[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jennin was not the massacre it was made out to be. it strongly appears that it wasn't a massacre. did you see the live palestinians pretend to carried off in a street funeral procession when the fell off his gurney and ran off? BBC got that on tape. He climbed back on and fell off, again!
FACT: US does give $4 Billion annually to Isreal. Roughly 1/3 of all military "endownments" equiptment is given to Isreal. The Isreali lobby is influential in the US as well as the Irish-American and Cuban-American lobbies.
You facts are right here but Jennin was not a massacre. A story can be told two ways and its slanted towards the Palestinians here in Europe and towards Isreal in US. This is not an opinion.
One thing is, Arafat was given several chances ever since Oslo Accord and he failed to deliver and proved unreliable. The evidence that was presented to US that Arafat and PA financially supported suicide bombers was the last straw for US as I understand it.
You mention Hamas. You are right. Hamas and Hezbollah are worse than PA. There was a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that did not make it on CNN. Arafat is gone. (or at least the US will no longer deal with his shenaggens).
palenstians deserve to live in peace, have hope, and all things accorded to other people. the fact is that it is spintered with one side (or two) wanting for the total desctruction of Isreal and the other wanting a state. If they want a state, i think the international community would support them financially, with Peacekeepers, recognized trade, etc etc. i don't think anyone really doubts that.
One hand does one thing, the other does another. Which leader you deal with that represent the Palestian people when you have groups that want to destroy Isreal and the other that wants Palestinian statehood, peace, etc. no one knows this answer.
Oh no not again another know it all who doesn't know crap <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> how many times will I send these facts again in AI ?
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
We'll never know will we as Israel wouldn't let an independent team to look (wouldn't let ambulances or doctors in either)<hr></blockquote></strong>
Israel did let everyone in after the fighting ended and groups like the Palestinian Red Crescent society and Human Rights Watch have investigated and found that there was NO MASSACRE in Jenin and that PA claims of hundreds of civilian dead were false ! the total number they found was 53-54 dead most of which were combatants ! ( Israel BTW lost 23 men in the fighting ... I never heard about a massacre where one side has half as many dead as the 'massacred side' <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> )
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>Well, an Israeli government report found him indirectly responsible ...<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well it did and he had to resign his post as defense minister and was out of Israeli politics for over 10 years after that .... he was not found guilty of war crimes in any Israeli or international forum ( including the recent fraudulent case brought against him in Belgium where he was completely exonerated) and he certainly does not deserve to be called a war criminal any more then the previous Dutch PM .. who has just run for re election and I didn't see you or SJO going mad with rage about that , he did a mistake - he paid for it - story is over ! trying to paint him as some kind of Milosevich is pure Arab propaganda !
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
Well, Israel does receive $4 billion worth of military stuff every year. Jenin was flattened with this kit. QED.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Israel receives 3 billion (not 4 but what's a billion between friends) Aid from the US a large part of this sum is civilian aid ! the money is mainly used for R&D on advanced weapons systems that will help Israel survive the next time the Arab world tries to dump it back into the sea like it did in 1948 1967 and 1973.
Jenin was not flattened at all (in fact the area damaged by the Israeli op is extremely small) and if anything did flatten the buildings that did go down it was Palestinian booby traps of which thousands were found all over the place in their own CIVILIAN REFUGEE camp.
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
Here's a good one: the US wants democratically elected Arafat gone. Who are they going to talk to when he's gone? If the Palestinians can't have Yasser, they'll have Hamas. More violence, more war then there is now. American policy at work.<hr></blockquote></strong>
the US doesn't tell the Palestinians who they can have .. they can have anyone they like ... Only they should realize that peace will not be the result of certain choices ! this US administration has given soooooooo many chances for Arafat to stop sponsoring terrorism and to show that he is willing to move towards peace and he has consistently failed to do that for 2 years now ! All that Bush is saying is that he has lost faith in Arafat, he will not work with him and that as long as Arafat remains is power there will be no peace because Arafat does not want/is incapable of bringing peace ! Palestinians can choose whoever they like but they will have to live with the consequence of that choice. there are plenty of better choices then Hamas for the Palestinians to choose from - plenty of sensible dependable Palestinians who CAN bring a true dialog and an end to violence !
and re democracy ....LOL - the PA elections in 96 were a sham read some of the Amnesty international reports about these elections if you dare ... and remember Hitler was also elected in pseudo-democratic process the claim for democracy doesn't automatically make a leader right.
[quote]There are many many lunatic right-wing head-in-the-sanders on this board, and all it takes for someone with a female name to argue cogently for a different POV and the wee weenies come poking out with some of the most staggering idea-free baseless slander and personal insults ... it's staggering. Even the lefties (Hassan i S'bah for example) who take an intelligent voice don't cause the amount of defensive bo-lax SJO gets ... as long as they're male.
Some of you guys can give it but you just can't take it ... from a woman. Pathetic. You'd rather insult then debate. <hr></blockquote>
1) And there are a lot of head-in-the-sand left wingers here too. Like you.
2) Our rather strong reaction to SJO has NOTHING to do with her gender. At least it doesn't for me. She makes completely unsubstantiated claims to support her agenda, which most reasonable people would say is "extreme". It is apparent she has a total political hatred of conservatives and in particular, the Bush family. She seems to blame all of the nation's past wrongs on conservatives, and somehow ties each and every one to a conservative politcian. She is, simply, the most polarized person I have ever encountered.
