amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Believing in one side of an issue isn't ignorance. You can have all of the information you want, and never consider a second view.
Next target in the war aginst terror: Somalia ?
- Thread starter TheDuckOfFlanders
- Start date
VoodooAce
Emperor
If anybody is willing to debate in good faith, and in a mature manner, please feel free to respond to my post.
RM, you do not, so I'm not even going to bother.....
RM, you do not, so I'm not even going to bother.....
VoodooAce
Emperor
So the other side of an issue is irrelevant?
Typical. I'm done.
G-Man
A One Man's War
I'm left winged and I support my country's policies. You said a lot of things you don't know anything about. A left wing extrimist is just as dangerous as a right wing extrimist. There were left wing Israelis traveling all over the world trying to convince people not to trade with Israel.
If you say lies about Sharon all Israelis will hate you, not just right wingers. Sharon has for Israel a lot more then what you know about. I don't suppose you can tell me about his economical moves or about the times when he withdrew Israeli forces time after time and was forced to bring them back because of Palestinians attacks (like the one last night).
Also you seem to believe that being left winged is always to agree with both sides and always be in the middle, even if one side keeps on going to the more extrime way while the other side is going more towards what was the middle in the beggining.
VoodooAce
Emperor
The key word, G-Man is 'extremist'.
Extemism, imho, is bad, whether it's from the left or right.
Also, to be fair, I should probably be using 'liberal' and 'conservative' rather than 'left' and 'right'.
These terms just seem to have different meanings everywhere you go.
When I say 'left', i'm not saying it in an economic sense, as in 'left wing guerrilla rebels in El Salvador', hehe.
I'm talking 'left' as in Rabin. A man that was truly interested in the peace process. In solving the problems there with as little violence as possible. But a 'right' wing guy, not so interested in peace, shot and killed him with the sole goal of making sure that Rabin didn't succeed. I think that's a shame.
Now, don't take that statement to mean that I don't think that even the right wing in Israel wants peace, in the end. Everybody does. Well, almost everybody. Some people get off on war.
But, the difference is in how peace will be accomplished. By diplomacy and with compromise? Or by subjugation and military victory. Some people are just not willing to compromise.
This, in my above post, is the context in which I use 'left' and 'right'.
But I DO NOT say lies about Sharon. My OPINION is that he started this particular round. No, he is not solely responsible. But rather than help matters, he had to exercise his right to visit 'the wall', knowing full well what would happen. So yes, I do blame him.
Extemism, imho, is bad, whether it's from the left or right.
Also, to be fair, I should probably be using 'liberal' and 'conservative' rather than 'left' and 'right'.
These terms just seem to have different meanings everywhere you go.
When I say 'left', i'm not saying it in an economic sense, as in 'left wing guerrilla rebels in El Salvador', hehe.
I'm talking 'left' as in Rabin. A man that was truly interested in the peace process. In solving the problems there with as little violence as possible. But a 'right' wing guy, not so interested in peace, shot and killed him with the sole goal of making sure that Rabin didn't succeed. I think that's a shame.
Now, don't take that statement to mean that I don't think that even the right wing in Israel wants peace, in the end. Everybody does. Well, almost everybody. Some people get off on war.
But, the difference is in how peace will be accomplished. By diplomacy and with compromise? Or by subjugation and military victory. Some people are just not willing to compromise.
This, in my above post, is the context in which I use 'left' and 'right'.
But I DO NOT say lies about Sharon. My OPINION is that he started this particular round. No, he is not solely responsible. But rather than help matters, he had to exercise his right to visit 'the wall', knowing full well what would happen. So yes, I do blame him.
VoodooAce
Emperor
I'll tell you why I think so.
Because his visit to the wall was highly publicized. It was well known BEFORE HE EVEN WENT what the result would probably be. It was a freakin' publicity stunt. He wanted to run for PM. It was obvious what was going on. I'm not debating his RIGHT to do so. I'm debating his judgement.
Of course, his judgement was actually right on. He is, afterall, the PM now.
Also, I am not saying that Sharon going to the wall is a good reason for violence. I'm sure there were those Palestinians, however small the minority, that were imploring their fellow Palestinians not to allow this to erupt into further violence. But the conservative/right wing Palestinians were going to show those Israelis, by God.
In fact, of all the bullsh!t excuses I've seen for violence recently, saying that a man visiting a wall, whatever or wherever it is, is ablsolutely ridiculous.
Because his visit to the wall was highly publicized. It was well known BEFORE HE EVEN WENT what the result would probably be. It was a freakin' publicity stunt. He wanted to run for PM. It was obvious what was going on. I'm not debating his RIGHT to do so. I'm debating his judgement.
Of course, his judgement was actually right on. He is, afterall, the PM now.
