Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Great letter on the Middle East Author: JeffF [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 06:06:13 07/25/02 Thu Senator Hagel of Nebraska had been critical of the decision to try and put Arafat on the sidelines. Today, there was a great reply letter in the Washington Post that goes beyond Arafat. I couldn't have said it better. Here's the letter: "Senator Chuck Hagel's argument against sidelining Yasser Arafat is based on two widespread fallacies. The first is implicit in his statement that 'young Palestinians need to see their future with economic opportunities or they will see violence and destruction as the only way forward.' The conventional wisdom that terrorists can be bought off by prospects of prosperity has been proven false nowhere more starkly thatn the West Bank, where graduate students with priveleged backgrounds and comfortable prospects choose murderous crimes against humanity over the economic development of their fledgling state. The second fallacy is that by fingering Mr. Arafat, we prevent Arab leaders from dealing with him in 'their way'. Trusting Arab leaders to handle Mr. Arafat is the foreign policy equivalent of trusting the Pakistanis to capture Osama Bin Laden fleeing Tora Bora, Afghanastan. Sen. Hagel is right about one thing: Mr. Arafat is not 'the' issue. He is merely the first issue. The next issue is finding Palestinian leadership that views a negotiated peace as a replacement for-not a complement to-terror. And until both issues are solved, Isreaeli tanks are regretably likely to contiune to remain around Ramallah. David Sloan [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Exactly Author: KatherineJ [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:56:53 07/25/02 Thu And similar points apply to Saddam in Iraq. We screwed up and didn't finish the job b/c the Arabs got anxious having us there once we put the tiger back in his cage, and Europeans clicked their tongues loudly and convinced us to trust the Iraqi people to oust Saddam. Hopefully Bush the younger can figure out a way to clean up the mess brought about by Bush the elder, as well as neutralize Arafat, in a manner that is sound international policy. How to do that, however, is the $64,000,000 question. Katherine

[> [> Subject: PRoblem is Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:48:20 07/25/02 Thu Bush's plan was so into generalities and goals and offered no road map of how to get there. If he wants to neutralize Arafat and have international support, he needs to come up with some new ideas to get the peace process back on track. But the letter is correct. We need Palestinian leadership to step forward that wants peace as a substitute for terror,not a complement. It was encouraging when several Palestinian leaders and academics signed the paper condemning suicide bombers and discouraging it. Hanan Ashwari might be a possibility if she would agree to take Jerusalem off the table for now. We need to settle everything else first before dealing with this most contentious of issues.

[> [> Subject: Yeah Right Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 00:23:42 07/26/02 Fri If only Arafat would go away, there would be peace in the Middle East. Israel would continue its Apartheit system and the Palestinians will simply fade away, either dying in silence, or being ethnically clensed from the land of their birth by Russian and Polish Jewish settlers who confiscate their land, buldoze their homes and shoot their 12 year old children from American made and paid for Appache helicopters. That's probably what brainwashed fundamentalist cruciaders believe. But like their idiot leader, the Great W. they are wrong. Tell me, does your church teach to rob your neighbor of his home? Because what the Israelis are doing in Gaza and the West Bank is breaking quite a few of the 10 commandments, not to mention about what that guy Jesus use to teach. The only reason Arafat lives today is because Sharon and W. Bush have decided he is NEEDED. The reason why Arafat is needed by Israel and Sharon is because he is a great scapegoat, the villan any American fundamentalist born too many times brainwashed conservative loves to hate. Arafat lives, so Israel can continue to expand the settlements and blame somebody for the violence.

[> [> [> Subject: You didn't read well Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:28:18 07/26/02 Fri He said clearly that Arafat is not the whole problem. The problem is where is the person in the Palestinian leadership who will step forward and boldly say that terror isn't getting them anywhere and they need to seriously negotiate for peace, not as the writer said as a complement to terror, but as a substitute. The letter that some Palestinian leaders and academics signed was encouraging, but we need to go much further. It goes beyond the PA. Where is the Arab leader who has the courage that Sadat had to turn his back on his former violence and negotiate peace? And look what happened. Sadat got back almost everything he wanted. In contrast, the Palestinians haven't gotten back any territory through attacks on civilians. There's a message in this. The real difference between Sharon and Arafat is that Sharon can be replaced through elections that the democratic nation of Israel holds. In fact, if the Labor party would just walk out of the government, elections could be held very soon. I think it's a good idea. It's time to find out what the Israeli people actually think of Sharon's policies and only elections will tell us this.

