Mid east

[WKK Gimbal 0]

"I do believe that more and more people grow tired of US influence - in many many forms - in our everyday, at least European, life. It seems like cheap US culture is most popular amongst younger people; maybe it is because most of it is based on the same few illusions that one see through, and grows tired of, with time. Probably much of the 'anti American' influences spreading can be traced to US export of culture and media worldwide"

Amen! The main problem with US is that it's a nation in it's baby stage, thus has no "real" culture.

Many american tourists who are bold enough to travel outside US and experience the sights in "the old world" such as St. Peter's church, Notre Dame, or Taj Mahal, actually get physical culture chocks, because they cannot comprehend that mankind has been able to build such collosal momuments out of faith, and the craftsmanship it has taken to build them.

Culture chock caused by lack of culture

They'd rather cast it in plastic; faster and cheaper and more "fun".

I know this will get me flamed, well flame on. I know I'm right

[Pete 1]

solution to middle east problem?

it MIGHT happen...

[RedStar 0]

What about THIS

[MDRZulu 0]

No no, what about this

sorry couldnt help but doing that.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"No no, what about this

sorry couldnt help but doing that"<span id='postcolor'>

[Oligo 1]

Denoir, you defector:

"I don't agree with you on that Oligo. NATO is a mutual interest organization. It is American dominated but all the countries involved have their interests. We Europeans share a number of interests with the Americans, and we profit from the Americans enforcing them (oil anybody?). Of course USA profits the most from NATO, and is therefor agains the dismantlement of it or independent European defense efforts."

I wasn't saying that nobody else profits from NATO. I just said that U.S. profits the most. Also, NATO nicely makes sure that european union cannot ever have a REALLY different opinion from the yanks, because we lack any military credibility whatsoever (most of the significant european armies belong to NATO).

Additionally, U.S. spending to NATO has nothing to do with altruism and therefore cannot be claimed to be 'humanitarian' spending, like some few yanks so often do.

"We can at least say that the intentions were good."

Good intentions should be feared the most, for they so often spawn crap.

"Yes, but the US has never started a war directly."

This is not technically correct. U.S. had many wars against the indians for example, which they started. Also, U.S. directly initiated the war against the taleban, who had not attacked U.S. Although, I grant it, the result of that war should be good (I very much hope so), if things don't get fucked like they often do.

"Nah, won't work. Take the talibans for instance. They knew that the US had the will and the means to do them serious harm, yet they ignored it."

Ok, if you consider issuing 'yield or die' demands to other nations acceptable, then I guess the U.S. policy is just mint. Maybe we should not fight about a thing, which is clearly just a matter of opinion?

"A war is a war and shit happens. You can't prevent that. The only objection that I have is the attempt to justify everything by pretending you do it out of altruistic reasons. Just say as it is: Give us what we want or we'll kick the living #@!! out of you, since we have the biggest baddest military around."

I got to admit that this 'pretending to be altruistic' shit is what ticks me off the most as well. It's just too bad that all these innocent people have to die in the constant wars.

"Very interesting reading. I never knew for instance that Grobachev proposed in 1985 to get rid of all the worlds nuclear weapons by the year 2000. I wonder who stopped that?"

If I remember correctly, Gorba was weak and tried to maneuver a little. The yanks dismissed the proposal, because 'it could never work'. For all I know, they might have been right.

"Don't kid yourself. We want that trash culture. It is a free world market. The things we don't want, we don't import (I hear that Disneyland in Paris and McDonalds in France is loosing money big time. USA is a very stron industrial nation and we want their stuff."

I never said that we don't want it. I'm not one of those anti-globalization morons. But we only want it, because it is crammed down our throats by advertising. This is not wrong in any way, I'm not claiming that. But it IS conquest and a very efficient way of doing it, because the enemy WANTS you to take them.

The only part of U.S. culture trying to snake in here that I very much resent is the culture of lawyers, courts and celebrities. I'd love to live without it, but I'm not sure I have that option.

Now to E6Hotel:

"Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner."

All we have is a clear indication of what you think.

"Don’t trivialize the issue. If we or our allies are attacked we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat. THAT’S exactly how we are."

Ever considered that you ran out of threats that you are capable of eliminating?

"It’s impossible to forget. No one likes warfare, we just happen to be skilled at it."

Or you're just too immature to be the only one doing it, rather.

"This might be hard for you to believe but soldiers don’t like to see civilians suffer. Maybe the Iraquis would be better served if their leader expended the same resources on their welfare as he does on his presidential palaces and pursuit of WMDs?"