3) Futhermore, when I add to this my extreme disagreement with her positions (as well as the above) it produces a strong response. My disagreement with her is soundly rooted in my philosophy and my belief that sometimes, a conspiricy DOESN'T exist. I have no problem with conspiricy theories, and I certainly don't believe our government is transparent on many issues. It is interesting though, that SJO seems to only focus on theories and events which are tied (or which she ties) to Republican/Conservative administrations, in particular the Bush family. Then, she turns around and accuses others of manipulating evidence and filtering thoughts through OUR/THEIR world view! WTF?
Oh boy, I cannot wait to see SJO dig up stuff about the Masons and the Templar Knights controling Amarica since it was fonded, and manipulating people and goverments to increase the Templar's vast wealth... Oh and George W. is a decendent of Hitler!
[quote]2) Our rather strong reaction to SJO has NOTHING to do with her gender.<hr></blockquote>
(!)
[quote]At least it doesn't for me. She makes completely unsubstantiated claims to support her agenda, which most reasonable people would say is "extreme".<hr></blockquote>
SDW, thats more of your arrant bullsh1t. I don't have an agenda as you paranoidly claim, I am just one of thousands of people who come in here to post on this bb. It seems that there are certain subjects that are taboo, and I have struck a raw nerve by mentioning Eugenics, and the well-known connections to some powerful American families. The Eugenics issue is a national disgrace, and it seems that there are folks here who feel most uncomfortable with it being mentioned in a public forum, probably due to some strange notion of misplaced patriotism that everything that this country has done, in all areas of life, has been for the better.
Just a 5 second search in google found a link to a story in the corporate media (ABC), since you wouldnt even entertain a link (there are thousands) from an independent media cource, I am sure, no matter how well documented or referenced. I am not even sure if this link is good enough for you, since you probably think that Reuters is a communist news agency.
thats from the first 2 pages of Google search "Eugenics". All conspiracy theory, huh?
[quote]It is apparent she has a total political hatred of conservatives and in particular, the Bush family.<hr></blockquote>
I don't hate anyone, SDW....and to level that accusation at me regarding a person I have never met is absurd in the extreme. Hate has no place in my life or my outlook. The policies of hate, intolerance and associated uglinesses is not where I come from......I will not say any more on that one.
Just because I bring up some gnarly aspects of the President's ancestors, you fly off the handle and you automatically think I hate them! If I did the same regarding someone on the extreme left, as opposed to the extreme right, you would be gushing with praise, I am sure.
[quote]She seems to blame all of the nation's past wrongs on conservatives, and somehow ties each and every one to a conservative politcian. She is, simply, the most polarized person I have ever encountered.<hr></blockquote>
US politicians specially at the national level in Washington tend to answer to big business, as opposed to the people they sllegedly represent. In the *global political spectrum*, successive US governments oscillate between slightly left of center, to extreme right. The average position is definitely on the conservative side, and since the executive power of big business is run predominantly by conservative white males in their 50s and older, and US politicians are at the beck and call of of big corporations, logic dictates that "our past wrongs" as you put it have been more tha doing of those on the right. I could also add that perhaps "our past good deeds" have also been as a result of those on the right of the political spectrum.
However of this I am sure you are aware: some of the bastions of right-wing philosophy are privilege, exclusion, elitism and conformity namely, if "your not one of us, your not welcome". The right is not endeared to those who don't conform to a certain set of standards, or those who encompass concepts such as multiculturism, or the emancipation of groups with differing lifestyles. It is easy to see how a movement such as Eugenics can find support in the environment and social circles of the wealthy privileged silver-spoon set, specially in an era 60 to 120 years back when non-whites were commonly regarded as being less than human.
[quote]3) Futhermore, when I add to this my extreme disagreement with her positions (as well as the above) it produces a strong response. My disagreement with her is soundly rooted in my philosophy and my belief that sometimes, a conspiricy DOESN'T exist.<hr></blockquote>
I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that Eugenics was not funded and supported by powerful and influential US families. Go do some research, you may not like what you find. I don't either. If you can't, then back off.
[quote]I have no problem with conspiricy theories, and I certainly don't believe our government is transparent on many issues.<hr></blockquote>
Of course you don't have a problem with it! It is your prime debating prop, and you use it in an attempt to trash anything you disagree with, cheapening a debate by introducing the old 'giggle factor' (and its assocition with Elvis and UFOs for example) by slapping a non-credibility label on it. Most convenient, and it doesnt wash, sorry.
[quote]It is interesting though, that SJO seems to only focus on theories and events which are tied (or which she ties) to Republican/Conservative administrations, in particular the Bush family. Then, she turns around and accuses others of
manipulating evidence and filtering thoughts through OUR/THEIR world view! WTF?<hr></blockquote>
I think this is the first time I have mentioned the Bush family ancestors in a thread...I did so because our foreign policy towards Hitler BEFORE the outbreak of WW2 was a little more friendly than one seemed appropriate in the light of what happened afterwards. It was on topic, and relevant.
And this just in from Crusader:
[quote]Oh boy, I cannot wait to see SJO dig up stuff about the Masons and the Templar Knights controling Amarica since it was fonded, and manipulating people and goverments to increase the Templar's vast wealth... Oh and George W. is a decendent of Hitler!<hr></blockquote>
To all you people talking about Eugenics and conspiracies let me just remind you of a simple fact - this thread was about US foreign policy and its merits or lack of these, I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ?
