes, it exists) that painted Micheal Moore and the Dixie Chicks as ugly. Well, nix that. Micheal Moore's reaction at last year's Academy Awards sorta spoke for itself, didn't it?

Oh, and finally, who the hell has ever heard of an American that was not from America? That's what makes us American, we're from America. Our roots and ancestry may be of abroad, as with all people and life forms (as organisms, we're all sea creatures). This does not make us strangers to where we were born and raised. However, Grimis's point is simple. Why is it natural for Yassir Arafat, an Egyptian, to come to the aid of the Palestinians, but bizarre for George W. Bush, an American, come to the aide of the Israelis?





Kane gets flustered that he didn't get to do something silly this week. Ho hum.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1950 days
Last activity: 1884 days
#33 Posted on
"Well, nix that. Micheal Moore's reaction at last year's Academy Awards sorta spoke for itself, didn't it?"

So jingoism is fine but the opposing point of view must be silenced? *shakes head*

And OFB is right, even though a little extreme sometimes; throwing soldiers upon solders upon soldiers at the situation in Iraq is precisely the opposite of what is going to stop the march of terrorism. There will always be warm bodies for the extremist cause to exploit; until the heads are cut off, they're not going to stop. All we're doing by continually feeding the ongoing battles out there is increasing the body count. We need to start working on a way to end whomever is directing these actions, rather than pointing all attention and monetary funding at the footsoldiers. It's a simple metaphor: we're using a sledgehammer to kill a spider. Terrorism is not a force that can be bludgeoned out of existence with a blunt object, ie. massive military force.





And Lo, The Urine Shall Flow Freely In The Aisles, As Small Children And Frail Old Ladies Flee Before The Brutality, The Might, The Sheer Viciousness...Of ~EVIL COACH~!

Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2830 days
Last activity: 2830 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Lexus sez:

    However, these men and women you pointed to went to fight the war on terror willingly, were prepared to kill arabs, whites, blacks, albinos, midgets, penguins, or whom ever was at cause of terror.


Yep, they went to fight the War on Terror (gotta have capitals) willingly ... in Afghanistan. You don't hear too many people protesting the ongoing war there, because the Taliban were obvious supporters of al Qaeda.

America went to war with Iraq because it presented a clear and present danger to both America and to its neighbours, what with its magic disappearing WMD, incredibly potent Third World army with no air force, and Saddam's links to his hated enemy Osama bin Laden. Right.

I like to think the soldiers in Iraq aren't stupid. I like to think that they realize that if America really was fighting a War on Terror, they would be "helping" the Saudis and the Pakistanis clean house, rather than acting as moving targets for guerillas as they try to perform a role in Iraq which they weren't trained for.

I also like to think they realize that the Administration gambled and lost on their recieving the Paris of '44 reception after the war. Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush gambled with those soldiers' lives as the chips on the table, that's why people are upset about the occupation of Iraq. How and when are the troops going to come home? Noone can say, because noone in Washington thought up an exit strategy for a worse-than-best-case scenario.

(Edited to remove some trolling, and to link to this great article about the fly-paper approach.)

The sobering truth is that our forces are stuck with a war without a battlefield and with an enemy that is small, elusive, deadly, and becoming bolder. This situation is in no way a good thing, and other governments have good sense to shun it, because the facile notion that a war on terrorism can be fought successfully on this ground is simply not true. But the saddest feature of it is that our people are distracted by a war that in no way helps them carry out their primary mission: Get the Iraqi people back in charge of their affairs, and get out of there.



(edited by Gavintzu on 14.9.03 0736)

They got a mule they call Sal, bulldozing up canal walls.
They're gonna tap that icecap too,
And when they do they're gonna make that green map blue.
And the weather is finally getting warm ...
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4019 days
Last activity: 4018 days
#35 Posted on
I honestly still think that one underlying reason for going into Iraq was Iran. They saw the bigger threat in Tehran, a country just as hostile to America as Iraq was, yet with a fundamentalist streak.....a population three times that of Iraq, a country with an actual credible military that would be no pushover in the event of war.