The Iraqis did not elect mister madman Hussein to represent them. If you're going to arrest a madman, should you kill his family as well?

"Someone’s using the word “imminent†loosely. And clearly no bias in THAT link, especially the ending editorial."

Don't read the comments. Rather, read the BACKGROUND, CRISIS EVENTS and OUTCOME parts of each crisis. I like quotes like: "We're going to drop it on you," Truman is reported to say to Gromyko.

"Comparing our exportation of Big Macs to France with Uncle Joe’s intentional starvation of tens of millions of his own people isn’t valid, IMHO. And my sympathies about the TV."

Only your goal is the same, not the means. And man, I'd like to know how you survive the crap they're pouring from your telly.

Major Fubar:

"sticking their political penis into countries all over the world where it doesn't belong"

This is the nicest way of putting things I have ever seen. Congrats for being so clever.

[Oligo 1]

[E6Hotel 0]

Oligo:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, U.S. directly initiated the war against the taleban, who had not attacked U.S.<span id='postcolor'>

The agents they harbored did.  In addition, they clearly aided and abetted Al-Queda after the fact.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, if you consider issuing 'yield or die' demands to other nations acceptable, then I guess the U.S. policy is just mint. <span id='postcolor'>

It’s called unconditional surrender.  We didn’t pioneer the concept.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, NATO nicely makes sure that european union cannot ever have a REALLY different opinion from the yanks, because we lack any military credibility whatsoever (most of the significant european armies belong to NATO). <span id='postcolor'>

This is just my American naivete again, but from a European perspective, if NATO is such a bad deal for everyone but us, what’s keeping the European countries in?  And we’ve had to make our sacrifices, too – 9mm over .45?  Acckkk!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All we have is a clear indication of what you think.<span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunately, what I think gets reinforced with every news report I see.   

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ever considered that you ran out of threats that you are capable of eliminating?<span id='postcolor'>

Well, we haven’t reached that point yet.  We’ll have to see who gets tired first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or you're just too immature to be the only one doing it, rather.<span id='postcolor'>

Obviously we’re not the only troops there.  Are you saying that negotiating longer with the Taliban would somehow have been more mature?  They made their position clear.  It’s sad, but you can’t reason with a rabid dog.

On a slightly unrelated note, what’s your opinion regarding Afghan soldiers being trained by Americans?  Are we trying to help, or do we have something up our sleeves?              

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Iraqis did not elect mister madman Hussein to represent them. If you're going to arrest a madman, should you kill his family as well?<span id='postcolor'>

Can you elaborate on this point a bit?  Sorry, I’m just not tracking here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't read the comments. Rather, read the BACKGROUND, CRISIS EVENTS and OUTCOME parts of each crisis. I like quotes like: "We're going to drop it on you," Truman is reported to say to Gromyko.<span id='postcolor'>

A politician threatened another politician?  Inconceivable!

Rest assured, I read the entire link.

"CRISIS EVENTS: 1946 November: A U.S. military aircraft is shot down over

Yugoslavia. Six B-29s deployed to Germany and then flown across the Yugoslav

border, in a show of force.

OUTCOME: No more U.S. military aircraft were shot down over Yugoslavia."

IMHO, “imminent nuclear showdown†is overly dramatic.  And unbiased data usually doesn’t include the phrases “self-serving stupidity†or “self-indulging understanding of history.† I’m being put into the uncomfortable position of defending Ronnie Raygun, but when you have two wildly opposing points of view, sometimes the answer is somewhere in the middle.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Only your goal is the same, not the means. <span id='postcolor'>

The goals are not the same.  Allow me to point out a minor difference: If people stop buying McDonald’s hamburgers and visiting EuroDisney, the businesses will close and move on.  We probably wouldn’t deploy troops, or construct military checkpoints with concertina and minefields.  Abrams tanks rolling over Paris would almost certainly not be considered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd love to live without it, but I'm not sure I have that option.<span id='postcolor'>

You always have options.  Advertising cannot cram anything down your throat if you don’t want it there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And man, I'd like to know how you survive the crap they're pouring from your telly.<span id='postcolor'>

Not watching it works for me.  

Semper Fi

[Oligo 1]

"The agents they harbored did.  In addition, they clearly aided and abetted Al-Queda after the fact."

"It’s called unconditional surrender.  We didn’t pioneer the concept."

