Politics, religion: was 2008 Elections...? - enter at your own risk

[Russ McDonald]

Uh...yeah. Right.

And even though your emoticon belies your sarcasm (I think), that is one of their worst, though most effective, tactics: taking the public's faith in what well-intentioned Americans believe to be good and holy and turning it against them to enrich and empower themselves. Despicable.

This is why politics is so fucked up... The Dems lost the White House, not because 62,040,610 voted for Bush (the popular vote) it was Republican voodoo.

 

[Russ McDonald]

Joel

What are you going to do when Senator Clinton, keeps troops in Iraq, and wages war in Pakistan, and Kills more troops and more civilians fall to collateral damage.

She got cornered by Russert in the debate. She wouldn't commit to a number or a date for withdrawal. (which was the responsible thing to say, very Presidential)

Still waiting for an answer Joel....

What do you think Number 6 think he will step up?

 

[number6]

Still waiting for an answer Joel....

What do you think Number 6 think he will step up?

Yeah, Joelnet is a stand up guy... for a flamin' liberal (hee hee hee hee)

Sorry, that last was uncalled for.

 

[number6]

I really am sorry, Joelnet... I will send myself to bed without supper.

 

[IAN SUN]

You don't see Jews calling for the Palestinians to be wiped off the face of the Earth. President Clinton work tirelessly to bring them together, it wasn't the Israelis who walk from the table.

This is a myth, the Palestinian negotiators did not walk, they simply refused to accept a fatally flawed proposal that would have consigned their people to bantustans.
The take it or leave it proposal put before them was a "state" that was cut up and parceled into four "Cantons" surrounded by settlements, and Israeli only thoroughfares. No one in their right mind would have accepted that. Blacks in South Africa didn't, and neither would any of us if we were faced with the entrenchment of these barricaded townships that the Palestinians would have been left with. They would have been consigned to perpetual servitude, living on parcels of lands that were not economically viable.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html
http://imeu.net/news/article0057.shtml

As there have been nutty religious types calling for the destruction of Israel, so have there been nutty religious types calling for the extermination of Arabs. Some of these nutty folk are Jews, some of them are Christian. Genocide seems to be a particular passion of religious nuts.

It was Hezbollah that started firing rockets on Israeli cities from southern Lebanon. Not the other way around. This isn't some underground conspiracy, Islamic terrorism is not hiding anything.

Not quite true here either. It is well documented that the Israelis started bombing before Hezbollah let the rockets fly.

"But, if we cast our minds back, that is not how the "Middle East crisis," as TV channels now describe it, started. It is worth recapping those early events ...
Early on July 12, Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting, the Shi'ite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hezbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as "diversionary tactics." As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were "lightly injured," with most needing treatment for shock, according to the Ha'aretz newspaper.

Israel's immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters (its own foolhardy violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank ran over a land mine, which exploded, killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.

Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese territory the same day.

But the next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut, where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummeled. We now know from reports in the U.S. media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year."​

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9407

 

[Russ McDonald]

This is a myth, the Palestinian negotiators did not walk, they simply refused to accept a fatally flawed proposal that would have consigned their people to bantustans.
The take it or leave it proposal put before them was a "state" that was cut up and parceled into four "Cantons" surrounded by settlements, and Israeli only thoroughfares. No one in their right mind would have accepted that. Blacks in South Africa didn't, and neither would any of us if we were faced with the entrenchment of these barricaded townships that the Palestinians would have been left with. They would have been consigned to perpetual servitude, living on parcels of lands that were not economically viable.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html
http://imeu.net/news/article0057.shtml

As there have been nutty religious types calling for the destruction of Israel, so have there been nutty religious types calling for the extermination of Arabs. Some of these nutty folk are Jews, some of them are Christian. Genocide seems to be a particular passion of religious nuts.



Not quite true here either. It is well documented that the Israelis started bombing before Hezbollah let the rockets fly.

"But, if we cast our minds back, that is not how the "Middle East crisis," as TV channels now describe it, started. It is worth recapping those early events ...
Early on July 12, Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting, the Shi'ite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hezbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as "diversionary tactics." As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were "lightly injured," with most needing treatment for shock, according to the Ha'aretz newspaper.

