| Author |
Topic:
Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 6:55pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
And anyone who is a member of the ACLU is a communistic hippy right?
Of course I don't believe that, but I think you see the parallels, right. Bolton could have been a member of American Century, but that in itself doesn't mean he's out to destroy the UN. Case in point, his actual record shows that he has undertaken his best work through the UN.
It's not the label per se, but the extreme definition that is attached in order to marginalize someone's beliefs.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 7:16pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Mr44 posted:
And anyone who is a member of the ACLU is a communistic hippy right?
The ACLU is an organization with a much broader and less specialized base of support. The ACLU is basically a public advocacy group with a lot of "civilian" members (like me) who just send in contributions periodically, whereas JINSA and PNAC are thinktanks staffed by professional politicians, theorists, etc. It's not comparable.
Also, he wasn't just a member but served in a leadership capacity at various times for both groups.
Mr44 posted:
It's not the label per se, but the extreme definition that is attached in order to marginalize someone's beliefs.
All that would be true if we weren't talking about a very small, very exclusive, very tight-knit group of people with a very clearly articulated set of policies who have a long history with each other and the present administration.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 7:41pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Well, the ACLU headquarters in New York has a very specific mandate, and the ACLU has both an Executive Director, and a President. The leadership is just as you described, a very close, very tight-knit organization.
But that's not the point. It's your assessment that because you're a member of the ACLU, you don't think it's "bad," but you just know those other guys across the hall are up to no good.
How many times have you repeated that people who disagree with the administration do so because they care, and not because they support the terrorists and such? Aren't you just engaging in a variation of that? You disagree with Bolton, so you're claiming that Bolton is out to destroy the UN?
Maybe Bolton criticizes the UN because he cares about it? If you sat down and talked with him, you might find you have a lot in common. Maybe not, and you might end up disagreeing with every one of his views. But I don't think it's fair to simply dismiss him with a label, or use that label to attach all sorts of sinister meanings.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 8:21pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Mr44 posted:
Well, the ACLU headquarters in New York has a very specific mandate, and the ACLU has both an Executive Director, and a President. The leadership is just as you described, a very close, very tight-knit organization.
And I'm sure it would be easy to characterize the political agenda of the leadership people in a consistent way. The rank-and-file members, however, are probably more diverse and harder to characterize, because it's not like they just do ACLU stuff 24/7.
PNAC and JINSA, however, don't really have rank-and-file memberships in the same way, because they're just not those sorts of organizations. It's a different model of organization. That's why it's more reasonable to say "He's part of PNAC, therefore he must be a neocon" than it is to say "He's part of the ACLU, therefore he must be a communistic hippy." You can be a part of the ACLU without being professionally devoted to advancing its agenda, but that's less true for something like PNAC.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/9/06 9:59am
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
- Date Edited:
12/9/06 10:00am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Vaderize03
|
No one else can force the issue.
No-one else can force the Israelis on the issue. The Palestinians, from the legitimate government on down, are supported by a wide umbrella of governments and organizations across the muslim world. This is done obstensibly in the name of "helping" their "brothers" the palestinians but more realistically as a way to proxy attack Israel.
In the absence of recognition of Israel's right to exist within any borders by Hamas, I don't think a massive unilateral movement on Olmert's part is likely; similar moves by the palestinians are also unlikely. I also don't see the major muslim regional players (Iran, Syria) pressuring the palestinians into changing the status quo any more than the US pressuring Israel into doing so.
It's going to involve changes in leadership all around, IMHO.
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/9/06 10:06am
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
But part of the problem is that America is seen as Israel's patron, allowing and encouraging it to get away with outlandish acts of violence gratis, which hinders American efforts to find lasting peace in the region. Without a balanced, fair, objective take on the Israeli situation - one distanced from the Israeli and Christian lobbies in the US homeland - the US is going to find it's credibility harder to assert in the region.
This situation already exists from the US point of view in terms of support for the Palestinians, Ender: dictatorship governments who care nothing about the actual people on the ground and use them as a lever on which to balance the discontent of their populations.
Perception is powerful, but so is point-of-view. True neutrality here cannot involve either anti-Israeli/anti-America or anti-Muslim/anti-Arab bias, and the whole situation has been poisoned with this from day one, in one way or another.
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
12/9/06 6:00pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Vaderize03 posted:
It's going to involve changes in leadership all around, IMHO.
And this change in leadership will be motivated by what? Israel launching airstrikes into Palestine to kill terrorist leaders, however justified it may be, is not going to miraculously make the Palestinians turn around and become friendly with them. This in turn spawns more terrorists from who knows where and then it starts all over again.
Last I heard the conditions for Palestinians are horrible. Israel (and the U.S.) should go help them out instead of letting terrorists do it. If terrorists are helping to rebuild Palestine, then Palestinians are going to give their allegiance to them. If Israel does it, well then we might have a chance for peace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/10/06 1:01pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
If terrorists are helping to rebuild Palestine, then Palestinians are going to give their allegiance to them. If Israel does it, well then we might have a chance for peace.