"Well, we haven’t reached that point yet.  We’ll have to see who gets tired first."

I'll just sum all of these threads, since this reply fits them all. You obviously see yourselves as knights in shining armor, riding off again, as so many times before, to fight the evil dragons. I, however, see you as Don Quixotes, riding off to fight the windmills again, when the peasants would need the windmills for grinding grain. Neither of us is going to yield in our opinion, so there is really no point in continuing this part of the argument.

"This is just my American naivete again, but from a European perspective, if NATO is such a bad deal for everyone but us, what’s keeping the European countries in?  And we’ve had to make our sacrifices, too – 9mm over .45?  Acckkk!"

I didn't claim NATO to be a bad deal for everyone but you. But a european army would be almost as mint and it would also give EU more political maneuvering room. You ask what's keeping European countries in? Well, mainly you at the moment, because even any preliminary talks of dismantling NATO get met with a bullying response from your diplomats. So you're concerned that you'll loose your hold of europe, fine, just say it. Oh and the NATO members wouldn't necessarily want to disband it, they just don't have the chance of saying it, because your opposition drowns the voices of everybody else.

"Unfortunately, what I think gets reinforced with every news report I see."

Yeah, well, every bit of news reinforces my thinking that both sides in the Middle Eastern conflict are just full of shit.

"""It’s impossible to forget.  No one likes warfare, we just happen to be skilled at it."""

""Or you're just too immature to be the only one doing it, rather.""

"Obviously we’re not the only troops there.  Are you saying that negotiating longer with the Taliban would somehow have been more mature?  They made their position clear.  It’s sad, but you can’t reason with a rabid dog."

Err, your (or maybe my) answer went a little off the track here. I just pointed out that you seem to be the only western nation immature enough to fight wars all the time. That's what I meant. Anyway, nothing in history has proven that you are particularly skilled in warfare, it's just that you pour the most money into it. Your soldiers seem to be nothing special (good, but not spectacular), as judged from historical facts.

"On a slightly unrelated note, what’s your opinion regarding Afghan soldiers being trained by Americans?  Are we trying to help, or do we have something up our sleeves?"

The outcome of the Afghan crisis is not yet clear. So it's impossible to say. Anyway it's always cool to have an army grateful to you for the training, but I don't think I can blame you for something sinister. Time will tell.

"""This might be hard for you to believe but soldiers don’t like to see civilians suffer.  Maybe the Iraquis would be better served if their leader expended the same resources on their welfare as he does on his presidential palaces and pursuit of WMDs?"""

""The Iraqis did not elect mister madman Hussein to represent them. If you're going to arrest a madman, should you kill his family as well?""

"Can you elaborate on this point a bit?  Sorry, I’m just not tracking here."

I was trying to say that there are all these people trapped under the unelected rule of Saddam the crazy. They're victims, really. Many of these people are forced to serve in the Iraqi army (draft). Now, when you went to punish mister nutcase Hussein last time, you killed all these victims of him, but not the man himself. When you go after him the second time, you'll kill more victims of his and hopefully the man himself. Poor bastards.

"IMHO, “imminent nuclear showdown†is overly dramatic.  And unbiased data usually doesn’t include the phrases “self-serving stupidity†or “self-indulging understanding of history.† I’m being put into the uncomfortable position of defending Ronnie Raygun, but when you have two wildly opposing points of view, sometimes the answer is somewhere in the middle."

You know, the data is unbiased (all these things actually happened), but the interpretation is not. So ignore the interpretation and do your own. Anyway, if you're so peace-loving, why didn't you react to any conflicts by saying: 'Look, there seems to be a crisis developing. We should sort it out, because we really cannot afford a conflict.' Instead you said: 'You fucking commies. Give us what we want or we'll drop the bomb on your commie ass.' So you think this kind of commentary is striding for something in the middle? And they were supposed to be the evil hegemonists... But think what you want man.

"The goals are not the same.  Allow me to point out a minor difference: If people stop buying McDonald’s hamburgers and visiting EuroDisney, the businesses will close and move on.  We probably wouldn’t deploy troops, or construct military checkpoints with concertina and minefields.  Abrams tanks rolling over Paris would almost certainly not be considered."

Tanks and such things are not part of cultural conquest. However, the goals of military and cultural conquest ARE the same. Anyway, would you believe that I have pretty much nothing against your cultural conquest? You're putting me into position to defend those anti-globalization freaks, which is something I don't really want to do.

