Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 May 2002 00:02:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
851 times
|
| |
|
|
[snip]
> I see. I suppose my problem is that I don't view this as a "conservatives" v
> "liberals" issue.
Ah, I see.
[snip]
> > 18 months of suicide bombings will have that effect. I guess Israel never
> > should have withdrew in 1997.
>
> Perhaps they should never have invaded in '67?
Well if 5 Arab armies had not attacked them they probably would not have.
>
> *If* it meant a lasting piece, do you think Israel should hand back the West
> Bank, or do you think they should get to keep what god gave them ~3000 years
> ago?
*If* it meant peace then yes I do think Israel would hand back the West Bank.
That was why Barak was elected and offered peace to Arafat in the first place.
(Because the people supported it and thought it would mean peace.) The current
political atmoshere in Israel was a direct result of offering peace and getting
a terror war instead. That is why Sharon was elected. (Despite his poor
record) That is the whole mid-east problem in a nutshell. (Maybe you disagree
but I do not understand why once you study the history of the past few years,
let alone the whole 54 years.)
[snip]
> How free is a society if its leaders are in the pocket of an overseas
> pressure group? I would worry if it were my country. AIPAC supports
> candidates from your main parties, and even those from groups like the LP.
Therein lies a seperate problem. The people in Washinton are supposed to be
representatives of the people not politicans. 99% of the United States social
problems would practically disapper if the Constitution were reinstated as its
basis of government.
[snip]
> > Of course not. If all your information was based on State Controlled media • you
> > unquestionably trusted, how would that affect your beliefs.
>
> That is not the situation though is it? In the occupied territories, the
> media may not be "free" but the news is all around them - tanks,
> checkpoints, air raids etc.
Right, but the people are not told that it is because of the suicide bombings,
they are told it is because Israelies are evil oppressors. The Saudi-Arabia
state controled newspaper printed an article durring the Jewish holiday of
passover. It told the Arab public how "[Jewish Vampires kidnap Arab Children,
put them in barrels with hundreds of needles and drain their blood for their
evil rituals.]" Why this sort of blatant Arab propaganda did not recieve a
huge outcry like anything Israel does is quite baffling to me. My local
newspaper had a small article about it at the time, but it was buried in some
obscure place toward the back.
>
> > They keep the
> > masses discontent and have a scapegoat to blame it on. That strengthens • their
> > power base and gives them lots of mindless volunteers. Heck, if I was naive
> > enough to believe innocent women and children were evil and that by blowing
> > them up I would go to heaven, I just might sign up.
>
> What do you think Sharon thinks about "innocent women and children". Do you
> think he feels he has a place in heaven? Or does he know what he is doing
> (and has done) is wrong? What about the Israeli electorate? They voted for
> him knowing his history.
I never said I supported Sharon. I do support Israel's right to fight back
though.
>
> >
> > > Think about it for one second!
> >
> > Indeed. Israel is certainly going about it all wrong but so is the UN. What
> > the UN should do, is order an international force to liberate all the Arab
> > civilians from dictatorships and let them think for themselves for once in
> > their lives.
>
> Like the US did in Venezuela? How could the UN get a mandate to do such a
> thing, when its own members are corrupt? That said, there are countries that
> are willing to help protect democracy – take a look at what has happened in
> Sierra Leon.
Like I said, what they SHOULD do...
>
> > Of course China being a dictatorship might have a problem with
> > that. Maybe my personal problem with the whole thing is I believe everyone
> > should have the right to live under the ideals of the United States
> > Constitution. Something the US Government does not even seem to believe
> > anymore.
>
> The Constitution gave you the Government you (the US electorate) did *not*
> vote for... ;)
Well that is a common fallacy. Gore's supposed popular vote majority was a
smaller percentage than Bush's percentage win in the recounted Florida vote.
That percentage was well within the margin of error. The simple fact is that
it would have been nearly impossible to determin who really won. That is why
the electorate is there, for those rare elections when the public is evenly
split.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) You should have paid more attention in history class. This is not quite true. (...) Has all the land taken in '67 ever been offered back... I don't think so. (...) To a certain extent they are "oppressors". Check their human rights record! (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) I see. I suppose my problem is that I don't view this as a "conservatives" v "liberals" issue. (...) Hmm. That sounds a little vague. Her reporting appears very selective to me. (...) Perhaps they should never have invaded in '67? *If* it (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