[> [> [> Subject: So Far... Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:04:04 07/26/02 Fri So far the Israeli people have shot the guy who wanted to give up expansion in favor of peace and have elected Sharon, the war criminal. And the braindead fundamentalist cruciaders in the US antichrist coallition have decided that America would continue to support "unconditionally" the ethnic clensing done by Israel. So when Osama bin Laden or another one like him talks about killing the innocent, I, a rational intelligent man have to remember Pat Robertson explaining to the good religios conservatives in his flock that "killing innocent Arab children in Israel is inevitable". The bastard fundamentalists are all the same be it Jewish, Brainwashed American Rednecks or Muslims.

[> [> [> [> Subject: Not exactly Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:16:47 08/01/02 Thu One Israeli lunatic shot Rabin. To say the Israeli people killed him is like saying the American people killed Martin Luther King. Hardly an accurate description. I'll admit it was true he was shot by a member of his own side(Like Sadat).

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: What about Palestinians? Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:47:04 08/01/02 Thu They are all suicide bombers, right? That's why Israel keeps them in a week long curfew and when they have few hours to gather food or drink they shoot tank cannons into a crowd of mostly women and children. Mistake? Who has been convicted for this "mistake"? I know, there is an inquiry! But it won't find anything. As for Pat Robertson the criminal cruciader, he seems to have quite a flock of braindead fundamentalist rednecks ready to kill in the name of Jesus Christ. Not to mention some of the bloodthirsty Rabbis I have seen preching their Godspell on national TV! Talk about racism, bigotry and hate! Redneck idiots always point out at how some Palestinians were glad when the twin towers were hit by terrorists. Well, I have seen many fellow Americans laughing when some villages in Afganistan were carpet bombed. I have also seen how ordinary Israelis treat ordinary Palestinians in ordinary circumstances on neutral territory (turistic hotels outside of Israel). Repeatedly it was the Jews taunting and provoking a confrontation. No not all Jews did it. Nor did all Americans laugh at us killing scores at a weeding in Afganistan. But nor do all Palestinians are suicide bombers, yet we do seem to take their lives very casually here in the US, as well as in Israel. However, enough of these exist to establish patterns of hate. And Israel not prosecuting anybody for the recent F16 blunder is morally equivalent to Arafat's not aresting members of Hamas.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: How do you decide Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:01:06 08/02/02 Fri In wartime who to prosecute when mistakes are made in war? How do you decide what is an honest mistake and what was deliberate? All of this needs a full scale inquiry before it can be decided. How far do you want to take this? We've made some mistakes in Afghanastan in terms of civilians being hit instead of intended targets. Do you want somebody prosecuted for that? Does it matter whether it was intentional or not? I'm not going to deny that there are some Jews who would like to eliminate all Arabs from the Earth. They are a minority but they exist and it's a problem. Still, the people in Israel are tired of going to funerals and most of them long for peace. I hope somebody on the Palestinian side makes a bold attempt for peace as Sadat did and as Barak tried to do, following in Rabins footsteps. One thing to remember about suicide bombing is that it's counterproductive. It brings the palestinians further away from peace and a full state of their own. The high holidays are coming up in September and I'll spend them at my parent's small synagouge in Connecticut. If it makes you feel any better, Mark, my parent's Rabbi makes no secret of how much he hates Sharon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: As far as needed Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:35:23 08/03/02 Sat I told you before some years back on DP, and I will repeat. I believe any man should defend his country. Yet any man who seeks a lifetime career in military has a moral problem. He is a hired killer. The worse criminals and the worse terrorists in history have been men in uniform acting with the blessing of the national army and heads of state. It goes for Mao's Cultural Revolution, Stalin's KGB as well as Hitler's SS. The only way democracy exists is when it manages to put a lid on the criminals it employs. When war brokes out, the worst criminal instincts in all of us come to surface. Yes, I want to know that men who kill intentionally in war, on my side go to jail. And those who kill in war out of stupidity do not get a chance to do it again. I want that for American pilots who bomb weddings (if it is their mistake) or for intelligence officers who can't point to American officers where Canadians are training. I served drafted in an army some 20 years ago and I know that 77mm tank cannons do not go off by mistake in the middle of a city crowded with women and children trying to get food and water for the first time in a week. Only fools can call that an "accident". That was a deliberate provocation ment to intimidate and show who is boss. So was the shooting of a F16 missile into an appartment full of women and children. I also know how militaries "investigate" such "mistakes". It is the biggest sham cover-up you can get. And dispite the New York tragedy, I believe those who laugh at our carpet bombing in Irak are doing America a disfavor. If you are religious you know the Bible says the Earth is ruled by Satan. It is a common belief in all Biblical religions, old and new Testament. A consequence of this is that it is a lot easier to kill than to heal. The easiest thing on earth is to hurt another human being if you set your mind to it. Everybody knows this instinctivelly, and that is why we are so revolted by suicide bombings. Because we know that Anybody can do them and we cannot protect ourselves against that by force. Yet Israel cannot force the ethnic clensing of an entire nation by force either. And it cannot refuse legal rights to 5 million people without unleashing the worst instincts in these people. Whatever grief Israel has with Siria or Irak, it doesn't give Israel any right to steal Palestinians their homes, land and right to live in the land of their birth. You keep saying there will be no peace unless all Arab nations make peace with Israel. I believe you are wrong. I believe peace will only come when Israel makes JUST restitutions to the Palestinians it has robbed.