"You always have options.  Advertising cannot cram anything down your throat if you don’t want it there."

Look, I just don't want to see people suing companies over spilled coffee. That's what I meant. This is the one part of your culture I'd hate to see take root in here. There's not much I can do about it, though.

"Not watching it works for me."

Yeah, there's always that. However, it pains me that I know they're sending such shit from the telly, BECAUSE so many of my fellow countrymen want to watch it.  

[Oligo 1]

In the news today:

Arafat makes a statement.

So, Arafat says that he is preparing to say that having a jewish state is ok. Nice politico talk, BTW.

Let's consider what this means:

-If the hard-liner extremists on his side believe that he actually means it, there will be a (possibly succesfull) attempt to assasinate him.

-Israelis will never believe that he means it.

Makes me wonder why he made such a statement, because it is not going to help jack shit, except maybe get assassins after him. Is he trying to woo for international support? I doubt he can get any more than the scattered support he already has.

[Gaswell 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ May 12 2002,12:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Makes me wonder why he made such a statement, because it is not going to help jack shit, except maybe get assassins after him. Is he trying to woo for international support?<span id='postcolor'>

Acknowledging the state of Israel is a no-brainer for any Palestinian president. By doing so he seeks to strengthen his image as a serious and willing participant in any forthcoming peace effort.

In comparison, the Likud party votes to reject a Palestinian state. This is a politically stupid move, which I'm sure Mr. Sharon would agree.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It is such an abstrusum!

On the one side we have Israel voting AGAINST an Independant palestininan state!

We also find `best examples` of apartheid in the palestinian districts, where the good roads are only to be used by Israelis and the palestinians need to wait hours to only to cross those.

Furthermore we see people being guarded all day by TANKS (that would already make me agressive).

And we see the Israelian army constantly destructing West-Bank and Gaza. (searching for terrorists but damaging more than just terorist infrastructure)

And still, all those occupations didnt prevent the suicide bombers! Surprising no? Ever thought about the fact that they actually cause the opposite. With this behaviour young palestinians are basically pushed into the arms of extremists.

This reminds me of a typical IQ-test. How often is a mouse gonna push the red button untill it understands that it will cause an electrical shock? Well the Israelians have pushed this button probably a 100 times (not very smart eh?) and instead of just not touching it they hope that the battery for the `shock` will run out of power.

And at the same time you take hours and hours to remind people about the cruelties of the Holocaust to prevent that something like this will never happen again.

I realy realy hope that something like this will in fact never happen again. But if you studied a bit about the Weimarer Republic and following years of German history you would see that the conflict in the Middle East is a `soup` made up of the same ingredients as the one in Nazi Germany. The similarities are astonishing. And you will be surprised how fast things can escalate (especially if you dont consider your opponent to be human)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ May 12 2002,12:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you defector: <span id='postcolor'>

[starts singing "the star spangled banner"]

But seriously, both to you Oligo and E6Hotel:

We may live in democracies locally, but in world politics and international affairs it is the law of the jungle that is applied. The only relevant things there are military and economic power. The strongest dictates all the terms.

Today the strongest one is the United States and we have to bite the bullet and accept their terms and will until somebody stroger comes up. Simple as that.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 13 2002,16:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Today the strongest one is the United States and we have to bite the bullet and accept their terms and will until somebody stroger comes up. Simple as that.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough* China *cough*

[Oligo 1]

"We may live in democracies locally, but in world politics and international affairs it is the law of the jungle that is applied. The only relevant things there are military and economic power. The strongest dictates all the terms.

Today the strongest one is the United States and we have to bite the bullet and accept their terms and will until somebody stroger comes up. Simple as that."

Theocracy = rule of the religion, Oligcracy (sp?) = rule of the few, Democracy = rule of the foolish masses.

I mainly resent just the eternal claims of U.S. that they're doing it all, just because they're so very very good and righteous. So I just HAVE to point out all the ocassions they acted with dubious motives. But the fact that the strongest ruleth merely because he is the strongest, I do not dispute.

And I doubt the next strong player will be China, not for a long time at least. They're too far behind in the technology race.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

BS, not quite right!

China is not gonna grow a strong nation within the next decades because it hasnt reaced the stage of the so called social maturity. Do you remember Japan a while ago, people were willing to work like machine, the company was more important than oneself. Once a country is exposed to success for a longer period of time this changes. Look at Japan now!

