Revelations - Middle east

[ScottW]

Alrighty!

So, for a change in topic here... what do you think of the middle easst. Is the coming of the Lord at hand... or is just another bunch of dark skins shooting off at the mouth?

Does Israel stand a chance... who is going to strike first... will the United States bomb Iraq in full force first, or will they wait until Saddam makes the first move... (in a major way that is).

It sure is interesting times...

[Matrix Agent]

Well Mr./Ms. Admin,

You certainly are active today on the boards. anyway...

I think that the biggest problem in the israel/palestine conflict is the duping of young muslims. They're told that they're in a "jihad" (dunno bout the spelling) and that the duties they perform for allah will ensure that they are able to enter heaven. Young people, enticed by this, strap themselves with explosives and detonate them in crowded shopping malls. This acheives nothing, other than the death of innocents. Israel has made it known that they will not back down after terrorist strikes, rather they will escalate their own agression. I think that either side, it does not matter which, should take the place of the passive activist, not fighting back against attacks.

Much like in Ghandi's protests in India, passive protests attract the media. It doesn't look good when one nation attacks aother unprovoked. Possibly this could lead to a temporary peace.

Instead of doing this, both nations continually escalate their campaigns against one another.

I'm not going to get into a disscussion of whether Israel has a right to exist, because there isn't an answer. Can anyone really say that the world would have been a better or worse place without israel? No one knows that.

On the subject of Iraq:

Kill him. Kill him now.

I'm not usually a preson who like having military operations all over the place. But this is one thing that I can say that i'm 100% behind. This man rules with an iron fist over a people that live in a state slightly below poverty. He runs an incredible propaganda machine, and an even more impressive military machine. He's even stooped as low as to buy playstations for military hardware applications.

Check that. Instead, take him alive, bring him to the hague, just like they did with milosevic. Thats the kind of thing that shows leaders that they can no longer rule however they wish. The world would be watching them, and their every move. To create this type of insecurity in bad guys might lead them to be a little bit more moderate.

Iraq will make the first major move. I dont think the US could rally enough support to attack Iraq heavily. Desert Storm is fading into the past. We need to make sure that saddam doesn't get a clean slate.

[GrandHighOne]

Originally posted by Matrix Agent
I think that the biggest problem in the israel/palestine conflict is the duping of young muslims.

I think the biggest problem in the Israel/Palestine conflict is the role of the U.S. in the Middle East (favoring Israel over other Middle-Eastern nations, supporting Israeli army, supporting Israeli weapon industry, caring more about its own interests than establishing peace...)

Much like in Ghandi's protests in India, passive protests attract the media. It doesn't look good when one nation attacks aother unprovoked.

The difference here is: the Palestinians have been waiting for an independent state for the last 50 years. During those 50 years Israel has proven to be a brutal colonial force. Maybe they don't want to wait another 150 years for their independence.

Don't forget that western media has always portrayed (and still portrays) Muslims negatively (perhaps because we are unfamiliar with their culture and religion), Jews positively (perhaps because the West feels guilt for not opposing to Hitler until it was way too late, and because Jewish people are a strong economic force in the U.S. and the West in general).

IMO a passive palestinian protest would remain relatively unnoticed and ineffective in the current political climate.

On the subject of Iraq:
Kill him. Kill him now.

On the subject of Iraq:
The last thing we need is another U.S. intervention. Who the hell gave them the right to act as the world's police officer?

The U.S. isn't exactly known for supporting human rights and respecting democracy...

But it would be interesting to see what lies they would come up with to justify bombing Iraq for a third time (cfr. 1991 lies about babies being killed in Quwait by Iraqi soldiers).

---

This conflict is extremely complicated, and the last thing we need is the American "support" for the peace process. The only way to reach peace will be to have the moderate people on both sides step up to the extremists (on both sides). The U.S. will also have to stop interfering in international politics -- and that won't happen anytime soon I'm afraid. I don't have much hope for the future.

