Mid east

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ May 30 2002,14:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"acceptable politics of power? Which politics?"

Any form of organised government that recognises basic human rights is acceptable to me. How about you?

"The only way you can bring them to power is by buying them guns. There is no other political system in place to support an honourable way to power."

So fighting for freedom isn't honorable? I didn't say we shouldn't buy them guns. I said we shouldnt just drop bombs and think that does the job. Arm those that fight for freedom and human rights. Train them. Sponsor them. And hope they dont turn out to be a new Bin Ladin

"Dropping bombs would be silly and has never been tried in Somalia anyway."

Why are you so hooked up on Somalia? It was done in the Balkans. In Iraq. And it did nothing but cause additional suffering to an allready strained population.

"But moving into the country with a respectable military force, establish peace, take power from all local forces, Reestablish a new political fundament, and secure stability untill the changes have settled in the heads. This is without a military mission of 20 years!"

That doesnt work, as proven in Vietnam, Somalia and so on. You can't take foreign troops to an area and expect the bulk of the population to rally behind you. Local talents backed by your troops however can do it.<span id='postcolor'>

We dont always have to disagree Longinius, Actually I think we have the same opinion, except that I think strong military action has to be taken first.

Supporting one side with guns has a boomerang effect cause one day those guns may be pointed at you (as in Afghanistan). At the moment there is not a single honourable party in Somalia that could be supported and which has democratic aims. (I talk about Somalia cause some comments before refered to it).

Vietnam is a bad example cause the US moved in as an agressor not realy in a peace-mission. (And the VC was heavily financed by the USSR).

But the missions in the Balkan are maybe not a bad reference. There it shows that such a missions takes years. If you dont have the time and money to secure peace in a region for a decade, then dont move in!

[Die Alive 0]

ARAFAT CHIPS

Egyptian Nasra Gad, 27, eats a new snack food named after Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in Cairo, May 28, 2002. A cartoon of the Palestinian leader salutes consumers from each bag of Abu Ammar chips, beckoning them to buy the snack and support the Palestinian fight against Israel. 'Abu Ammar, hero of the struggle,' the cover reads in bright red letters, referring to Arafat by his nom de guerre.

Yahoo news: Oddly Enough May 29 2002

-=Die Alive=-

[ChickenHawk 0]

Saddam should try that

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You get rid of them by helping local leaders with acceptable politics to power.<span id='postcolor'>

That is, by creating a puppet state which does what you tell it to, as my ancestors used to do in the British Empire; I see imperialism is alive and well in the New World Order.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Only the citizens can make their country a good place to live.<span id='postcolor'>

And from what I've read about the country outside the US Imperialist propaganda, it seems pretty well established that the Somali citizens _don't want_ a centralised government. The US and others are trying to impose one on them for control of their oil and mineral resources, not to 'help the population'; the oil companies were apparently rather miffed that the citizens threw the government out shortly after the companies had paid a lot of money for oil exploration rights.

[Longinius 1]

"That is, by creating a puppet state which does what you tell it to, as my ancestors used to do in the British Empire; I see imperialism is alive and well in the New World Order."

I didnt talk about puppet states. I talked about basic human rights. How does that relate to the New World Order? Yeah, I forgot, its a bad thing to help people help themselves. Right? Right.

"And from what I've read about the country outside the US Imperialist propaganda, it seems pretty well established that the Somali citizens _don't want_ a centralised government. The US and others are trying to impose one on them for control of their oil and mineral resources, not to 'help the population'; the oil companies were apparently rather miffed that the citizens threw the government out shortly after the companies had paid a lot of money for oil exploration rights."