China is a totally unstructured country. With a middle-age west and an over-urbanised east. Without democracy and maturity they not gonna reach jack-shit. Cause man-power does not count (look at ethopia or India or Indonesia)

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ May 13 2002,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is such an abstrusum!

On the one side we have Israel voting AGAINST an Independant palestininan state!

We also find `best examples` of apartheid in the palestinian districts, where the good roads are only to be used by Israelis and the palestinians need to wait hours to only to cross those.<span id='postcolor'>

Speaking of BS .............

It's a fascinating new definintion here for apartheid, when the whole reason the roads are closed to the PA are because they

1. go through Isreali areas under Israeli control.

2. Have been used to commit numerous drive by killings, firebombings and stonings over the last 9 years.

3. Are used to transfer suicide bombers, terrorists and weapons caches.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Furthermore we see people being guarded all day by TANKS (that would already make me agressive).<span id='postcolor'>

You mean it's alright for Arafat and company to declare a war back in October 2000 but they don't deserve to face the consequences?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And we see the Israelian army constantly destructing West-Bank and Gaza. (searching for terrorists but damaging more than just terorist infrastructure)<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, while Israel has basked peacefully in the Mediteranean sun ever since signing the Oslo Agreements. Is your memory capacity limited to a month of news?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And still, all those occupations didnt prevent the suicide bombers! Surprising no? Ever thought about the fact that they actually cause the opposite. With this behaviour young palestinians are basically pushed into the arms of extremists.<span id='postcolor'>

They were already there ages ago, whipped up by Arafat and every MuslimIman in every mosque for years already. But you Europeans said be patient.

BTW, the terror rate is still way down compared to what was happening before the last incursions and would have remained that way had we not withdrawn, after which the last attack took place in Rishon Letzion. There was a direct correlation between our fighting the terrorists and the drop in terror inciddents against Israel.

Get your facts straight.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This reminds me of a typical IQ-test. How often is a mouse gonna push the red button untill it understands that it will cause an electrical shock? Well the Israelians have pushed this button probably a 100 times (not very smart eh?)<span id='postcolor'>

Funny. The Israeli's weren't pushed all this time? This all came out of the blue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I realy realy hope that something like this will in fact never happen again. But if you studied a bit about the Weimarer Republic and following years of German history you would see that the conflict in the Middle East is a `soup` made up of the same ingredients as the one in Nazi Germany.<span id='postcolor'>

On our side, I would call that utter crap and dispicable coming from a German.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The similarities are astonishing. And you will be surprised how fast things can escalate (especially if you dont consider your opponent to be human)<span id='postcolor'>

Go ahead. Point them out.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ May 13 2002,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BS, not quite right!

China is not gonna grow a strong nation within the next decades because it hasnt reaced the stage of the so called social maturity. Do you remember Japan a while ago, people were willing to work like machine, the company was more important than oneself. Once a country is exposed to success for a longer period of time this changes. Look at Japan now!

China is a totally unstructured country. With a middle-age west and an over-urbanised east. Without democracy and maturity they not gonna reach jack-shit. Cause man-power does not count (look at ethopia or India or Indonesia)<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO! Social maturity? Chinese society is a lot older then any western country. Whoever said that democracy is needed to prosper? Democracy is just a current fashion thing - was the Roman empire democratic?

I think that it is wrong that we try to impose our political and social views on China. It is a different culture and they have their own path to go. Civil rights, like freedom of speech is just one of our social constructions, not something given by default. I would for instance gladly give my "right to free speech" away to get the "right to a shitload of money and chicks". Civil rights are not natural in any way, it is just something we have constructed in the western world because we like it. That doesn't give us the right to force other people to adopt it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 13 2002,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ May 13 2002,16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is such an abstrusum!

On the one side we have Israel voting AGAINST an Independant palestininan state!

We also find `best examples` of apartheid in the palestinian districts, where the good roads are only to be used by Israelis and the palestinians need to wait hours to only to cross those.<span id='postcolor'>

Speaking of BS .............

It's a fascinating new definintion here for apartheid, when the whole reason the roads are closed to the PA are because they

1. go through Isreali areas under Israeli control.