Israel's immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters (its own foolhardy violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank ran over a land mine, which exploded, killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.

Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese territory the same day.

But the next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut, where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummeled. We now know from reports in the U.S. media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year."​

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9407

Bullshit, Arafat negotiated and change his mind, so he could keep his thief-dom. You can dress it in a bow all you want. Israel needs to stop the settlement activity no argument from me. They have dismantled many a great political cost. No dispute can be settled without compromise. Those walls will take Generations to come done. You can stand at it'

 

[IAN SUN]

Characterize Arafat however you will. His corruption certainly warrants it.
That does not change the facts. He was not the only one to reject that untenable proposal, all the negotiators did. No responsible leader would have accepted it. Look at the map.

 

[GlennChan]

The British ruthlessly hunted down the IRA and killed them. Once their military arm was broken, then the political arm of the IRA came to the table.

I don't think it's a fair characterization of what happened. From my shallow knowledge of what happened, the IRA still had a fair number of firearms, bombs, and people when both sides went to the negotiating table. And so I wouldn't say that the military arm of the IRA was "broken", considering they had some(a lot of?) people and equipment left.

Of course we could argue about whether or not the situation with the IRA is analogous to _______________. But my point was that it might be (is) possible to solve terrorism through non-violence means. At the very least, it should definitely be worth looking at!! The cost of violence (in the lives of US soldiers, lives of civilians, money) is huge and you'd be crazy not to look at alternatives.

Secondly, I think it's more likely that terrorism be solved through non-violent means than violent means. I think if you were to tally cases where terrorism has been solved/ended, the solutions were always non-violent.

The removal of Sadam Hussein was the stated policy of the American government under the Clinton administration, and voted on and adopted by Congress. Remember the CIA's Rendition program was a Clinton invention.

Well US foreign policy is a little weird in that there was a period where it supported Saddam Hussein. Here is a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1223-11.htm

I'm not asking you to agree with that article (and I'd probably argue that there is a certain dogma to the author, and the bias should be evident; and the parallels to the Holocaust is a little much). But I think you should be wondering if the Bush/Rumsfeld administration has been forthcoming in their ties with Iraq. At best, they lacked foresight+competence to know the nature of who they were dealing with. (Of course, I think that Rumsfeld and the CIA aren't that stupid.)

Don't the Iraqi people, who braved death to bring democracy to their nation deserve our support. Or is freedom just something we talk about over a mocha, it's good for us, but to bad for anyone outside the west.

I think that we can definitely agree that they deserve/should have a good government.

However:
A- They should have the freedom to decide on the form of governance they want. (Though in practice I don't see this happening.)
B- I don't think they'd want the problems associated with American-style democracy. Lobbying by special interests groups, (and therefore) corruption, flip-flopping by politicians, electoral irregularities, distortions from first-past-the-post system (and tendency towards two parties)
Again in practice not all of these problems are easily solved (only the last one is). But given a choice I don't think they'd necessarily go for first-past-the-post.
C- In principle, I think the US should have let the Iraqi people decide for themselves whether they wanted the US invasion/intervention. Ditto for Afghanistan. In practice, how do you really conduct a fair poll of the Iraqi people?? There are ways to distort any polls' answers. But ignoring that question, I think the Iraqi people would rather not have war, the risk of dying in it, American soldiers barging into their homes to search for weapons (and being scared ___less), Abu Ghraib, the chance that their country's natural resources being exploited by foreign companies, etc. etc.

Or to look at it another way, are the native North Americans really happy about living in a "free" and democratic country? Were and are they happy about being invaded? Somehow I don't think so.

 

[Russ McDonald]

This is a myth, the Palestinian negotiators did not walk, they simply refused to accept a fatally flawed proposal that would have consigned their people to bantustans.
The take it or leave it proposal put before them was a "state" that was cut up and parceled into four "Cantons" surrounded by settlements, and Israeli only thoroughfares. No one in their right mind would have accepted that. Blacks in South Africa didn't, and neither would any of us if we were faced with the entrenchment of these barricaded townships that the Palestinians would have been left with. They would have been consigned to perpetual servitude, living on parcels of lands that were not economically viable.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html
http://imeu.net/news/article0057.shtml

As there have been nutty religious types calling for the destruction of Israel, so have there been nutty religious types calling for the extermination of Arabs. Some of these nutty folk are Jews, some of them are Christian. Genocide seems to be a particular passion of religious nuts.