Also, I am not saying that Sharon going to the wall is a good reason for violence. I'm sure there were those Palestinians, however small the minority, that were imploring their fellow Palestinians not to allow this to erupt into further violence. But the conservative/right wing Palestinians were going to show those Israelis, by God.
In fact, of all the bullsh!t excuses I've seen for violence recently, saying that a man visiting a wall, whatever or wherever it is, is ablsolutely ridiculous.
Originally posted by VoodooAce
I'll tell you why I think so.
Because his visit to the wall was highly publicized. It was well known BEFORE HE EVEN WENT what the result would probably be. It was a freakin' publicity stunt. He wanted to run for PM. It was obvious what was going on. I'm not debating his RIGHT to do so. I'm debating his judgement.
Of course, his judgement was actually right on. He is, afterall, the PM now.
Also, I am not saying that Sharon going to the wall is a good reason for violence. I'm sure there were those Palestinians, however small the minority, that were imploring their fellow Palestinians not to allow this to erupt into further violence. But the conservative/right wing Palestinians were going to show those Israelis, by God.
In fact, of all the bullsh!t excuses I've seen for violence recently, saying that a man visiting a wall, whatever or wherever it is, is ablsolutely ridiculous.
I don't like getting in the middle of this particular topic because it is a royal mess, and I don't even come close to having enough facts to...well, to get in the middle of a mess like this.
That said, can't a case be made that if a man visiting a wall is enough to touch off a group of people to violence, they aren't rational enough to sit down and compromise with?
VoodooAce
Emperor
Yeah, sure, a case could be made. But that's kind of the point of my post.
Don't forget, relatively speaking for that part of the world, things were at least a little more peaceful BEFORE Sharon's little trip. I still feel that Rabin's methods were a little more 'honorable', that's all. At least he was willing to try.
His philosophy was I give a little, you give a little, and soon, hopefully, we can meet in the middle. The whole point of my post was that there ARE those on BOTH sides that definitely didn't want to see this happen.
And it doesn't excuse Sharon for doing what he did, imho.
Don't forget, relatively speaking for that part of the world, things were at least a little more peaceful BEFORE Sharon's little trip. I still feel that Rabin's methods were a little more 'honorable', that's all. At least he was willing to try.
His philosophy was I give a little, you give a little, and soon, hopefully, we can meet in the middle. The whole point of my post was that there ARE those on BOTH sides that definitely didn't want to see this happen.
And it doesn't excuse Sharon for doing what he did, imho.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
Here's a point: does it not occur to anyone that maybe it is a persons views that lead them to their political stance, rather than vice versa as you are stating? I do not understand you RM, you just seem to agrree with everything your country does, you never have your own opinion on the matter, that is very unhealthy. Whilst I might not agree with what many people have said in this and many other discussions, I at least expect their right to have their own opinion.
know the feeling!
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
What an elitist way to argue my points. Deem me "immature" and then dismiss me. You are really opening yourself to questioning of your views being legitimate.
PinkyGen
Paper copying intern
Not that's an oxymoron. By not considering the other side, you don't have all the information, only about half of it.
In my case, I still support Israel, but I look at events from the Palestinian viewpoint. (Best part was being Iran in the Model UN, but they yelled at me for calling Israel the "Zionist Entity." Bet they would let that happen in the real UN
) However, I found a lot about the Palestinian viewpoint misguided (usually because as a result of impossible promises by leaders), or downright mistaken, but I must at least consider their points. As for VoodooAce, I have no doubt Sharon was trying to get some publicity by visiting the Temple Mount. (Not just the wall, but the area around the mosques, Jews all the time visit the wall). He certainly wasn't trying to aid the process, and was trying to score points against Barak and Arafat.
However, I don't think he realized that Arafat was going to use this incidence as an excuse to start the infitada he started planning after Camp David. This was surely a planned event, not a spontaneous outporing of bent-up rage.
Insert Edit: I just realized this was a thread about Somalia.
I suggest we stop hijacking the topic, considering the great amount of Arab-Israeli threads.VoodooAce
Emperor
I wasn't going to reply because PinkyGen is right about this thread being hijacked and I was embarrassed because I am probably most guilty. But I do have an on topic question that I'll get to....
But that was an excellent post Pinky
While Sharon had to be aware that his politically motivated trip may spark some violence, he surely wasn't aware that the it would be used as an excuse to start an infitada like this.
As for Arafat, I'm not fully convinced yet that he is behind it. Less than a year ago I would have argued that I believed he wanted peace. My faith in his dedication to coexistance with Israel though, is gone. I don't know if he could if he tried, but he doesn't seem to give anything more than a token effort into stopping those among him who continue to reject Israel's right to exist.
I guess I'm just gullible, because I gave him the benefit of the doubt, knowing his history full well, but I wanted to believe.