I am also quite sure the same people dont want to live in a crime infested hell hole. The only way to get rid of the warlords is to put ONE warlord in charge. Preferably a good one.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ May 30 2002,11:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the oil companies were apparently rather miffed that the citizens threw the government out shortly after the companies had paid a lot of money for oil exploration rights.<span id='postcolor'>

Threw what government out? there was never one established.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam should try that <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, the bag of 'SADDAM' chips would probably be laced with anthrax.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ May 31 2002,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam should try that <span id='postcolor'>

LOL, the bag of 'SADDAM' chips would probably be laced with anthrax.  <span id='postcolor'>

Ahh.. now don't be mean to Saddam! If he wasn't in power we wouldn't be getting oil at prices far lower then the market value.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Longinius- human rights? In Somalia?

hahahahaAHAHA

without outside intervention including threat of force thats 99.5% unlikely.

(but you will say its worth trying for the 0.5% right?)

At the moment in Somalia even criminal gangs represent serious 'political' players- and the 'warlords' are only bigger (but no better organised) criminal gangs-

There is no real organised political system or tradition to fall back on- the country is a shambles , held together only by international aid.

The 'authorities' are just another set of armed men- i seem to remember watching a documentary about Somalia in which one set of body guards had a shoot out with some others and one of them lost an eye. And that was 'government'!

Somalia just will not be a 'human rights' respecting state for decades and decades (50 years or so?)

of course if a Kosovo - S(omalia)FOR- situation occured it could take less time

but how likely is that? (and i dont mean just a US attack)

Actually a US attack in Somalia could be the best thing to happen to it- because then there would probably be an international concensus to change things

[Longinius 1]

"Longinius- human rights? In Somalia?"

What is wrong with wanting a government in Somalia that respects basic human rights? Oh yeah, forgot, they wont be as easy to exploit with such a government. My bad.

[kvoc 0]

Give the palestinian gun, tanks, bombs and all they needs. Put them an equally force and now let's em have it to the bitter end. And when they had enough of it surely both people agreed to peace and combine into a nation especially the Israelians.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Nothing wrong with it Longinius, it just...... shows a rather loose interpretation of reality.

In a country like Somalia human rights respecting governments do not just spring up magically no matter how much aid you pour into the country.

in a lawless land democracy and the rule of law have to be policed with the gun.

ie outside military intervention.

[Longinius 1]

"In a country like Somalia human rights respecting governments do not just spring up magically no matter how much aid you pour into the country."

Ofcourse not and I never said anything to that effect.

"in a lawless land democracy and the rule of law have to be policed with the gun."

Which is what I said aswell.

"ie outside military intervention. "

Yes, but there are more than one way to do that. I dont think sending in foreign troops or bombing any signs of infrastructure clear of the map is the solution. You have to find a local power you can work with and then you support them. You fund them, train them and give them combat support (airstrikes and what not). I know for a fact that if it was a civil war in Sweden and American troops came here to "enforce the peace"...I would probably not be to fond of that, to say the least. Why? Because America has no real interest in such a conflict, therefor they probably have an alterior motive. I'd rather see a Swede be supported by America to enforce the peace. It atleast looks a whole lot better.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"You have to find a local power you can work with and then you support them. You fund them, train them and give them combat support (airstrikes and what not)."

Oh -So you mean do what America (and Russia) did in Afghanistan and which you criticised so heavily?

I put it to you that you would say that the 'Somali Northern Alliance' (for example)

would be just as bad as the warlords who came before them

and whats worse 'biased'

(ie caring about the outcome of the fight against terrorist supporting militias and believing theyre more fit to rule)

You would denounce the US every time they provided 'airstrikes and what not' because it would kill the warlords daughter or it would wound or kill unarmed Somalians in the militia camps.

You would call it excessive and a human rights abuse.

And you would criticise the US and possibly 2-3 other countries for being unilateralist (or at least not subsuming their effort into the UN)

"You have to find a local power you can work with and then you support them. You fund them, train them and give them combat support (airstrikes and what not). I know for a fact that if it was a civil war in Sweden and American troops came here to "enforce the peace"

But the UN would not do this.

Training up (and Arming?) a 'favourable' group and providing airstikes is not the UN style and would not be something the UN would ever agree too- ESPECIALLY without a peace agreement between the Somali warlords.

you want to go and negotiate that deal?

LOL

The UN is not commited to the US 'war on terror'.