Israel actually participated in a major reconstruction of the Palestinian infrastructure back during the 90s (which they then went on to destroy in the numerous conflicts since). Their having done so did not endear them to the hearts of the Palestinians.
It's going to take more than just helping with their economic situation (although that is a good start). Mutual respect and understand would help, and with Israel bombing civilian areas and Hamas launching rockets from those same neighborhoods, it looks pretty much like the status quo.
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
12/10/06 1:30pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Vaderize, you realise your take on that reconstruction could be said to be one-sided?
Remember how I often go on about how 1,000,000 Palestinians have access to as much water as 10,000 Israelis?
That's your reconstruction, hard at work.
I realise you connection to Israel, but you're not even trying to be fair.
Consider:
"No-one else can force the Israelis on the issue. The Palestinians, from the legitimate government on down, are supported by a wide umbrella of governments and organizations across the muslim world. This is done obstensibly in the name of "helping" their "brothers" the palestinians but more realistically as a way to proxy attack Israel. "
As opposed to the perception America supports and condone's Israel's slaughter of Muslims?
If we're going to use divisive language, take side and cast the entire conflict in a stark black-and-white, surely you couldn't object to someone doing the same from the other side of the equation?
I don't disagree the Palestinian cause is manipulated; partially to proxy attack Israel but more to keep the Palestinians occupied and thus leaving Arab states alone. If you had any interest in being truly honest, which it seems Israeli apologists don't like to do because it means you can't play the victim and wail about how horrible life is, you'd note that Israel actually has strong political and diplomatic ties with key states in the region. Well, less so after their illegal war into Lebanon, which left the image of the dead on screens of Arabs across the region (Jolly good show there, Israel, nothing to make sure you can rack up the hate rating a little so you can lobby as victims O the inhumanity of it why do we suffer?!) - but still...
Jordan? Peace treaty and official recogition since 1994; a preferential trade agreement exists.
Egypt? Peace and official recognition since 1979; first Arab state to host an Israeli embassy. 50 MOUs have been signed since, increasing trade, tourism and cooperation between the two.
Turkey - the strongest supporter of Israel in the region, the two states have very close diplomatic and military ties and strong military-intelligence cooperation.
Israel also has diplomatic relations with: Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen
Now, nobody will pretend Iran or Syria are ideal neighbors, but the rest of them don't seem to give a damn either way. Israel, however, prefers not to engage anyone by Turkey in the region.
Why?
As I said, the few who do support the Palestinians do so more to keep the Palestinians from being a nuisance to them. Sure, they get pissed off at Israel for things like Lebanon, but any rational, decent human being with a shred of worth should be angry Israel illegally attacked a sovereign state, killed it's innocents in a drive to bag a handful of scrappy terrorists, whilst destroying the nascent Lebanese democracy which would have been a key ally against Islamic extremism! They got off scott free for what was a prima facie war crime! If you're not pissed off you're either blind, fanatic, or conditioning yourself to mindlessly take sides.
No, V03, I'm not convinced Israel couldn't do more on the Palestinian front. It could engage with it's neighbors to make the reconstruction of Palestine a secular, regional issue. Hell, it could just engage with it's neighbors - most of whom recognise Israel's right to exist and don't challenge it.
But it's much easier to make no effort, blame others, and play the victim to receive unending US funds. Works well, in fact - you can butcher innocents and get off scott free. That such thinking is chronically short term, is of no concern to Israeli leaders. The last Israeli with vision was Yitsak Rabin, and remind me how he died?
Of course I don't want to imply the Palestinians are angelic here - nothing of the sort. To suggest Israel is short sighted would imply the Palestinians are sufffering an acute cataract. Whilst I can't blame them for being desperate - the situation has been getting worse and worse for years, and the one state capable of influencing things for the better is diplomatically indifferent at best, biased at worst. But it's pretty damn clear that the other option they tried - an intifadah - hasn't worked either.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
12/10/06 6:37pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Your points are very well stated, but I think that we're missing each other in attempting to meet in the middle.
Sure, I have a pro-Israeli bias. With a living grandmother who is a Hitler/Stalin survivor, and a mother who clearly remembers terrorists attacks on her schoolbus during a class trip past the Golan Heights, I freely admit that I see the situation through rose-colored glasses.