[quote]SDW, thats more of your arrant bullsh1t. I don't have an agenda as you paranoidly claim, I am just one of thousands of people who come in here to post on this bb. It seems that there are certain subjects that are taboo, and I have struck a raw nerve by mentioning Eugenics, and the well-known connections to some powerful American families. <hr></blockquote>
1) Everyone has an agenda.
2) Oh! You struck a raw nerve.....wow, you really rocked our sense of reality! You made me question everything! SJO, I could care less about something that was being tried on a widespread scale until about WWII. I never questioned that it may have happened. I DO question your MOTIVATION for posting that it was tied to the Bush family. And, even it was, who gives a damn? Yeah, you have no agenda.
[quote]I don't hate anyone, SDW....and to level that accusation at me regarding a person I have never met is absurd in the extreme. <hr></blockquote>
I said political hatred. No reasonable person would disagree that you have a political hatred of conservatism.
[quote]successive US governments oscillate between slightly left of center, to extreme right. The average position is definitely on the conservative side, <hr></blockquote>
There you go again! Drawing conclusions and stating opinions and presenting them as fact. I happen to think our government oscillates between extreme left and center right. So there.
[quote]However of this I am sure you are aware: some of the bastions of right-wing philosophy are privilege, exclusion, elitism and conformity namely, if "your not one of us, your not welcome". The right is not endeared to those who don't conform to a certain set of standards, or those who encompass concepts such as multiculturism, or the emancipation of groups with differing lifestyles. It is easy to see how a movement such as Eugenics can find support in the environment and social circles of the wealthy privileged silver-spoon set, specially in an era 60 to 120 years back when non-whites were commonly regarded as being less than human. <hr></blockquote>
Wow. This basically proves my point. Thank You.
You are talking about the EXTREME right, which is an idea that neither I, nor anyone else on these boards (from what I have seen) agrees with. I could easily go into elements of the extreme LEFT, but I haven't done that. You are imposing those extreme right ideals, at least implicitly, on modern conservativism. That is the same as me saying that you must believe in communism. Ridiculous. Modern conservatives, in general, do not believe in any of the things you posted.
In addition, some of your assault on the right also applies to the left. You mean to tell me that the left accepts ideas that do not conform to ITS standards? The left doesn't have money? The left doesn't have exclusivity?
Here is a recent occurence for you: AL Gore just bought a 2.3 million dollar house. But, I'm quite sure HE cares about the working man.
[quote]I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that Eugenics was not funded and supported by powerful and influential US families. <hr></blockquote>
That's because I didn't say that. I asked you to back up YOUR claims. You are the one claiming these rather extreme things. And it isn't just here. I have seen you post highly questionable theories and accusations with no evidence whatsoever. He/she who makes extreme or irregular claims has the burden of proof.
[quote]Of course you don't have a problem with it! It is your prime debating prop, and you use it in an attempt to trash anything you disagree with, cheapening a debate by introducing the old 'giggle factor' (and its assocition with Elvis and UFOs for example) by slapping a non-credibility label on it. Most convenient, and it doesnt wash, sorry. <hr></blockquote>
I think you missed the point, SJO. I was saying I have heard a lot of conspiracy theories and I don't reject them immediately. I have many of my own, in fact. But, unless I could back them up, I wouldn't post them. Or, I would present it as a query to others. You state them as fact.
[quote]I think this is the first time I have mentioned the Bush family ancestors in a thread...I did so because our foreign policy towards Hitler BEFORE the outbreak of WW2 was a little more friendly than one seemed appropriate in the light of what happened afterwards <hr></blockquote>
Yeah, and me eating that extra piece of lasagna last night gave me the shits this morning, so I guess it wasn't appropriate in light of what happened. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. In any case, I don't believe that when we as nation found out what Hitler was really about we kept on supporting him. Don't forget that Hitler was not seen as a madman for quite a long time. When the holocaust was discovered, and when he started needing a little too much "breathing room" is when we got concerned. But I forgot: You're still upset that it took us three years to enter a foreign war. Now I understand. I guess losing 295,000 men in battle wasn't enough.
How would Hammas be any different than Arafat? Or should I say, how has Arafat been any different from Hammas?
Even if Hammas were elected tomorrow, who is going to deal with them? Nobody. This will send a message to the Arab population in Judea Samaria and Gaza that they need to elect a responsible and moderate voice if they hope to have any international support. Yes, Arafat was elected. So what? Does it mean that the democratic process is over? No more elections until he's is dead? If you wish for a successful Middle East solution, you must make the governments there accountable. Right now what you have, is a bunch of gangsters and thugs running the show, who care only for their mafia power base. This needs to change.
<strong>Liberals AND conservatives are morons. The majority of us are in the middle, smart enough to pick the correct position............................</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point !
AND..... I'm still waiting ......I will keep harassing you until you either concede that you were wrong or prove me being wrong
I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ?
AND..... I'm still waiting ......I will keep harassing you until you either concede that you were wrong or prove me being wrong
I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Good Question - but I think it has a different angle. The US has a very strong influence on matters in the ME, so whatever stance the US government takes will be reflected in the grind of the ME. Say, Under Clintons leadership it came very close to a negotiated deal between arabs and israelis, they were at least trying. Now under Bush' leadership there is a more tough attitude, and dialog seems far away.
Point is, that USA is very influential when it comes to the method of achieving something in the ME.
To my eyes it seems as whenever there is tough talk - there is tough times for both israelis and palestinians.
Now the getting rid of Arafat - well he is elected, and there will be new elections. What will happen if he is re-elected, will the US then not talk to him?