2. Have been used to commit numerous drive by killings, firebombings and stonings over the last 9 years.

3. Are used to transfer suicide bombers, terrorists and weapons caches.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Furthermore we see people being guarded all day by TANKS (that would already make me agressive).<span id='postcolor'>

You mean it's alright for Arafat and company to declare a war back in October 2000 but they don't deserve to face the consequences?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And we see the Israelian army constantly destructing West-Bank and Gaza. (searching for terrorists but damaging more than just terorist infrastructure)<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, while Israel has basked peacefully in the Mediteranean sun ever since signing the Oslo Agreements. Is your memory capacity limited to a month of news?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And still, all those occupations didnt prevent the suicide bombers! Surprising no? Ever thought about the fact that they actually cause the opposite. With this behaviour young palestinians are basically pushed into the arms of extremists.<span id='postcolor'>

They were already there ages ago, whipped up by Arafat and every MuslimIman in every mosque for years already. But you Europeans said be patient.

BTW, the terror rate is still way down compared to what was happening before the last incursions and would have remained that way had we not withdrawn, after which the last attack took place in Rishon Letzion. There was a direct correlation between our fighting the terrorists and the drop in terror inciddents against Israel.

Get your facts straight.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This reminds me of a typical IQ-test. How often is a mouse gonna push the red button untill it understands that it will cause an electrical shock? Well the Israelians have pushed this button probably a 100 times (not very smart eh?)<span id='postcolor'>

Funny. The Israeli's weren't pushed all this time? This all came out of the blue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I realy realy hope that something like this will in fact never happen again. But if you studied a bit about the Weimarer Republic and following years of German history you would see that the conflict in the Middle East is a `soup` made up of the same ingredients as the one in Nazi Germany.<span id='postcolor'>

On our side, I would call that utter crap and dispicable coming from a German.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The similarities are astonishing. And you will be surprised how fast things can escalate (especially if you dont consider your opponent to be human)<span id='postcolor'>

Go ahead. Point them out.<span id='postcolor'>

in termns of statistical rules you are simply wrong. Of course there is a certain downturn of terorist attacks after such an attack being launched (but ups and downs dont make a curve, a `trend` makes a curve). But since centuries we know that after an assault any enemy needs a short time to recover and reorganise its lines, but then usually reattacks.

But of course, if you would have bombed out the whole West Bank and Gaza, the suicide bombers would indeed dissapear for a quite a while! A very childish solution no?

On our side, I would call that utter crap and dispicable coming from a German.

Dont be silly! I have a german passport indeed, but an argument is an argument, whether it comes from a german or a french or a dutch. Dont try to push me back with that kind of revenge-ist accusal. Did I mention that I was born 1977, a few decades AFTER the `bad germans`!

But you did not come to talk about the vote yesterday that openly sais: Israel is never gonna accept/discuss the existance of a state of palestine. I mean what is all that bla bla bla about peace-talks when you would never give them what they want? Still surprised about suicide bombers? Well at least they lose more than you do!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 13 2002,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ May 13 2002,16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BS, not quite right!

China is not gonna grow a strong nation within the next decades because it hasnt reaced the stage of the so called social maturity. Do you remember Japan a while ago, people were willing to work like machine, the company was more important than oneself. Once a country is exposed to success for a longer period of time this changes. Look at Japan now!

China is a totally unstructured country. With a middle-age west and an over-urbanised east. Without democracy and maturity they not gonna reach jack-shit. Cause man-power does not count (look at ethopia or India or Indonesia)<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO! Social maturity? Chinese society is a lot older then any western country. Whoever said that democracy is needed to prosper? Democracy is just a current fashion thing - was the Roman empire democratic?

I think that it is wrong that we try to impose our political and social views on China. It is a different culture and they have their own path to go. Civil rights, like freedom of speech is just one of our social constructions, not something given by default. I would for instance gladly give my "right to free speech" away to get the "right to a shitload of money and chicks". Civil rights are not natural in any way, it is just something we have constructed in the western world because we like it. That doesn't give us the right to force other people to adopt it.<span id='postcolor'>

Older societies? Oh, I forgot that the egyptians and the Romans and the especially the Inkas are still world-leading high-cultures. Those were cultures that prospered due to certain preconditions being present. Anyhow, the romans had a very democracy like administration (being composed of reperesentatives)

but when I said social maturity I meant something else (and I am sure you know what I meant).

I would for instance gladly give my "right to free speech" away to get the "right to a shitload of money and chicks".

Not quite my style of discussing things! I bet there are quite a few out there that would pay you to shut up!

