[Damn True]

Originally posted by fluff
Oh yeah,

Assimilate or die? That only really leaves the palestinians one choice, the same one that Jews had in Nazi Germany.....

LOL, oh bullsh1t.

Isreal has never denied anyone the ability to peacefully co-exist in that region. They get a little pi$$ed off however when bussloads of kids start exploding. Rightfully so.

As for suicide bombers...Yes they are cowards. Suicide is a cowardly act to begin with. When it is used to make a statement it becomes more so. When it hurts others in the process it is the ultimate form of cowardice.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Sideways
The thing about war is you never know who's going to win.
You want to name the victor before the battle is over, DT.
From your perspective, the outcome is already obvious.
If it were so obvious to everyone, why would war be necessary?
While I may respect you, I really dislike your righteous attitude.

A little football analogy.
On one side you have the 1989 49ers. On the other side you have you, me, and Serial Midget.

Who are you betting on to win the game?

It's a foregone conclusion. You'd think that we'd (or Iraq, or Palestine for that matter) concede defeat before the game started.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Silver
You can't compare the PLO and the IRA. The IRA plants bombs and phones in BEFORE they go off. They are much more interested in property damage than human carnage.

I'd imagine that if the IRA was doing the kind of **** that the PLO pulls everyday, they would have ceased to exist a long long time ago.

How the hell does the PLO get more sympathy than the IRA anyways...what a world.

(I'm not agreeing with the IRA's tactics either. I just don't think they are a valid comparison at all. Like comparing a SID race fork to a Super Monster. They are both suspension, but that's about where the similarities end.)

PLO = Political Wing of Palestinian nationalist organization
Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade = Militant Wing of Palestinian nationalist organization

Sinn Fein = Political Wing of Irish nationalist organization
IRA = Militant Wing of Irish nationalist organization

Both political wings were created to give legitimacy through an arm's length stance to violence to organizations that were born of terrorism. Both have their argued justifications for existence, but both are terrorist groups just the same, no matter how they may fancy themselves statesmen.

 

[~Street Eye~]

Isreal has never denied anyone the ability to peacefully co-exist in that region.

Good God, man... do you have any idea what has been going on in Israel for the past 60 years? I guess you're right as long as "peacefully coexist" means accepting smaller and smaller and sh*ttier and sh*ittier living conditions (read no water... at all, the palestinians have to PAY to pump water through Jordan). It makes me really sad to think that you actually believe what you're saying. Please getyour head out of your a$$ and do some objective research.

 

[Will_Jekyll]

Originally posted by ~Street Eye~
Good God, man... do you have any idea what has been going on in Israel for the past 60 years? I guess you're right as long as "peacefully coexist" means accepting smaller and smaller and sh*ttier and sh*ittier living conditions (read no water... at all, the palestinians have to PAY to pump water through Jordan). It makes me really sad to think that you actually believe what you're saying. Please getyour head out of your a$$ and do some objective research.

I think what he means is there are no Israeli DEATH CAMPS or mass killings of Palestinians by thousands. Israel is trying to stop the violence with out giving up their country weather they are doing the right way or the wrong way they are not out to eliminate a race of people from the face of the Earth.

 

[Will_Jekyll]

There are plenty of Palestinians who peacfully work and live in Israel. That was not the case in Nazi occupied Europe.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Will_Jekyll
There are plenty of Palestinians who peacfully work and live in Israel. That was not the case in Nazi occupied Europe.

Nor do I say it was. The choice the earlier poster gave them was to assimilate or die. They are not being allowed to assimilate so that leaves them death from the choices that poster gave them.

The only option that was ever open to the Jews in Nazi Germany.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Will_Jekyll
I think what he means is there are no Israeli DEATH CAMPS or mass killings of Palestinians by thousands. Israel is trying to stop the violence with out giving up their country weather they are doing the right way or the wrong way they are not out to eliminate a race of people from the face of the Earth.

Exactly.
Thank you.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by fluff
Nor do I say it was. The choice the earlier poster gave them was to assimilate or die. They are not being allowed to assimilate so that leaves them death from the choices that poster gave them.

The only option that was ever open to the Jews in Nazi Germany.

Yes they are.
As Will said there are gobs of Palestinians who live and work peacefully in the region. We see the vocal minority (rock throwing demonstrators and terrorist animals). The majority don't see the point in sending their kids to die over a line on the map.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
Yes they are.
As Will said there are gobs of Palestinians who live and work peacefully in the region. We see the vocal minority (rock throwing demonstrators and terrorist animals). The majority don't see the point in sending their kids to die over a line on the map.