BTW re: contributing to war. There is an arguement concerning the US dependency on oil, that this was the real reason for the Gulf War.
Good Question - but I think it has a different angle. The US has a very strong influence on matters in the ME, so whatever stance the US government takes will be reflected in the grind of the ME. Say, Under Clintons leadership it came very close to a negotiated deal between arabs and Israelis, they were at least trying. Now under Bush' leadership there is a more tough attitude, and dialog seems far away..</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians started while Clinton was in office, and the tough talk you refer to is a very recent thing, during most of 2001 and early 2002 the Bush administration was just as tame about the PA as the Clinton administration was. surly the fact the 'dialog seems far away' is down to Palestinians and Israelis not the US administration...
[quote]Originally posted by yodamaster:
<strong>
Point is, that USA is very influential when it comes to the method of achieving something in the ME.
To my eyes it seems as whenever there is tough talk - there is tough times for both Israelis and Palestinians. .</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not really following the links you make there .... the Bush Sr. administration was very tough talking but in 1991 we had the Madrid Summit ( brokered and setup by Bush Sr.) where for the first time Israeli representatives were sitting side by side with Arab representatives from all over the Arab world (including Syria) and talking about peace. this was the summit that made the Oslo accords possible two years later..... it seems to me that any US involvement in the ME is good involvement where peace is concerned.
[quote]Originally posted by yodamaster:
<strong>
Now the getting rid of Arafat - well he is elected, and there will be new elections. What will happen if he is re-elected, will the US then not talk to him?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Judging by what Bush, Rice and Powel say - no they won't talk to him . Israel won't talk to him either. you cant talk with a man that brakes every agreement he signs and uses indiscriminate terrorism as a means to achieving political ends, what's the point ? there is nothing to be gained by talking to him ... It just makes things worse not better , every inch of goodwill the man was given he twisted and used in the most cynical way possible, and nothing the US or Israel tried doing from announcing a unilateral ceasefire to giving him tons of slack made him behave like a decent leader his abused and messed up people need. clearly, talking to him will help no one !
[quote]Originally posted by yodamaster:
<strong>
BTW re: contributing to war. There is an argument concerning the US dependency on oil, that this was the real reason for the Gulf War.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure it was the reason for the war .. its probably the reason for US involvement in the ME in the first place. lets not kid ourselves here ... but what's so bad about that ? the western world needs oil to keep its economies going. the ME is where the oil comes from so the US does everything to maintain stability and undisturbed oil flow from the ME .. very simple .. this means that US interests go hand in hand with peace in the region. and like it or not that was the reason for the gulf war ... It was a war fought to preserve balance and peace in the ME. think of it, if the US hadn't gone to war and instead let Iraq take control of the huge oil reserves in Kuwait (and possibly Saudi Arabia as well) and develop nuclear weapons , the world's stability might have been effected, not to mention the economic ramifications ..... and far greater wars would have resulted from this....
Its true that US foreign policy's prime consideration is US economic and political interests but that [in 9 out of every 10 cases] goes hand in hand with peace, democracy, human rights and stability. and that's true for other places in the world as well as the ME....
I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I remember the United States sending an army to the Gulf to fight that Gulf War thing.
I remember the United States sending an army to the Gulf to fight that Gulf War thing.
Does this count?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This absolutely does NOT count. Regardless of motivation (I am aware many believe this was only about oil), we stopped the raping of Kuwait. We also were more than capable of completely invading Iraq and removing its military and government. GHWB said no, depsite extreme objection from Norman S. and company. The reasons were two fold: 1) It wasn't the original goal of the mission. 2) It might DESTABILIZE the region if Saddam fell at the drop of a hat. This is why I support his decision at the time, while many others criticize it.
We PREVENTED more unstability with our actions. Iraq was ready to take on Saudi Arabia and more importantly, Israel. Had Israel gotten involved, we could have had a true Holy War. We saw to it that Israel didn't respond to the SCUD attacks in order to prevent their entrance and the subsequent Holy War.
I remember the United States sending an army to the Gulf to fight that Gulf War thing.
Does this count?</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO because what the US did was to stop Iraqi aggression and remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Operation desert storm restored peace and stability to the ME which was threatened by Sadam .... so in fact its an example of the positive impact of US policy on the ME.... think of how things would look today if Sadam was allowed his transgression .... nasty, don't you think ?
This absolutely does NOT count. Regardless of motivation (I am aware many believe this was only about oil), we stopped the raping of Kuwait. [ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) I was only joking.
But come to think of it...
2) It was about oil.
3) It was about oil.
4) It was about oil.
5) It really was about oil.
6) Oil, oil, oil, crude oil, refined oil, la la la
Comments
<strong>
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jennin was not the massacre it was made out to be. it strongly appears that it wasn't a massacre. did you see the live palestinians pretend to carried off in a street funeral procession when the fell off his gurney and ran off? BBC got that on tape. He climbed back on and fell off, again!
FACT: US does give $4 Billion annually to Isreal. Roughly 1/3 of all military "endownments" equiptment is given to Isreal. The Isreali lobby is influential in the US as well as the Irish-American and Cuban-American lobbies.
You facts are right here but Jennin was not a massacre. A story can be told two ways and its slanted towards the Palestinians here in Europe and towards Isreal in US. This is not an opinion.
One thing is, Arafat was given several chances ever since Oslo Accord and he failed to deliver and proved unreliable. The evidence that was presented to US that Arafat and PA financially supported suicide bombers was the last straw for US as I understand it.