But since this option is not realistic it is simply useless! Democracy is something I deeply believe in, and to believe Chinese people chose this kind of surpressive political system (It is a different culture and they have their own path to go) is naive. Anyway, democracy has nothing to do with cultures since it has spread all over the world and is without any doubt the final stage of cultures (so far) on this globe! I lived in Asia quite a while and their culture does definetly not support any surpressive political system that takes freedom away from them!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ May 13 2002,17:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, democracy has nothing to do with cultures since it has spread all over the world and is without any doubt the final stage of cultures (so far) on this globe!<span id='postcolor'>

The final stage? Please tell me that you are joking. Democracy is in its current form how old? -A maximum of 100 years (more like 50 actually)  and you are saying that it is the final and ultimate form of government.

Monarchies were around far longer and were definitly more common then democracies are now, yet feudalism has been dismantled.

Democracy is a current tred that will sooner or later be replaced by something else, like every government form before has been. And shoving democracy up the asses of the Chinese ain't going to accomplish anything.

You say that the Asians think that democracy is the best system. What do you say about Hitler being chosen in '33 in a democractic way with everybody knowing that he had the full intention of dismantling the democratic system. People supported that because they thought that "Fuck democracy - look what economic mess it has gotten us in - we need a strong leader". It's perhaps not the best example, but it was the first that came to my mind and the principle holds in that case.

Democracy is popular because it's aim is to please the interests of the majority. I'm talking about economical interests here. If you have a good life, you give a fuck about politics. Take countries like Kuwait. They have oil and are rich and happy, not wanting to change their system since the current works so well.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

We agree to disagree!

But lets stick to the topic of this thread

[E6Hotel 0]

Oligo:  I agree that we’ve just about exhausted this thread tangent.  I’ll be away for a week +/-, so I just wanted to add a couple of thoughts:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You obviously see yourselves as knights in shining armor, riding off again, as so many times before, to fight the evil dragons. <span id='postcolor'>

Chicks dig the armor.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I, however, see you as Don Quixotes, riding off to fight the windmills again, when the peasants would need the windmills for grinding grain.<span id='postcolor'>

When was the last time a windmill killed 3,000 innocent civilians?  “Dragons†are real, and somebody has to slay them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you're concerned that you'll loose your hold of europe, fine, just say it. Oh and the NATO members wouldn't necessarily want to disband it, they just don't have the chance of saying it, because your opposition drowns the voices of everybody else.<span id='postcolor'>

We’re afraid Germany would get bored again and start eyeballing France.  J/K.  I think you might be overstating our “control†over Europe.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just pointed out that you seem to be the only western nation immature enough to fight wars all the time. That's what I meant. Anyway, nothing in history has proven that you are particularly skilled in warfare, it's just that you pour the most money into it. Your soldiers seem to be nothing special (good, but not spectacular), as judged from historical facts.<span id='postcolor'>

We continue to be the western nation that routinely gets called out.  If immaturity = not backing down and responding with force when provoked, then we’re guilty as hell.  And at the risk of sounding arrogant, history shows that we’re as good as anyone, ever.  Notice I did not say better.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was trying to say that there are all these people trapped under the unelected rule of Saddam the crazy. They're victims, really. Many of these people are forced to serve in the Iraqi army (draft). Now, when you went to punish mister nutcase Hussein last time, you killed all these victims of him, but not the man himself.<span id='postcolor'>

As I said earlier, we do our best to avoid civilian casualties.  If he had the same concerns, he’d keep his raging teenage hormones under control.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When you go after him the second time, you'll kill more victims of his and hopefully the man himself. Poor bastards.<span id='postcolor'>

Please, at least wait until we’ve massacred the innocents before condemning us.  And yes or no:  Is Hussein’s possession of WMD’s (not just mustard gas, I’m talking about the mushroom cloud inducers) acceptable to you?  Unless something changes, it’s a matter of time before he has them.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You know, the data is unbiased (all these things actually happened), but the interpretation is not. So ignore the interpretation and do your own. <span id='postcolor'>

I’ve already stated my interpretation -- I don’t think many of these incidents qualify as “imminent nuclear showdowns.† And I can’t help but point out that many of these encounter sessions resulted from Communist aggression.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, if you're so peace-loving, why didn't you react to any conflicts by saying: 'Look, there seems to be a crisis developing. We should sort it out, because we really cannot afford a conflict.'<span id='postcolor'>

Nice theory, but it didn’t work very well for Neville Chamberlain.  Aggressors interpret conciliatory gestures as displays of weakness.  Peace-loving does not mean docile.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think this kind of commentary is striding for something in the middle? <span id='postcolor'>

I was referring to the statement in the link claiming that U.S. policy had nothing to do with the end of the Cold War.  The two schools of thought are (a) The U.S., led by the Ronster, forced the U.S.S.R. into a spending battle that it couldn’t win, and (b) The U.S.S.R., on the verge of collapse, chose to end the arms race.  I submit that the Soviet Union would have collapsed sooner or later, but we helped it along.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tanks and such things are not part of cultural conquest. However, the goals of military and cultural conquest ARE the same.<span id='postcolor'>

People do not choose and/or pay to be conquered.  American companies don’t give a rat’s @$$ about cultural domination; it’s all about the $$$.