If working and living in an area are barometers of assimilation then yes they are assimilated. But then so were the slaves in the US.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by fluff
If working and living in an area are barometers of assimilation then yes they are assimilated. But then so were the slaves in the US.

Wahahahaha... England also profited greatly from the slave trade - now back to the issue at hand. Tony is a real good ass kisser - don't you think? Oops OFF TOPIC! :devil:

 

[Will_Jekyll]

Originally posted by fluff
If working and living in an area are barometers of assimilation then yes they are assimilated. But then so were the slaves in the US.

dude stop grasping for straws.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Will_Jekyll
dude stop grasping for straws.

I feel quite confident I'm not grasping for straws. My point, which is clearly being missed by those who don't want to see it, is that the Palestinians have been dispossessed of their lands and have far fewer rights than the people who now have possesion of it. I'll admit that the Nazi Germany analogy was extreme, but the slave one less so.

Perhaps the best comparison would be with the Native North Americans, or the Australia Aboriginals but I'm sure people would take issue there thinking that I'm having a go at all US citizens, but it's not like the British hold any kind of moral high ground.

The point goes back to why are the PLO fighting? And the two analogies above are somewhat more useful than a comparison to the IRA, which is rather less straightforward, do you know why Ireland is still divided?

 

[Damn True]

That is exactly the point. As I said before all throughout history groups, tribes, nations have been dispossesed of land and / or rescources. What is now Scotland, Wales, and Ireland were once independant of England. The lines on tha map of Europe were different 100 years ago than they are today.
It happens. Get over it. The weaker nation or group falls to the stronger.

What makes people think that something that has happend since before Moses walked the Sainai somehow can't or shouldn't happen today.

Before some smart-arse comes back with the inevitible quip about racisim, slavery, or misoginy, I will state the obdvious. I am talking about the movement of nations only.

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by Damn True


What makes people think that something that has happend since before Moses walked the Sainai somehow can't or shouldn't happen today.

i would like to believe that in our 3000 years of human history things would change..its not because it was acceptable then that it should be acceptable now!!!

by your rules if palestians got enough support from other arabs countrys and started invading isarel and killing alot of citizens that would make it ok!?the stronger survives?

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by rbx
i would like to believe that in our 3000 years of human history things would change..its not because it was acceptable then that it should be acceptable now!!!

by your rules if palestians got enough support from other arabs countrys and started invading isarel and killing alot of citizens that would make it ok!?the stronger survives?

Why must you bring up such irrelevant rhetorical questions?
Dude, the Bible says the Jew's will win.
SO THAT IS HOW IT IS GOING TO BE!
You are so stupid; you should be ashamed to call yourself human.
How many different ways must Judeo-Christian doctrine be supported by ill-conceived logic before you finally get it?

 

[Damn True]

To paraphrase the above "argument":
"But it's not nice. It's not fair."


Holy crap, when did the world become a "nice" and "fair" place?
I didn't get the memo.


Yeah, it sucks for them. But there isn't a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it. That is the way the world works.

Get used to it.


The solution is for them to say to themselves;
"F-it. It's just a line on the map. Would I rather learn to live within that which has been provided by (insert deity of choice) and find ways to be happy and prosper or strap 50lbs of plastique to my son?"

If it were me I'd be the first Palestinian in the local PTA.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
To paraphrase the above "argument":
"But it's not nice. It's not fair."

Holy crap, when did the world become a "nice" and "fair" place?
I didn't get the memo.

Yeah, it sucks for them. But there isn't a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it. That is the way the world works.

Get used to it.

So to summarise your viewpoint, the people who are suffering should just suck it up, whilst the oppressors can just get on with because, hey, that's the law of jungle? It has a nice Darwinian survival of the fittest feel to it.

So why is Iraq in danger of invasion again?

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by fluff
So to summarise your viewpoint, the people who are suffering should just suck it up, whilst the oppressors can just get on with because, hey, that's the law of jungle? It has a nice Darwinian survival of the fittest feel to it.

So why is Iraq in danger of invasion again?

Because Argentina has stopped producing oil and I'll be damned if I going to pay the insane prices Europe pays for petroleum products. The overall cost of a small, one sided video game style war is far less than a 10 cent per gallon ingrease in the cost of our gasoline.

Remember you have a pretty small country when it comes to land mass and distance - the USA and Canada are much larger and have less population density. We sometimes have to travel 50 to 100 miles to get to the better shopping malls.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Because Argentina has stopped producing oil and I'll be damned if I going to pay the insane prices Europe pays for petroleum products. The overall cost of a small, one sided video game style war is far less than a 10 cent per gallon ingrease in the cost of our gasoline.