You mention Hamas. You are right. Hamas and Hezbollah are worse than PA. There was a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that did not make it on CNN. Arafat is gone. (or at least the US will no longer deal with his shenaggens).
palenstians deserve to live in peace, have hope, and all things accorded to other people. the fact is that it is spintered with one side (or two) wanting for the total desctruction of Isreal and the other wanting a state. If they want a state, i think the international community would support them financially, with Peacekeepers, recognized trade, etc etc. i don't think anyone really doubts that.
One hand does one thing, the other does another. Which leader you deal with that represent the Palestian people when you have groups that want to destroy Isreal and the other that wants Palestinian statehood, peace, etc. no one knows this answer.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
We'll never know will we as Israel wouldn't let an independent team to look (wouldn't let ambulances or doctors in either)<hr></blockquote></strong>
Israel did let everyone in after the fighting ended and groups like the Palestinian Red Crescent society and Human Rights Watch have investigated and found that there was NO MASSACRE in Jenin and that PA claims of hundreds of civilian dead were false ! the total number they found was 53-54 dead most of which were combatants ! ( Israel BTW lost 23 men in the fighting ... I never heard about a massacre where one side has half as many dead as the 'massacred side' <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> )
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>Well, an Israeli government report found him indirectly responsible ...<hr></blockquote></strong>
Well it did and he had to resign his post as defense minister and was out of Israeli politics for over 10 years after that .... he was not found guilty of war crimes in any Israeli or international forum ( including the recent fraudulent case brought against him in Belgium where he was completely exonerated) and he certainly does not deserve to be called a war criminal any more then the previous Dutch PM .. who has just run for re election and I didn't see you or SJO going mad with rage about that , he did a mistake - he paid for it - story is over ! trying to paint him as some kind of Milosevich is pure Arab propaganda !
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
Well, Israel does receive $4 billion worth of military stuff every year. Jenin was flattened with this kit. QED.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Israel receives 3 billion (not 4 but what's a billion between friends) Aid from the US a large part of this sum is civilian aid ! the money is mainly used for R&D on advanced weapons systems that will help Israel survive the next time the Arab world tries to dump it back into the sea like it did in 1948 1967 and 1973.
Jenin was not flattened at all (in fact the area damaged by the Israeli op is extremely small) and if anything did flatten the buildings that did go down it was Palestinian booby traps of which thousands were found all over the place in their own CIVILIAN REFUGEE camp.
[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>
Here's a good one: the US wants democratically elected Arafat gone. Who are they going to talk to when he's gone? If the Palestinians can't have Yasser, they'll have Hamas. More violence, more war then there is now. American policy at work.<hr></blockquote></strong>
the US doesn't tell the Palestinians who they can have .. they can have anyone they like ... Only they should realize that peace will not be the result of certain choices ! this US administration has given soooooooo many chances for Arafat to stop sponsoring terrorism and to show that he is willing to move towards peace and he has consistently failed to do that for 2 years now ! All that Bush is saying is that he has lost faith in Arafat, he will not work with him and that as long as Arafat remains is power there will be no peace because Arafat does not want/is incapable of bringing peace ! Palestinians can choose whoever they like but they will have to live with the consequence of that choice. there are plenty of better choices then Hamas for the Palestinians to choose from - plenty of sensible dependable Palestinians who CAN bring a true dialog and an end to violence !
and re democracy ....LOL - the PA elections in 96 were a sham read some of the Amnesty international reports about these elections if you dare ... and remember Hitler was also elected in pseudo-democratic process the claim for democracy doesn't automatically make a leader right.
Examples of the US contributing to middle east peace:
1956 - The US puts its foot down and forces Israel, UK and France to stop attacking Egypt in the Suez crisis !
1973 - US brokers a ceasefire ending the Yom-Kippur war between Egypt, Syria and Israel.
( this agreement is a first step towards later pace between Israel and Egypt)
1979 - Israeli Egyptian peace treaty signed in Camp David under the brokering of US presided Jimmy Carter .
1993 - Oslo accord signed between PM Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the lawn of the white house.
1994 - Israeli Jordanian Peace treaty brokered by the Clinton administration.
2000 - Camp David peace talks between Israeli PM Barak and Arafat hosted by Clinton
2001 - Mitchell report on ways to stop Israeli- Palestinian violence
2001 - Tenant Plan
2002 - Bush vision for a Palestinian state .....
Probably more examples .... do you want me to dig up some more ?
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ?
Hey, you gotta laugh sometimes
Some of you guys can give it but you just can't take it ... from a woman. Pathetic. You'd rather insult then debate. <hr></blockquote>
1) And there are a lot of head-in-the-sand left wingers here too. Like you.
2) Our rather strong reaction to SJO has NOTHING to do with her gender. At least it doesn't for me. She makes completely unsubstantiated claims to support her agenda, which most reasonable people would say is "extreme". It is apparent she has a total political hatred of conservatives and in particular, the Bush family. She seems to blame all of the nation's past wrongs on conservatives, and somehow ties each and every one to a conservative politcian. She is, simply, the most polarized person I have ever encountered.
3) Futhermore, when I add to this my extreme disagreement with her positions (as well as the above) it produces a strong response. My disagreement with her is soundly rooted in my philosophy and my belief that sometimes, a conspiricy DOESN'T exist. I have no problem with conspiricy theories, and I certainly don't believe our government is transparent on many issues. It is interesting though, that SJO seems to only focus on theories and events which are tied (or which she ties) to Republican/Conservative administrations, in particular the Bush family. Then, she turns around and accuses others of manipulating evidence and filtering thoughts through OUR/THEIR world view! WTF?