Talk to you later / Peace.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

I just have to add one thing, that a read today. Not that it is relevant, but I laughed my ass off

--------------------------------

U.S. PROMISES TO CONSULT ALLIES BEFORE

DOING WHAT IT WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAY

Pledges Not to Move Alone Unless It Does

Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) — Bowing to international pressure not to act unilaterally, the United States reversed course today and promised to consult with its allies before doing whatever the hell it was going to do anyway.

"Prior to taking action against any enemy nation, such as Iraq, we will confer with our allies, as well as other countries in that region," pledged U.S. President George W. Bush. "We will sit down with them. We will begin by explaining what our position is, and then we will... no, wait. That's it."

The announcement failed to assuage world leaders, who worry the U.S. will lead them all into a wider conflict without their consent. Bush, however, said his administration was well aware of international concerns, and would handle them internally.

Except for effect, the administration said its new stance overturns earlier, much-maligned statements insisting America would act unilaterally, if necessary, to oust enemy regimes. But the President said he recently was shown a new perspective by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is generally regarded as a check on the administration's hawks.

"Colin Powell told me that acting alone was not in our long-term interests because, as he put it, 'No man is an island,'" Bush recalled. "Of course, I pointed out that America is a nation, not a man, and that lots of nations are islands, so I didn't really 'get' his argument. But I do like to say 'Colin Powell' whenever I talk about foreign affairs because it makes me look diplomatic."

European Union external affairs chief Chris Patten, however, was not appeased. "What's the point of even talking to your allies if your mind is already made up?" he asked. "It's little more than feel-good lip service."

Replied Bush: "Colin Powell."

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, meanwhile, was one of several voices calling for restraint. "We are all concerned that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, but the international coalition against terror has no carte blanche for an invasion of any country," Fischer insisted.

In response, Bush said "Colin Powell," and added that his staff has a solution.

"We've created a one-page form that allows us to declare war on Iraq for you," he explained. "It really streamlines the consensus process for everyone."

"That is not consensus!" Fischer railed. "That is worse!"

Answered Bush: "Oh, in that case, just Colin Powell."

Copyright © 2002, SatireWire.

[Oligo 1]

"I would for instance gladly give my "right to free speech" away to get the "right to a shitload of money and chicks"."

Oh, yeah, I'd go for that too. Who needs to whine, if they have a shitload of money and chicks?

"Whoever said that democracy is needed to prosper? Democracy is just a current fashion thing - was the Roman empire democratic?"

I hate to be a nitpick, but the Roman empire was ocassionally a republic, which was a sort of a democracy, so Roman empire actually ocassionally was quite democratic.

Anyway, there is a problem with the rule of the masses. A majority of the masses reacts to issues purely with emotion and without thinking of the big picture. So if you ask a John Everyman: "Should we ban the use of lab rats, because the scientists are evilly killing them fluffy, cute animals?" John is going to say 'yes'. But if you say: "We should not ban the use of lab rats, because then 80% of your children are going to die, since we'll run out of drugs!" John would say 'Yes, we should not ban it'. So when important issues arise, majority of the common people are unable to form opinions based on the big picture. Yet these morons get to dictate the policy.

"And yes or no: Is Hussein’s possession of WMD’s (not just mustard gas, I’m talking about the mushroom cloud inducers) acceptable to you? Unless something changes, it’s a matter of time before he has them."

That's a very interesting question. Granted, Saddam is a dictator, who has used some chem weapons against his own people. Then again, U.S. has used nukes against other people. Also we have to remember that your own CIA reports have profiled Saddam as a sane, rational person.

So the answer to you question is that NOBODY should have WMDs. But since you and many others have WMDs in your not-so-very-responsible hands (Bush has the goddamn nuke authorization!, I really can't feel too worried about another irresponsible person getting his hands on them. I guess I don't know whether him having WMDs is acceptable or not, but I do know that I wouldn't be scared if he did have them. I just don't care.