Remember you have a pretty small country when it comes to land mass and distance - the USA and Canada are much larger and have less population density. We sometimes have to travel 50 to 100 miles to get to the better shopping malls.

Man, if only north korea had oil.... the axis of evil would fall! Argentina's not part of the axis, is it? Shouldn't they be?

 

[MikeD]

Read 'From Beirut to Jerusalem' by Tom Friedman.

That is all.

MD

PS Being self-righteous and making huge assumptions are what got the Middle East into the mess it's in now.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by MikeD
Read 'From Beirut to Jerusalem' by Tom Friedman.

That is all.

MD

PS Being self-righteous and making huge assumptions are what got the Middle East into the mess it's in now.

Thanks. I'll probably buy it. Here's something mildly interesting on Friedman from chapter 2 of "The best democracy money can buy" by Greg Palast.

"Chapter 2: Sell the Lexus, Burn the Olive Tree: Globalization and its Discontents.

I was getting myself measured for a straightjacket when I received an urgent message from Bolivia.

First, let me tell you about this jacket. It was Thomas Friedman's idea. He's the New York Times columnist and amateur economist who wrote "The lexus and the Olive Tree", which is kind of a long, deep kiss to globalization.

I was about to debate with Friedman in Cleveland at a Council on World Affairs meeting last May. Globalization, he said, was all about the communications revolution. It was about the Internet. You could sit in your bedroom, buy shares in Amazon.com and send emails to Eskimos all at the same time, wearing your pajamas. ...............

.... All I had to do, said Friedman, is change into something a little more form-fitting. "The Golden Straitjacket is the defining political garment of globalization." And, the tighter you wear it, "The more gold it produces".

Friedman was talking figuratively, of course,..................

........But we have to forgive youth its lack of sophistication. What the kids in the street [referring to WTO protests] didn't know is that history's over with, done, kaput. Friedman tells us: "The historical debate is over. The answer is free-market capitalism." And whether Republicans or Democrats, Tories or New Labour, Socialists or Christian Democrats, we're all signed on, we're all laced up in our straitjackets, merely quibbling about the sleeve length."

end quote


Yeah, nevermind, it's not relevent... I was just reading this book and the author you mentioned was in it. Is your "PS.... being self righteous..." line based on that book or something?

 

[MikeD]

Nope, not at all...my comment was completely my own. But a lot of people say things as if their viewpoint had more validity than anyone else's. I'm a relativist is all. That said, though no one is any more right than anyone else, in some situations, only one side is going to be left standing...and it's going to be mine unless I die trying. (Though it's best not to back one's self-or nation-into that corner...)

Flinging tomahawk missiles into other countries makes them feel a lot like we do about the WTC. And I'm continually astounded at the average American's incredulous attitute concerning why people hate this country. How would you feel if a Nigerian warship showed up off the coast of South Carolina and blew up some US citizens, claiming they were all KKK...? You might not like the KKK, but you're gonna be pissed at their arrogance, no?

Anyhow. The book's not really economic at all. It's his observations and insights from working as a journalist in the Middle East, and isn't focused at all on the economics of US involvement...it tends to be more introspective. Which, of course, you have to keep in focus as you read it.

MD

 

[SlackBoy]

Originally posted by Damn True
You are only 1/2 correct.

Some have more power than others, and the one with the most, wins.

Umm need we bring up Vietnam. Are you gonna sit and say that the mighty US was outmighted. Pffft they wer out fought, not outmighted

The American governemt just likes to flex it's mighty muscle. And idoits like John Howard (aussie PM) like to follow other idoits such as Dubya. Dubya's been trying to do wot other presidents have tryed to do for years and taht get Nuclear weapons and ships down here to New Zealand. And the USA throws big hissy fits when we say no. US wants everyone to do wot they say, not do wot they do. I say the Americans shold ahve to submit themselves to UN weapon inspectors as well. Call it a sign of faith, call it woteva. But the US is not a guiltless party in the scheme of all things worldy. They should have to be seen to stand up to the very morals of governmental rule that they wish to impose on others. If there ain't nothing to hide then wot would be the problem. I mean it's not like the enemies of the states (and by that I mean countrys not groups) don't know where the majority of all the lil secret places are anyway

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by SlackBoy
Umm need we bring up Vietnam. Are you gonna sit and say that the mighty US was outmighted. Pffft they wer out fought, not outmighted

400,000 vietnamese killed to 40,000 US troops killed?