That is my problem.
(!)
[quote]At least it doesn't for me. She makes completely unsubstantiated claims to support her agenda, which most reasonable people would say is "extreme".<hr></blockquote>
SDW, thats more of your arrant bullsh1t. I don't have an agenda as you paranoidly claim, I am just one of thousands of people who come in here to post on this bb. It seems that there are certain subjects that are taboo, and I have struck a raw nerve by mentioning Eugenics, and the well-known connections to some powerful American families. The Eugenics issue is a national disgrace, and it seems that there are folks here who feel most uncomfortable with it being mentioned in a public forum, probably due to some strange notion of misplaced patriotism that everything that this country has done, in all areas of life, has been for the better.
Just a 5 second search in google found a link to a story in the corporate media (ABC), since you wouldnt even entertain a link (there are thousands) from an independent media cource, I am sure, no matter how well documented or referenced. I am not even sure if this link is good enough for you, since you probably think that Reuters is a communist news agency.
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/eugenics_000214.html"; target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/eugenics_000214.html</a>;
also try:
<a href="http://www.eugenics.net/"; target="_blank">http://www.eugenics.net/</a>;
<a href="http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/"; target="_blank">http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/</a>;
<a href="http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/endx.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/endx.htm</a>;
thats from the first 2 pages of Google search "Eugenics". All conspiracy theory, huh?
[quote]It is apparent she has a total political hatred of conservatives and in particular, the Bush family.<hr></blockquote>
I don't hate anyone, SDW....and to level that accusation at me regarding a person I have never met is absurd in the extreme. Hate has no place in my life or my outlook. The policies of hate, intolerance and associated uglinesses is not where I come from......I will not say any more on that one.
Just because I bring up some gnarly aspects of the President's ancestors, you fly off the handle and you automatically think I hate them! If I did the same regarding someone on the extreme left, as opposed to the extreme right, you would be gushing with praise, I am sure.
[quote]She seems to blame all of the nation's past wrongs on conservatives, and somehow ties each and every one to a conservative politcian. She is, simply, the most polarized person I have ever encountered.<hr></blockquote>
US politicians specially at the national level in Washington tend to answer to big business, as opposed to the people they sllegedly represent. In the *global political spectrum*, successive US governments oscillate between slightly left of center, to extreme right. The average position is definitely on the conservative side, and since the executive power of big business is run predominantly by conservative white males in their 50s and older, and US politicians are at the beck and call of of big corporations, logic dictates that "our past wrongs" as you put it have been more tha doing of those on the right. I could also add that perhaps "our past good deeds" have also been as a result of those on the right of the political spectrum.
However of this I am sure you are aware: some of the bastions of right-wing philosophy are privilege, exclusion, elitism and conformity namely, if "your not one of us, your not welcome". The right is not endeared to those who don't conform to a certain set of standards, or those who encompass concepts such as multiculturism, or the emancipation of groups with differing lifestyles. It is easy to see how a movement such as Eugenics can find support in the environment and social circles of the wealthy privileged silver-spoon set, specially in an era 60 to 120 years back when non-whites were commonly regarded as being less than human.
[quote]3) Futhermore, when I add to this my extreme disagreement with her positions (as well as the above) it produces a strong response. My disagreement with her is soundly rooted in my philosophy and my belief that sometimes, a conspiricy DOESN'T exist.<hr></blockquote>
I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that Eugenics was not funded and supported by powerful and influential US families. Go do some research, you may not like what you find. I don't either. If you can't, then back off.
[quote]I have no problem with conspiricy theories, and I certainly don't believe our government is transparent on many issues.<hr></blockquote>
Of course you don't have a problem with it! It is your prime debating prop, and you use it in an attempt to trash anything you disagree with, cheapening a debate by introducing the old 'giggle factor' (and its assocition with Elvis and UFOs for example) by slapping a non-credibility label on it. Most convenient, and it doesnt wash, sorry.
[quote]It is interesting though, that SJO seems to only focus on theories and events which are tied (or which she ties) to Republican/Conservative administrations, in particular the Bush family. Then, she turns around and accuses others of
manipulating evidence and filtering thoughts through OUR/THEIR world view! WTF?<hr></blockquote>
I think this is the first time I have mentioned the Bush family ancestors in a thread...I did so because our foreign policy towards Hitler BEFORE the outbreak of WW2 was a little more friendly than one seemed appropriate in the light of what happened afterwards. It was on topic, and relevant.
And this just in from Crusader:
[quote]Oh boy, I cannot wait to see SJO dig up stuff about the Masons and the Templar Knights controling Amarica since it was fonded, and manipulating people and goverments to increase the Templar's vast wealth... Oh and George W. is a decendent of Hitler!<hr></blockquote>
(a) grow up
(b) learn to use a spellchecker
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ?
[quote]SDW, thats more of your arrant bullsh1t. I don't have an agenda as you paranoidly claim, I am just one of thousands of people who come in here to post on this bb. It seems that there are certain subjects that are taboo, and I have struck a raw nerve by mentioning Eugenics, and the well-known connections to some powerful American families. <hr></blockquote>
1) Everyone has an agenda.
2) Oh! You struck a raw nerve.....wow, you really rocked our sense of reality! You made me question everything! SJO, I could care less about something that was being tried on a widespread scale until about WWII. I never questioned that it may have happened. I DO question your MOTIVATION for posting that it was tied to the Bush family. And, even it was, who gives a damn? Yeah, you have no agenda.