They cannot even decide who a terrorist is.

The UN will not do it. So who will?

[Longinius 1]

"Oh -So you mean do what America (and Russia) did in Afghanistan and which you criticised so heavily?"

The way the US did it in the Afghanistan vs Russia war, yes. Not how it is done in the present conflict. I have never critizised what America did back then, only what they are doing now. The only bad thing about how it was handled was the fact that there never was an acceptable government when the war was over.

[Die Alive 0]

Yeah so getting back to the middle east, today:

JERUSALEM (AP) - The militant Islamic group Hamas said Monday it has rejected Yasser Arafat's offer to join a new Palestinian Cabinet that is expected to be announced in coming days.

Arafat has offered Cabinet posts to four militant groups that have been involved in attacks against Israel, including suicide bombings. Three rejected the offer previously, and Hamas joined them Monday.

"We don't think the participation of Hamas in the new Cabinet would add to the Palestinian cause," Mahmoud Zahar, one of the group's leaders, said in a telephone interview from the Gaza Strip

Wouldn't it be funny if Hammas would of joined

-=Die Alive=-

[Guest]

The Onion has an interesting theory on the Mid East conflict:

Sexual tension between Arafat and Sharon reaches breaking point

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

JERUSALEM—The long-simmering sexual tension between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat finally reached a breaking point Monday, culminating in a passionate kiss before a shocked delegation of Mideast negotiators.

"You always got the feeling that there was something more behind all the anger and tension," said European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana. "They wouldn't agree on anything, even though their people were dying, locked in this unending conflict. It never made sense—until now."

Continued Solana: "All that repressed passion. And neither of them would admit it to the other... or to themselves."

According to sources, midway through a 10 a.m. meeting to discuss a possible pullout of Israeli troops from several West Bank settlements, Sharon accused Arafat of secretly channeling PLO funds into Hamas and other terrorist organizations. The accusation prompted Arafat to rise from his chair and stand toe-to-toe with his Israeli counterpart. The ensuing heated exchange quickly escalated into a shouting match, which reached an unexpected crescendo when the two leaders embraced in a deep, passionate kiss.

"At first, I thought they were wrestling or something," said Anthony Zinni, U.S. envoy to the Middle East. "But then, I was like, 'Holy shit: They're kissing.'"

Following the six-second embrace, Sharon and Arafat retreated to their respective delegations. They then sheepishly smiled at one another for several minutes before declaring the meeting over.

Few Mideast negotiators expected Sharon, one of the most hard-line right-wingers in Israeli political history, and Arafat, who has made the fight for Palestinian statehood his life's cause, to leave Monday's bargaining table as friends, much less lovers. However, in retrospect, few are surprised.

"To tell you the truth, I can't say it doesn't make sense," said U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, one of the witnesses to the historic liplock. "It's like the boy in the schoolyard who torments the girl and pulls her pigtails because he's got a big crush on her. For the longest time, Yasser and Ariel simply didn't know how to express their true feelings for each other. Now they do."

"Everyone knows that the opposite of love is apathy, not hate," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said. "Love and hate, they are merely two sides of the same coin."

Ivanov said he first saw signs that the two leaders had "more than control of the Gaza Strip on their minds" at a 1998 Israel-PLO conference in Cairo, at which Arafat reversed decades of PLO policy and polemic by acknowledging Israel's right to exist.

"For the first time in years, they were really getting along," Ivanov said. "Arafat tripped over a rug and landed right in [then Israeli Defense Minister] Sharon's arms. You should have seen the look they exchanged while Sharon held Arafat in his strong grasp. Nothing happened, but you could tell something was there."

Daniel Kurtzer, U.S. ambassador to Israel, recalled suspicious comments made by Sharon at a state dinner in his honor at the White House last September.

"Ariel had had a little too much wine, and he ended up confiding to me about how he has a crush on somebody he shouldn't like at all," Kurtzer said. "He said he couldn't say who it was because it would never work out anyway. At first, I thought maybe it was Crown Prince Abdullah, but now it's pretty obvious who it was."