ANYWHO, back on topic, how much will the US forces getting the boot from Saudi Arabia, if it were to happen, affect the war, and our choice of next target. How will we replace Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?
But that was an excellent post Pinky
While Sharon had to be aware that his politically motivated trip may spark some violence, he surely wasn't aware that the it would be used as an excuse to start an infitada like this.
As for Arafat, I'm not fully convinced yet that he is behind it. Less than a year ago I would have argued that I believed he wanted peace. My faith in his dedication to coexistance with Israel though, is gone. I don't know if he could if he tried, but he doesn't seem to give anything more than a token effort into stopping those among him who continue to reject Israel's right to exist.
I guess I'm just gullible, because I gave him the benefit of the doubt, knowing his history full well, but I wanted to believe.
ANYWHO, back on topic, how much will the US forces getting the boot from Saudi Arabia, if it were to happen, affect the war, and our choice of next target. How will we replace Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?
What is a target? I dont think USA will attack philipinees, they are just going to support the regime's war against terror with a few means (Money, Army, maybe others i dont know about).
Atawa, what the hell is state-terrorism?
Atawa, what the hell is state-terrorism?
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
The Philippines is a cooperative target, like Indonesia, meaning that they would support having U.S. forces in their countries doing intelligence-gathering. Those governments are smart enough to know, if you're not with the U.S., then you're not with the civilized world.
Iraq has proven that so many times before.
Iraq has proven that so many times before.
Maj
Emperor
I suppose I'm partly uncivilized. How dreadful!
- Maj
animepornstar
Deity
neither dalai lama is with the u.s., so i guess he is uncivilized too.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
Can i please have an answer on my initial question raised here in my first post?
My initial question was:
How can the Alliance against terrorism prevent that any ex-terrorist harbouring country or terrorist supporting country will never ,after opperation's against terrorism in that country by the alliance against terrorism?
Givvin the fact that most terrorism -harbouring or supporting country's are social torn country's ,where oppression ,conflict and violence make every day?
Is it Uberhaupt possible to "democratizise" every ex terrorism country's to such an extent that it prevent's any harbouring of terrorists in that country for ever? Or that it would ever impose any threat whatsoever to the U.S ,millitary or financialy.
Terrorist country's are just a new name for rogue country's ,so that some people can better understand who the enemy is.In this globalized world these country's are the new real threat.But even iw we fight and counquer these country's,can we ever change their deeply rooted hate against the U.S?Can we change these country's to sustainable democracy's so they will never impose any threat anymore?
Youre thought's please ,country specific or in general.
My initial question was:
How can the Alliance against terrorism prevent that any ex-terrorist harbouring country or terrorist supporting country will never ,after opperation's against terrorism in that country by the alliance against terrorism?
Givvin the fact that most terrorism -harbouring or supporting country's are social torn country's ,where oppression ,conflict and violence make every day?
Is it Uberhaupt possible to "democratizise" every ex terrorism country's to such an extent that it prevent's any harbouring of terrorists in that country for ever? Or that it would ever impose any threat whatsoever to the U.S ,millitary or financialy.
Terrorist country's are just a new name for rogue country's ,so that some people can better understand who the enemy is.In this globalized world these country's are the new real threat.But even iw we fight and counquer these country's,can we ever change their deeply rooted hate against the U.S?Can we change these country's to sustainable democracy's so they will never impose any threat anymore?
Youre thought's please ,country specific or in general.
Well Duck, that is the 5 trillion dollar over 50 years question.
I think it is quite likely that we are not going to see overnight success stories in any country. Currently the best we can hope for is to get rid of the current governments that are threats and replace them with something better. From there we have to support them on a path towards more democracy and freedom. This will mean helping to make sure that their economies are relatively stable, and that their public attains a higher level of education. The governments need to be watched closely, and it needs to be known that the nation is "on warning" of a sort, and that the world community isn't going to tolerate any regimes that start sliding back towards oppression, domination, and support of terrorism.
This kind of thing is not going to be easy, will take decades, if not longer, and cannot be done worldwide by any one nation.
I think it is quite likely that we are not going to see overnight success stories in any country. Currently the best we can hope for is to get rid of the current governments that are threats and replace them with something better. From there we have to support them on a path towards more democracy and freedom. This will mean helping to make sure that their economies are relatively stable, and that their public attains a higher level of education. The governments need to be watched closely, and it needs to be known that the nation is "on warning" of a sort, and that the world community isn't going to tolerate any regimes that start sliding back towards oppression, domination, and support of terrorism.
This kind of thing is not going to be easy, will take decades, if not longer, and cannot be done worldwide by any one nation.
you cant even think about that chacne unless USA will start taking actions against Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and help countries that fight with continous terror, let alone Israel, which is fighting against the land that raises the largest number of terrorists in the world...
Similar threads