Not quite true here either. It is well documented that the Israelis started bombing before Hezbollah let the rockets fly.

"But, if we cast our minds back, that is not how the "Middle East crisis," as TV channels now describe it, started. It is worth recapping those early events ...
Early on July 12, Hezbollah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting, the Shi'ite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hezbollah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as "diversionary tactics." As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were "lightly injured," with most needing treatment for shock, according to the Ha'aretz newspaper.

Israel's immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon in pursuit of the Hezbollah fighters (its own foolhardy violation of Lebanese sovereignty). The tank ran over a land mine, which exploded, killing four soldiers inside. Another soldier died in further clashes inside Lebanon as his unit tried to retrieve the bodies.

Rather than open diplomatic channels to calm the violence down and start the process of getting its soldiers back, Israel launched bombing raids deep into Lebanese territory the same day.

But the next day Israel continued its rampage across the south and into Beirut, where the airport, roads, bridges, and power stations were pummeled. We now know from reports in the U.S. media that the Israeli army had been planning such a strike against Lebanon for at least a year."​

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9407

Bullshit, Arafat negotiated and change his mind, so he could keep his thief-dom. You can dress it up and put a bow on it all you want it doesn't change the outcome. Israel needs to stop the settlement activity no argument from me. They have dismantled many a great political cost.

No dispute can be settled without compromise. Those walls will take Generations to come down. You can stand at it's base with your hand balled in a fist scream injustice. They are two powerful and to committed to keep them up. It has saved it's citizens from suicide bombers.

I feel for the Palestinians, they got screwed by the rest of the Arab world, when they attacked from all sides in 1948. The right of return will never happen. Palestinians have been treated like second class citizen by the rest of the Arab world for decades. Long on promises but short on substance.

I don't know if it's true today, but 5 years ago America provided more aid than Arab states combined... It is what it is, and it sucks. The fork in road is clear, there is the status quo, and sentence countless generations of Palestinians to despotism an poverty. Or choose an achievable Peace and rise from the ashes stronger, freer, and prouder.

Hezbollah is the problem not Israel, Hezbollah refuse to except Israel right to exist, there is a reason that it's called Jerusalem. Hezbollah and Hamas have committed to push the Jews into the sea. There in no middle ground with them... So I think it would be in the best interest of the Arab world to clean up there own back yard... Oh wait they can't because the Fanatics will kill them if they stand up for peace. As the recent blood letting in Gaza proves that point.

 

[IAN SUN]

I feel for the Palestinians, they got screwed by the rest of the Arab world, when they attacked from all sides in 1948. The right of return will never happen. Palestinians have been treated like second class citizen by the rest of the Arab world for decades. Long on promises but short on substance.

That's a bit convenient, I think the first person screwer was the country that drove them off their land (and don't give me that bs about "oh they just up and left, for well I don't know what reason" ...it's called ethnic cleansing.)
But I suppose you think Israel is blameless in all this?

 

[Russ McDonald]

I don't think it's a fair characterization of what happened. From my shallow knowledge of what happened, the IRA still had a fair number of firearms, bombs, and people when both sides went to the negotiating table. And so I wouldn't say that the military arm of the IRA was "broken", considering they had some(a lot of?) people and equipment left.

Of course we could argue about whether or not the situation with the IRA is analogous to _______________. But my point was that it might be (is) possible to solve terrorism through non-violence means. At the very least, it should definitely be worth looking at!! The cost of violence (in the lives of US soldiers, lives of civilians, money) is huge and you'd be crazy not to look at alternatives.

Secondly, I think it's more likely that terrorism be solved through non-violent means than violent means. I think if you were to tally cases where terrorism has been solved/ended, the solutions were always non-violent.