[AdmiralAK]

On the subject of the Israeli state...
No one had a right to create it. The ancestors of the people that live there now were brought back to create the israeli state, but that land already belonged to someone.

If they have the right to exist then don't other countries reserve the right to get back land that they lost during migration and war times?

The fact of the matter is that the israeli state does exist, and they have to solve their problems by themselves. No outside internvention. The only outside intervention should be as bouncers to keep the fighting in the ring and not to let it escalate outside the area of the fight.

As for sadddam, I am anti hague for one reason. Who the heck gives them the right? The answer is whichever country signed the charter. Countries that have NOT signed the charter should not be held liable to give over so called war criminals. If milosevic and saddam go to the hague, then people like the israeli sheron and clinton should go there as well. People commit so called war crimes all the time, but depending on political alliances and internal political games people evade the hague, and this also has to do how the media, western and international portray our so called leaders.



Admiral

[Matrix Agent]

Who should police the world? or should there not be any form of centralized gov't?

I'm for the UN, almost all countries belong to it. The ability for all nations to speak out provides the world with a more moderate view than any one country could come up with on its own.

Was anyone here against desert storm?

[GrandHighOne]

Originally posted by AdmiralAK
On the subject of the Israeli state...
No one had a right to create it. The ancestors of the people that live there now were brought back to create the israeli state, but that land already belonged to someone.

True: the Israeli state was created by the West. Before going with the current location, the British and the other winners of WWII considered West-Africa and South-America as possible locations for an Israeli state.

Palestine, at that time the home of the Palestinians was handed over from one colonial power (the British) to another (Israel).

As many Jews as possible where convinced by the Zionist movement (their leader was Ben Gurion I believe, he also was first Israeli president) to go live in the newly created state. The "Israeli Defence Force" wiped out the Palestinian presence in the area they controlled, giving all Palestinian houses to newly immigrated
Jews - and establishing new colonies to expand the Israeli territory.

No outside internvention.

Amen.

People commit so called war crimes all the time, but depending on political alliances and internal political games people evade the hague, and this also has to do how the media, western and international portray our so called leaders.

The USA (and European countries) have supported (and still support) several undemocratic regimes (e.g. Sadam Housein during the 80s). Where do these Western countries then get the right to create an international court of justice to condemn the undemocratic regimes that hadn't the luck of being supported by the West?

[GrandHighOne]

Originally posted by Matrix Agent
Who should police the world? or should there not be any form of centralized gov't?

In an ideal world, all nations would get along fine, politicians would only be politicians because they want the best for the world and the people.

In the real world, there are lots of international conflicts, there are coalitions of nations trying to secure their interests, you've got the usa who are way too powerful (there's no opposition), politicians who protect the interests of transnational corporations, and so on...

Because of all the above, I'm not pro globalization. (There are lots of other difficulties with centralized government: how to protect and respect the cultural differences, the rights of minorities...)

I live in Belgium, and we have a supra-national government: the European Union. The EU isn't a democratic institution at all, mostly because of practical reaons - and their are only 15 member states - what with 200+ states?

I'm for the UN, almost all countries belong to it. The ability for all nations to speak out provides the world with a more moderate view than any one country could come up with on its own.

It's not because all nations have the ability to speak out that they get listened to... their are a couple of "elite nations" in the Security Council, and they can veto whatever resolution they want...

The USA always vetoed UN-measures against Israel for exmple...

Was anyone here against desert storm?

I am. And about everyone in Europe who follows international politics, except for some politicians maybe, are too.

[Matrix Agent]

The US is powerful, but lately, (and this is an american saying this) i think thats its great the european nations are standing up and passing bills without US support. The cold war is over, western europe and the US dont have to agree on everything.

As long as were on the topic of the US:

what are everyone's sentiments torwards the US?

missle shield too?

This isn't a bad thread, much better than the "spoil OS X 10.1" thread
keep the comments coming..