Outfought? No.


It was just a matter of stateside apathy and an uncommitted president that cost us.

 

[Dog Welder]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
400,000 vietnamese killed to 40,000 US troops killed?

How accurate is that number? What are your sources? My friend's, a forward observer, dad who fought in Vietnam told me that it was pretty common practice to fudge kill reports so that unit's performace would seem to be greater than it actually was. In addition he said that it was also so that the media arm of the military could report to the civilian populace that US soldiers weren't the only ones being killed.

 

[SlackBoy]

Whaddya mean the army fudged reports, sheesh, next you;ll be telling me that US millitary has killed innocent people in the past and also used chemical warfare, surely you jest sir

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Dog Welder
How accurate is that number? What are your sources? My friend's, a forward observer, dad who fought in Vietnam told me that it was pretty common practice to fudge kill reports so that unit's performace would seem to be greater than it actually was. In addition he said that it was also so that the media arm of the military could report to the civilian populace that US soldiers weren't the only ones being killed.

Ooops!


Sorry, I should always cite sources.

The actual number of US troops killed in hostile action 47,000, plus another 10,000 in related incidents outside the war itself.

This site
Why the US lost the Vietnam War

Claims that some 900,000 Vietnamese were killed in the fighting. Sorry my numbers were off a bit.

From the site:

"The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong suffered about 900,000 troops killed and an unknown, but huge, number of wounded, yet despite these huge casualty rates the Viet Cong persevered and were ultimately rewarded for their willingness to sacrifice, in order to win. "

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly

It was just a matter of stateside apathy and an uncommitted president that cost us.

"Cost us"???

How about a meaningles war, fought for no reason, that cost us 40,000 of our youth, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese their families?

I'd say losses on both sides cost "us."

And I don't know how you can call the largest antiwar movement in the history of our world "apathy."

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
"Cost us"???

How about a meaningles war, fought for no reason, that cost us 40,000 of our youth, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese their families?

I'd say losses on both sides cost "us."

And I don't know how you can call the largest antiwar movement in the history of our world "apathy."

Hey Now.

Im not a proponent of the vietnam war or anything, i was just telling the facts of why we lost it. Cost us, meaning the US, the overall victory.
I also believe that it was a conflict that wasnt worth messing with in the first place, but thats not what i was getting at.
Anyway yeah, stateside "apathy"
Most people just didnt care enough to keep supporting a war that no one understood. I wouldnt credit Hippies with anything.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly

Anyway yeah, stateside "apathy"
Most people just didnt care enough to keep supporting a war that no one understood. I wouldnt credit Hippies with anything.

It wasn't hippies. It was the majority of the country who had seen enough of Monks setting themselves on fire, US officers executing POWs without trial, children running screaming from napalmed villages as they tore of their burning clothes, and pictures of US soldiers proudly displaying necklaces of ears and noses. What more was there to understand?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
It wasn't hippies. It was the majority of the country who had seen enough of Monks setting themselves on fire, US officers executing POWs without trial, children running screaming from napalmed villages as they tore of their burning clothes, and pictures of US soldiers proudly displaying necklaces of ears and noses. What more was there to understand?

Who are you arguing with?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Who are you arguing with?

Not arguing... explaining.

Seriously, you should have a better understanding of the Vietnam war. It was one of American journalism's finest moments.

 

[Spud]

My retired Marine Buddy just sent me this....

Somewhat appropriate

Early Retirement:
The armed forces found they had too many officers and decided to offer an early retirement bonus. They promised any officer who volunteered for retirement a bonus of $1000 for every inch measured in a straight line between any two points in his body. The officer got to choose what those two points would be.
The first officer who accepted, asked that he be measured from the top of his head to the tip of his toes. He was measured at six feet and walked out with a bonus of $72,000.
The second officer who accepted was a little smarter and asked to be
measured from the tip of his outstretched hands to his toes. He walked out with $96000.
The third one was a grizzly old Marine Colonel who, when asked where he would like to be measured replied "from the tip of my penis, to my
testicles."
It was suggested by the pension man that he may want to reconsider, explaining about the nice cheques the previous two officers had received.
But the old Colonel insisted and they decided to go along with him providing the measurement was taken by a medical officer.
The medical officer arrived and instructed the Colonel to "drop 'em". Which he did. The medical officer placed the tape measure on the tip of the Colonel's penis and began to work back. "My God!" he suddenly exclaimed "Where are your testicles?"
The commander calmly replied "in Vietnam."