[quote]I don't hate anyone, SDW....and to level that accusation at me regarding a person I have never met is absurd in the extreme. <hr></blockquote>
I said political hatred. No reasonable person would disagree that you have a political hatred of conservatism.
[quote]successive US governments oscillate between slightly left of center, to extreme right. The average position is definitely on the conservative side, <hr></blockquote>
There you go again! Drawing conclusions and stating opinions and presenting them as fact. I happen to think our government oscillates between extreme left and center right. So there.
[quote]However of this I am sure you are aware: some of the bastions of right-wing philosophy are privilege, exclusion, elitism and conformity namely, if "your not one of us, your not welcome". The right is not endeared to those who don't conform to a certain set of standards, or those who encompass concepts such as multiculturism, or the emancipation of groups with differing lifestyles. It is easy to see how a movement such as Eugenics can find support in the environment and social circles of the wealthy privileged silver-spoon set, specially in an era 60 to 120 years back when non-whites were commonly regarded as being less than human. <hr></blockquote>
Wow. This basically proves my point. Thank You.
You are talking about the EXTREME right, which is an idea that neither I, nor anyone else on these boards (from what I have seen) agrees with. I could easily go into elements of the extreme LEFT, but I haven't done that. You are imposing those extreme right ideals, at least implicitly, on modern conservativism. That is the same as me saying that you must believe in communism. Ridiculous. Modern conservatives, in general, do not believe in any of the things you posted.
In addition, some of your assault on the right also applies to the left. You mean to tell me that the left accepts ideas that do not conform to ITS standards? The left doesn't have money? The left doesn't have exclusivity?
Here is a recent occurence for you: AL Gore just bought a 2.3 million dollar house. But, I'm quite sure HE cares about the working man.
[quote]I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that Eugenics was not funded and supported by powerful and influential US families. <hr></blockquote>
That's because I didn't say that. I asked you to back up YOUR claims. You are the one claiming these rather extreme things. And it isn't just here. I have seen you post highly questionable theories and accusations with no evidence whatsoever. He/she who makes extreme or irregular claims has the burden of proof.
[quote]Of course you don't have a problem with it! It is your prime debating prop, and you use it in an attempt to trash anything you disagree with, cheapening a debate by introducing the old 'giggle factor' (and its assocition with Elvis and UFOs for example) by slapping a non-credibility label on it. Most convenient, and it doesnt wash, sorry. <hr></blockquote>
I think you missed the point, SJO. I was saying I have heard a lot of conspiracy theories and I don't reject them immediately. I have many of my own, in fact. But, unless I could back them up, I wouldn't post them. Or, I would present it as a query to others. You state them as fact.
[quote]I think this is the first time I have mentioned the Bush family ancestors in a thread...I did so because our foreign policy towards Hitler BEFORE the outbreak of WW2 was a little more friendly than one seemed appropriate in the light of what happened afterwards <hr></blockquote>
Yeah, and me eating that extra piece of lasagna last night gave me the shits this morning, so I guess it wasn't appropriate in light of what happened. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. In any case, I don't believe that when we as nation found out what Hitler was really about we kept on supporting him. Don't forget that Hitler was not seen as a madman for quite a long time. When the holocaust was discovered, and when he started needing a little too much "breathing room" is when we got concerned. But I forgot: You're still upset that it took us three years to enter a foreign war. Now I understand. I guess losing 295,000 men in battle wasn't enough.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
How would Hammas be any different than Arafat? Or should I say, how has Arafat been any different from Hammas?
Even if Hammas were elected tomorrow, who is going to deal with them? Nobody. This will send a message to the Arab population in Judea Samaria and Gaza that they need to elect a responsible and moderate voice if they hope to have any international support. Yes, Arafat was elected. So what? Does it mean that the democratic process is over? No more elections until he's is dead? If you wish for a successful Middle East solution, you must make the governments there accountable. Right now what you have, is a bunch of gangsters and thugs running the show, who care only for their mafia power base. This needs to change.
mika.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>Liberals AND conservatives are morons. The majority of us are in the middle, smart enough to pick the correct position............................</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point !
AND..... I'm still waiting ......I will keep harassing you until you either concede that you were wrong or prove me being wrong
I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ?
<strong>
Good point !
AND..... I'm still waiting ......I will keep harassing you until you either concede that you were wrong or prove me being wrong
I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Good Question - but I think it has a different angle. The US has a very strong influence on matters in the ME, so whatever stance the US government takes will be reflected in the grind of the ME. Say, Under Clintons leadership it came very close to a negotiated deal between arabs and israelis, they were at least trying. Now under Bush' leadership there is a more tough attitude, and dialog seems far away.
Point is, that USA is very influential when it comes to the method of achieving something in the ME.
To my eyes it seems as whenever there is tough talk - there is tough times for both israelis and palestinians.
Now the getting rid of Arafat - well he is elected, and there will be new elections. What will happen if he is re-elected, will the US then not talk to him?
BTW re: contributing to war. There is an arguement concerning the US dependency on oil, that this was the real reason for the Gulf War.