Well US foreign policy is a little weird in that there was a period where it supported Saddam Hussein. Here is a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1223-11.htm

I'm not asking you to agree with that article (and I'd probably argue that there is a certain dogma to the author, and the bias should be evident; and the parallels to the Holocaust is a little much). But I think you should be wondering if the Bush/Rumsfeld administration has been forthcoming in their ties with Iraq. At best, they lacked foresight+competence to know the nature of who they were dealing with. (Of course, I think that Rumsfeld and the CIA aren't that stupid.)




I think that we can definitely agree that they deserve/should have a good government.

However:
A- They should have the freedom to decide on the form of governance they want. (Though in practice I don't see this happening.)
B- I don't think they'd want the problems associated with American-style democracy. Lobbying by special interests groups, (and therefore) corruption, flip-flopping by politicians, electoral irregularities, distortions from first-past-the-post system (and tendency towards two parties)
Again in practice not all of these problems are easily solved (only the last one is). But given a choice I don't think they'd necessarily go for first-past-the-post.
C- In principle, I think the US should have let the Iraqi people decide for themselves whether they wanted the US invasion/intervention. Ditto for Afghanistan. In practice, how do you really conduct a fair poll of the Iraqi people?? There are ways to distort any polls' answers. But ignoring that question, I think the Iraqi people would rather not have war, the risk of dying in it, American soldiers barging into their homes to search for weapons (and being scared ___less), Abu Ghraib, the chance that their country's natural resources being exploited by foreign companies, etc. etc.

Or to look at it another way, are the native North Americans really happy about living in a "free" and democratic country? Were and are they happy about being invaded? Somehow I don't think so.

I respect your opinion, but that is the devil in the details when you choose the diplomatic principle of containment. You have to work with the enemy of your enemy. Even if enemy of your enemy becomes a threat to you.

I would love for you to show me were terrorism was stopped without the use of Violence as part of the solution.

Contrary to the myth that permeates the web. The government they have chosen is their creation. The first provisional government was set up by America and Britain who selected the delegates who would write the new Iraqi Constitution. Those delegates came to the conclusion that anything that came out of that provisional authority would have no credibility with the Iraqi people. So the decision was made to dissolve that provisional authority. Which was jumped on as a failure by the press and the political hacks.

Then came the election by a free Iraq and the people choose who would represent them in Bagdad to form and write their Constitution, they chose a Parliamentary democracy closer to European style of governance. Not the federal system that we enjoy here in America.

Then came the next example of the new Arab wind of democracy, the national referendum for the ratification of The Iraqi constitution written by Iraqis, for Iraqis which was ratified by the Iraqi people.

Then came the third free election in Iraq, were the people elected the government as structured in the ephor mentioned Constitution that now holds power. Many leaving the house that day knowing that there was a good chance they would be dead by the end of the day. 70% voter turn out those are not the actions a people who are having Democracy imposed on them...

The exploitation of the new world started 500 years ago. This notion of groups of peaceful plains people devoid of conflict and war before the appearance of Europeans. Is a politically correct fairy tale....

Abu Ghraib is a good example of what is best about America, When you look at the whole story. A member of the military not from Abu Ghaib sees the abuse. He then reports it to his chain of command, do they sweep it under the rug, no. They bring it to JAG. Does the JAG cover it up, no. They investigate and file article 13s. Did some hot shot Woodward and Berstine reporter expose the dirty secret. No the General in charge briefed the press in Bagdad I know, because I saw it. 3 days later at Rumsfeld said the same thing in the Pentagon briefing which I saw on CNN. that was 6 months before the pictures that are now famous came out in the press, and the abusers are now in Leavenworth prison..... Are you judge by the crimes of few, or the justice handed out by the many...

 

[Russ McDonald]

That's a bit convenient, I think the first person screwer was the country that drove them off their land (and don't give me that bs about "oh they just up and left, for well I don't know what reason" ...it's called ethnic cleansing.)
But I suppose you think Israel is blameless in all this?

I would never say that. there is amble blame to go around it didn't happen in a vacuum. Assigning blame is a waste of time because everybody is at fault. Make the best of the situation and rise out of poverty and create a Palestinian paradise on earth. You do that 40 years from now you be looking back and see the wisdom of the choice.

 

[IAN SUN]

I would never say that. there is amble blame to go around it didn't happen in a vacuum. Assigning blame is a waste of time because everybody is at fault. Make the best of the situation and rise out of poverty and create a Palestinian paradise on earth. You do that 40 years from now you be looking back and see the wisdom of the choice.