Whatever the situation in Iraq, the fact is, there is 140,000 U.S. troops right on Iran's doorstep, and that is discounting the troops they still have stationed in Kuwait. In another year or two, when those troops have been freed up from policing duties by indigenous security forces, those troops will serve as a powerful ace in the hole in any negotiations between Washington and tehran over the latter's nuclear program. That is of course if they don't already HAVE nukes by then.....ugh.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
    Originally posted by -proletarian-
    Ethnic cleansing doesn't have to mean that the victims of such measures have to be killed. Re-locating a population from lands is just as much ethnic cleansing as it would be were you to slaughter them wholesale.


You do understand that by this definition pretty much the entire world has been "ethically cleansed" of some group at one point or another, not the least of which is the spot where you're currently enjoying a leasurely time on your favorite pro-wrestling message board.

(edited by MoeGates on 14.9.03 2057)


"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 4019 days
Last activity: 4018 days
#37 Posted on
    Originally posted by MoeGates
      Originally posted by -proletarian-
      Ethnic cleansing doesn't have to mean that the victims of such measures have to be killed. Re-locating a population from lands is just as much ethnic cleansing as it would be were you to slaughter them wholesale.


    You do understand that by this definition pretty much the entire world has been "ethically cleansed" of some group at one point or another, not the least of which is the spot where you're currently enjoying a leasurely time on your favorite pro-wrestling message board.

    (edited by MoeGates on 14.9.03 2057)



It's called history. It happens. Frequency doesn't make it right.

Not sure where the pro-wrestling comment came from.....personally i avoid that crap like the plague.
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#38 Posted on
-"Well, nix that. Micheal Moore's reaction at last year's Academy Awards sorta spoke for itself, didn't it?"

So jingoism is fine but the opposing point of view must be silenced? *shakes head*-


Hey, what can I say, speaking over somebody who disagrees with you rather than hearing them out and refuting them is dirty pool. It's also human nature. Why do people have Caller ID? To screen telemarketers, so we don't have to hear them. Why don't we hear them all out, then refute them? I'm sure a few of them have valid points, and may even be able to inform us in ways we never knew. Doesn't mean that I, or anybody else, is going to start.

And Gavintzu, I agree with you totally in every regard. I fail to see any implications that the War on Terror had to have been fought on Iraqi soil. I disagree with the whole "fly paper" notion. It's sick.

However, as a way to positively come up with a way to solve our problem, rather than speak incesantly and complain when the suggestions we never made don't work or never happen, I'll offer something to the table. We like war, and we can continue the war. However, we start the War on Religion. There are no militant extremists out there who are in it for money, but there are plenty of those out there to appease their God. In this, I say we nuke the Vatican, Mecca, and Jerusalem, put Fallwell, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and any and all other religious leaders in a special summer camp at Gitmo, and then re-release a new dollar bill that says "You Earned It! Enjoy It!" or "Never Gets Old", or even "The Original Almighty (points to self)" instead of "In God We Trust".

(edited by Lexus on 15.9.03 0325)




Kane gets flustered that he didn't get to do something silly this week. Ho hum.
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 268 days
Last activity: 8 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
Lexus, the entire Western culture has been organized with our convenience in mind. There's cordless phones, convenience stores, drive-thru everything, internet marketing, do-not-call lists, caller I.D., valet parking, buffets, fast food... Hell, everything is more convenient than it needs to be. And when something's up in the Middle East or Asia or Europe or whatever, it's more convenient to ignore it and hope it goes away. That's foreign policy in a nutshell. The thing that kills us all is that things don't go away while you ignore them: they get worse.



My Calgary Flames are currently tied for first place overall with a record of 0-0-0-0. It's training camp, but it's a start, right?
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 58 min.
Last activity: 29 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65
    Originally posted by -proletarian-
    Not sure where the pro-wrestling comment came from.....personally i avoid that crap like the plague.
You know, I KNEW you'd eventually say something so far out there that my head would explode and I'd have to ban you, but never in my wildest dreams did I imagine it'd be something like this*. See ya.

*(In retrospect, this explains a lot, however)



CRZ
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.88
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: It's official : Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Next thread: Not Breaking News: U.S. Students Need Better Civics Education
Previous thread: Field Poll: Dean leads in California Primary
(1778 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083861/ns/politics-more_politics/ Possibly another Watergate? I doubt it. My question is if they do not have a motive why have they been charged? Maybe they were just fixing Mary's phones.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Fly paper (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.145 seconds.