What I think we're both missing here is the issue of "who's worse". I have spent a long time arguing in favor of Israel, but obviously, they have done, and continue to do, some pretty crooked s#$t. I commend all the nations that have signed peace treaties with Israel, but I disagree with the notion that it is on Israel alone to give all the effort. It would be nice if nations with which Israel has signed peace treaties actually gave enough of a damn about the palestinians to try and truly help them, rather than "also" sit by and do nothing, or at most hold pro-Palestinian rallies.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Israel alone will not "engage", with or without US support. This is driven in large part by the assumption that the palestinians are incapable of controlling their extremists, leading to Israeli reluctance to engage in unilateral motions without arab/muslim pressure on the palestinians to curb terrorists. Iranian and Syrian aid to groups like Hezbollah certain don't sweeten the pot from Israel's perspective, either, and it is politically unpopular in the US at the moment to pressure Israel (although I disagree with this).
I would love to see Israel claim the high ground, move back to it's earlier borders, and initiate the peace process.
But I just don't see it happening right now with the central palestinian government being so weak, and I don't believe that unilateral Israeli action will solve that particular problem. It is a step in the right direction, but again, I don't see Israel taking it right now.
I also don't see the US trying to force them while Bush is still in office.
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
12/12/06 8:16am
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Ooops!
I never did get why they are coy about it. I don't see what it gains them.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi Ben
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
1/1/07 2:50pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Jediflyer posted:
Ooops!
I never did get why they are coy about it. I don't see what it gains them.
Ditto. Everyone knows they've got a few hundred. Which also means no one will fire a nuke at them. Doesn't matter how mad Iran may sound, when they get their nuke they'll be level-headed with it - nukes sober people up, fast. In any case their desire for a bomb is likely premised on this analysis:
Iraq had no nukes, was invaded.
North Korea had nukes, was only talked to.
Therefore we need a nuke to avoid being invaded.
It's self-preservation, that's it. Oh, I'm sure Iran's leadership would like to wipe Israel off the map, but not at the price of its own destruction as well.
A few years back everyone thought there'd be trouble with India and Pakistan getting nukes, instead MAD and the sheer destructive level of nukes ensured they weren't used.
Not that this will stop everyone panicking about Iran getting a bomb. Why are we worried? We'll still have more!
JB
-----signature-----
Howe: Why?
Castle: So they can't walk away. So they can't
profit from the pain they've caused.....
Howe: And no second chances...
Castle: I don't do redemption.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthArsenal6
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/8/07 11:52am
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Jedi Ben posted:
.
It's self-preservation, that's it. Oh, I'm sure Iran's leadership would like to wipe Israel off the map, but not at the price of its own destruction as well.
JB
He only mentioned it - thats all, on retaliation of Isreal who said they would like to see the Gaza strip to be Wiped off the map ! some years back.
Where as Isreal well thats been terroissing the Palastien people for a good number of years
Iran has not done anything like this directly to Israel.
And Iranins couldn't give too monkeys what America does to its country
they have been ready since Itollah came to power.
-----signature-----
|-o-| {OO} <-o-> /-o-\ <=o=>
"You mean you'll put down your rock, and I'll put down my sword and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?"
A,B XY
DA6 calender goes from March 31st to April 2nd, no one fools DarthArsenal6.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
1/9/07 1:29pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
Jedi Ben posted:
Ditto. Everyone knows they've got a few hundred. Which also means no one will fire a nuke at them. Doesn't matter how mad Iran may sound, when they get their nuke they'll be level-headed with it - nukes sober people up, fast. In any case their desire for a bomb is likely premised on this analysis:
Iraq had no nukes, was invaded.
North Korea had nukes, was only talked to.
Therefore we need a nuke to avoid being invaded.
I'd say there's a few more reasons why NK didn't get invaded. Firstly, they're pretty well fortified with their artillery, landmines, and whatnot. Secondly, we already had troops tied down in Iraq and probably didn't have the political will at home to deal with yet another war. Thirdly, and probably most important, is that we don't want to piss off Russia and China at this point.
Saddam was much more of a scapegoat, and for all the trouble he's caused us it made going after him so much easier to justify, and I'd say that's why it happened.
Jedi Ben posted:
It's self-preservation, that's it. Oh, I'm sure Iran's leadership would like to wipe Israel off the map, but not at the price of its own destruction as well.
A few years back everyone thought there'd be trouble with India and Pakistan getting nukes, instead MAD and the sheer destructive level of nukes ensured they weren't used.
Not that this will stop everyone panicking about Iran getting a bomb. Why are we worried? We'll still have more!
JB
It's worrisome because even if Iran doesn't fire off a warhead at Israel, someday that technology might find its way into the hands of terrorists. And that's when bad stuff occurs. Assuming that Iran had the best of intentions regarding nuclear technology, it would still be a bad idea for the world in general because of the security risks. That's why I think that they should at least hold off on nuclear technology until the threat of worldwide terrorism dies down.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
1/9/07 1:50pm
Subject:
RE: Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0
|
He only mentioned it - thats all, on retaliation of Isreal who said they would like to see the Gaza strip to be Wiped off the map ! some years back.
The actual comments, and the follow-on reactions, were worded more strongly though.
al-J
ANAN
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