U.N. Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen praised the kiss as "a positive step forward in Israeli-Palestinian relations." He was critical, however, of the two men's methods leading up to the embrace.

"If trapping Yasser in his Ramallah compound for months was Ariel's way of getting Yasser's attention, he should have tried a less antagonistic approach, like sending a card," Roed-Larsen said. "And Yasser is no better, trying to catch Ariel's eye with all those deadly suicide bombings. God, men can be so stupid and macho."

Sharon and Arafat have since returned to their respective home soil, each having expressed a need for "time to think." In the meantime, the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are anxious to see what will transpire as a result of Monday's historic kiss.

"One mini make-out session and now we're supposed to wait who knows how long to find out if they actually get together? Oh, it makes me so frustrated," said Olfat Hafez, a Palestinian refugee who for the past 18 months has been living in a camp near Hebron. "Still, if these two do end up getting together, the end will have justified the means."

<span id='postcolor'>

Above: Arafat and Sharon share an awkward moment.

[Architeuthis 9]

Well im sure the anwser to my question is somewhere in this topic somewhere, but seeing that it is 120 pages long, well, i just don't feel like looking it up .

Well, id like to know who's the rightfull owner of 'the promised land' . You see, i have to do a discussion on school. We have to debate who is the rightfull owner of the land. I hope that you guys can help me, but please do support your argument with reliable sources, not the 'zionist orgination', or the 'palistinian cause' eg. Nor some biased newsagency like Cnn. Also, please post your link please.

Ok thanks in advance, i hope you can help me!!!  

Once again, i know that the answer is in this topic somewhere, but i just don't wanna spit through the 120 pages!!!

Arch.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Architeuthis @ June 04 2002,12:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well im sure the anwser to my question is somewhere in this topic somewhere, but seeing that it is 120 pages long, well, i just don't feel like looking it up .

Well, id like to know who's the rightfull owner of 'the promised land' . You see, i have to do a discussion on school. We have to debate who is the rightfull owner of the land. I hope that you guys can help me, but please do support your argument with reliable sources, not the 'zionist orgination', or the 'palistinian cause' eg. Nor some biased newsagency like Cnn. Also, please post your link please.

Ok thanks in advance, i hope you can help me!!!  

Once again, i know that the answer is in this topic somewhere, but i just don't wanna spit through the 120 pages!!!

Arch.<span id='postcolor'>

I own it, as I am a more or less descendent of Alexander The Great, who rightfully annexed it

(dont bother replying to that, i wont be coming back anyway )

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

There is only one problem to the problem. Both sides are right¨

Ah, and BTW, you lazy hamster, do your homework yourself, will ya! Damm, those new generations have it so easy, they just look up their stuff online!

[Architeuthis 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ June 04 2002,13:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is only one problem to the problem. Both sides are right¨

Ah, and BTW, you lazy hamster, do your homework yourself, will ya! Damm, those new generations have it so easy, they just look up their stuff online!  <span id='postcolor'>

I know , but it is just too long to spit trough it. I know im lazy, but if any of you could help me i would be very gratefull. Oh and i can't find anything on google, so  

But seriously, the thing is that i have the do this project for school, but i don't have any time for it, because im in the midst of my exams.  

Arch.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

As i understand it-

The promised land?

what do you mean?

all of it?

The former British mandate of Palestine?

Both sides 'own' some of it,

well there is the state of Israel controlled by (surprise)Israel, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

But some Israelis try to settle in the 'palestinian' lands

(not to mention Israeli Defense Force incursions)

and are not fans of the Palestinian Authority

and some Palestinians want to take over the Israeli land

and do not recognise the legitimacy of Israel

So to summarise both sides own some land

and there are settlers who complicate the issue further.

[Guest]

Bus explosion in Israel. Between 16-20 dead

[InRange 0]

When will this ever stop.

*sigh*

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InRange @ June 05 2002,08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When will this ever stop.

*sigh* <span id='postcolor'>

When all members of Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, and 50 other splinter groups are dead?