Fantastic! This gives me hope that reasoned discussion can at least bring about a semblance of agreement between reasonable people.
I'll let this rest on your note of hope.

I ought not let this go and perchance leave the impression that I think Palestinians are blameless in their plight. The terrorist attacks have lost them much potential support. Israel is a fact on the ground, (Just as the US and Canada are. The native peoples of the Americas were certainly shafted, ethnically cleansed, and in many cases subjected to genocide, (maybe it's not just religious nuts that have a thing for genocide...)) they are going nowhere.

The Palestinians need to abandon the gun and pick up the sandals, follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi. A whole hearted commitment to non-violence is the only way forward. Martin Luther King, Mandela, Tutu, and Gandhi showed the way.
It would take enormous courage, but if Palestinian laid down guns and rocks alike, made a declaration to the world of their commitment to nonviolence, and marched en-masse against the occupation, the Wall would fall as did the one in Berlin.

 

[Russ McDonald]

Pollster run for the hills!!!

NH, you made me proud.

 

[Russ McDonald]

The Palestinians need to abandon the gun and pick up the sandals, follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi. A whole hearted commitment to non-violence is the only way forward. Martin Luther King, Mandela, Tutu, and Gandhi showed the way.
It would take enormous courage, but if Palestinian laid down guns and rocks alike, made a declaration to the world of their commitment to nonviolence, and marched en-masse against the occupation, the Wall would fall as did the one in Berlin.

Now that would be beautiful day, I pray we live long enough to see that day. I sound pessimistic, but when you look at Arab history in it's totality, I have no doubt that it will happen well when in our life time.

 

[number6]

Fantastic! This gives me hope that reasoned discussion can at least bring about a semblance of agreement between reasonable people.
I'll let this rest on your note of hope.

I ought not let this go and perchance leave the impression that I think Palestinians are blameless in their plight. The terrorist attacks have lost them much potential support. Israel is a fact on the ground, (Just as the US and Canada are. The native peoples of the Americas were certainly shafted, ethnically cleansed, and in many cases subjected to genocide, (maybe it's not just religious nuts that have a thing for genocide...)) they are going nowhere.

The Palestinians need to abandon the gun and pick up the sandals, follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi. A whole hearted commitment to non-violence is the only way forward. Martin Luther King, Mandela, Tutu, and Gandhi showed the way.
It would take enormous courage, but if Palestinian laid down guns and rocks alike, made a declaration to the world of their commitment to nonviolence, and marched en-masse against the occupation, the Wall would fall as did the one in Berlin.

Bro and Adobeone... out of the chaos (of debate) has come order. Thanks both for putting out the reasoned discussion.

 

[number6]

Pollster run for the hills!!!

NH, you made me proud.

I second that.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL0647530420080109

 

[Russ McDonald]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL0647530420080109

Great frick'in link man.

This is what I'm talking about, sometimes we are so used to the way we do things here in America. Both Liberals and Conservatives, are guilty of this. The Wing-nut Right is " Kill them all, and let God sort it out.", and The Ludicrous Left is "They just need a hug and positive affirmations, your smart enough, your good enough, and people just like you" No plan survives first contact with enemy. No production plan survives the first day of shooting. Life is too dynamic, and it is a contact sport.

We can say as a people we should of done this 2 years ago, or that 3 years ago. Its the difference between governing and campaigning. Are leaders are locked in campaign mode. I've been around it in a professional context, its same on both sides of the isle. Magnify your opponents mistakes,and marginalize their accomplishments...

That does not serve the people, and if you want to know who is to blame for this, go to the nearest mirror you can find, and ask yourself. Am I register voter? If I am did I vote in the last election, if you answer is no. You're a big part of the problem. If you said yes, did you hold your leaders feet to the fire? if you didn't you are also part of the problem.

The Constitution is a written contract between You and I as individuals, and between Us and the leaders we elect as a unified people. When we do not participate we are in breach of that contract. What happens after that we are responsible for. Luckily when it comes to leadership we can terminate their employment every 2 years...

 

[Russ McDonald]

I second that.

I third your second