<strong>
Good Question - but I think it has a different angle. The US has a very strong influence on matters in the ME, so whatever stance the US government takes will be reflected in the grind of the ME. Say, Under Clintons leadership it came very close to a negotiated deal between arabs and Israelis, they were at least trying. Now under Bush' leadership there is a more tough attitude, and dialog seems far away..</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians started while Clinton was in office, and the tough talk you refer to is a very recent thing, during most of 2001 and early 2002 the Bush administration was just as tame about the PA as the Clinton administration was. surly the fact the 'dialog seems far away' is down to Palestinians and Israelis not the US administration...
[quote]Originally posted by yodamaster:
<strong>
Point is, that USA is very influential when it comes to the method of achieving something in the ME.
To my eyes it seems as whenever there is tough talk - there is tough times for both Israelis and Palestinians. .</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not really following the links you make there .... the Bush Sr. administration was very tough talking but in 1991 we had the Madrid Summit ( brokered and setup by Bush Sr.) where for the first time Israeli representatives were sitting side by side with Arab representatives from all over the Arab world (including Syria) and talking about peace. this was the summit that made the Oslo accords possible two years later..... it seems to me that any US involvement in the ME is good involvement where peace is concerned.
[quote]Originally posted by yodamaster:
<strong>
Now the getting rid of Arafat - well he is elected, and there will be new elections. What will happen if he is re-elected, will the US then not talk to him?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Judging by what Bush, Rice and Powel say - no they won't talk to him . Israel won't talk to him either. you cant talk with a man that brakes every agreement he signs and uses indiscriminate terrorism as a means to achieving political ends, what's the point ? there is nothing to be gained by talking to him ... It just makes things worse not better , every inch of goodwill the man was given he twisted and used in the most cynical way possible, and nothing the US or Israel tried doing from announcing a unilateral ceasefire to giving him tons of slack made him behave like a decent leader his abused and messed up people need. clearly, talking to him will help no one !
[quote]Originally posted by yodamaster:
<strong>
BTW re: contributing to war. There is an argument concerning the US dependency on oil, that this was the real reason for the Gulf War.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure it was the reason for the war .. its probably the reason for US involvement in the ME in the first place. lets not kid ourselves here ... but what's so bad about that ? the western world needs oil to keep its economies going. the ME is where the oil comes from so the US does everything to maintain stability and undisturbed oil flow from the ME .. very simple .. this means that US interests go hand in hand with peace in the region. and like it or not that was the reason for the gulf war ... It was a war fought to preserve balance and peace in the ME. think of it, if the US hadn't gone to war and instead let Iraq take control of the huge oil reserves in Kuwait (and possibly Saudi Arabia as well) and develop nuclear weapons , the world's stability might have been effected, not to mention the economic ramifications ..... and far greater wars would have resulted from this....
Its true that US foreign policy's prime consideration is US economic and political interests but that [in 9 out of every 10 cases] goes hand in hand with peace, democracy, human rights and stability. and that's true for other places in the world as well as the ME....
<strong>
I have put a challenge to all you clever people out there:
I have given quite a few examples of US bringing peace and stability to the middle east,( that's what people call foreign policy.. ged it Einstein ?) now can any of you put your money where your mouth is and.....
Can anyone show me a single example of US foreign policy contributing toward war in the middle east ? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I remember the United States sending an army to the Gulf to fight that Gulf War thing.
Does this count?
<strong>
I remember the United States sending an army to the Gulf to fight that Gulf War thing.
Does this count?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This absolutely does NOT count. Regardless of motivation (I am aware many believe this was only about oil), we stopped the raping of Kuwait. We also were more than capable of completely invading Iraq and removing its military and government. GHWB said no, depsite extreme objection from Norman S. and company. The reasons were two fold: 1) It wasn't the original goal of the mission. 2) It might DESTABILIZE the region if Saddam fell at the drop of a hat. This is why I support his decision at the time, while many others criticize it.
We PREVENTED more unstability with our actions. Iraq was ready to take on Saudi Arabia and more importantly, Israel. Had Israel gotten involved, we could have had a true Holy War. We saw to it that Israel didn't respond to the SCUD attacks in order to prevent their entrance and the subsequent Holy War.
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
I remember the United States sending an army to the Gulf to fight that Gulf War thing.
Does this count?</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO because what the US did was to stop Iraqi aggression and remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Operation desert storm restored peace and stability to the ME which was threatened by Sadam .... so in fact its an example of the positive impact of US policy on the ME.... think of how things would look today if Sadam was allowed his transgression .... nasty, don't you think ?
<strong>
This absolutely does NOT count. Regardless of motivation (I am aware many believe this was only about oil), we stopped the raping of Kuwait. [ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) I was only joking.
But come to think of it...
2) It was about oil.
3) It was about oil.
4) It was about oil.
5) It really was about oil.
6) Oil, oil, oil, crude oil, refined oil, la la la
7) Oil, oil oil, oil, oil
8) The war in the Gulf was about oil.
9) Yes it was.
<strong>
1) I was only joking.
But come to think of it...
2) It was about oil.
3) It was about oil.
4) It was about oil.
5) It really was about oil.
6) Oil, oil, oil, crude oil, refined oil, la la la
7) Oil, oil oil, oil, oil
8) The war in the Gulf was about oil.
9) Yes it was.</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL
read my posts re hand in hand etc..... nice poem BTW
Firstly, sorry I just lowered the tone like an infant. (I'm always so serious after all.)
Secondly, it was about oil. No-one lifted a finger when Saddam was gassing the Kurds or massacring the Marsh Arabs and the Ismaelis.
But when he invades Kuwait, the US suddenly feels compelled to leg round the planet to stop the country being, er, 'raped'.
Thirdly, well, you can guess.