[> [> Subject: "WE" Screwed Up? Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:38:53 07/27/02 Sat I'm sure it was G. Bush the 1st who screwed up. Now it's time for G. Bush the 2nd to screw up even more. Screw up the Middle East, our relations with our traditional allies, other western democracies, and the economy. Why do you want war with Irak so badly? What exactly did the Irakies do to YOU or to the people you love Katherine? Or is it that your preacher tells you it's time for another bloody cruciade? Saddam is an idiot, a villan, and nobody would cry for him. But remember, our glorious military never targetted Irak. They only killed some easy to replace 80,000 draftees, while allowing the Republican Guards free passage so they can put down the rebelion against Saddam and protect him from his own people. After that, we imposed sanctions that didn't harm Saddam in any way, but did kill many sick, old and very young Irakis. I guess to born again brainwashed cruciaders, this would be doing Jesus' work. This type of morality, ethics and values leaves me nauseated and disgusted with human condition, religion and mostly our foreign policy. I never heard you advocate cutting all aid to countries that do not abide by human rights.

[> [> [> Subject: Iraq Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:19:12 08/01/02 Thu The real question is what would be the goal. Nobody has been able to answer the question - If we oust Saddam, then what? Are we going to occupy the country? Are we going to install somebody else? I loath Saddam, but I think we have to slow down a little and decide what the end game is before going any further.

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Iraq = October Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:29:23 08/01/02 Thu The Great Idiot needs the patriotic idiots from the Mid West to rally behind the flag and vote Republican in November. While his morality won't permit the Retard to receive Oral sex, it doesn't hinder him when it comes to sending men to their death while he managed to avoid Vietnam when his number was up. The hell with reasoning, it never has been a strong Conservative point. Conservatives have strong beliefs, reasoning is the department of those "literate liberals". We'll do it Texas style in October. Shoot first, let others worry about the consequences. And remember the Retard's words: "You are either with us, or against us". No middle ground with the idiot. Spoken like a true God Damn Communist from Stalin's old guard.

[> [> [> [> Subject: My problem Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:45:42 08/02/02 Fri with the "with us or against us" statement is that it doesn't totally work in the real world. This is an example. A lot of the same allies who stood by us in Afghanastan do not want to see us invade Iraq. In part, they have the same misgivings I do. I have no objection to getting rid of Saddam, but the question remains "then what?" What are we going to replace him with? Are we going to be sure that the Iraqi people are happy with the new leadership we install? Are we going to try and have elections there? Are we going to occupy the country indefinitely? The sanctions against Iraq have hurt the people more than they've hurt Saddam(as is also the case with Cuba and Castro). It's important to remember that Churchill and Eisenhower and Truman and others thought out what was going to happen in Germany and Japan after they were defeated. I am not for or against war with Iraq at this point. I am in favor of stopping and thinking about what we are trying to acheive and what's the most intelligent way to go about it and what the end game is. I don't want to see us blindly rush into a war without thinking it through.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: First ADD President of the US? Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:11:19 08/03/02 Sat Our younger generations are plagued by Attention Defficit Disorder. I guess W is the first ADD president. Long term planning is not his forte. It proved in Afganistan, it proves in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and will prove again with Irak. I agree. Nobody will cry for Saddam if he goes, but so far, the Bushes are good at killing civilians and prove very bad at getting the bad guys. Dada Bush didn't get Saddam, although he killed 80,000 Iraki draftees, and baby Bush didn't get Osama, although he killed some 3,000 innocent Afganis and worse, from my point of view, mauled our American rights under the Constitution to a point where it will take 20 years to fix.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Another thing Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:04:06 08/05/02 Mon Apparently, the administration has promised Turkey that there will be no independence or even autonomy for the Kurds in Iraq. Turkey, of course, is opposed to any Kurds in their area being free. This is a troubling promise for several reasons. For one thing, how are we going to stop it if we remove Saddam and the Kurds demand independance or at least equal rights. Are we going to get a new governement to guarantee them equality or are we going to try and put them down? For another thing, how many promises do we want to make to Turkey. This is my problem with the "with us or against us" philosophy. Turkey has often stood by us, but they will not try and resolve the situation in Cyprus, a country they invaded, and they still don't acknoledge the massacre of the Armenians. I don't think it's a good idea to make them a blanket promise about the Kurds. Besides, the Turks still oppose the invasion of Iraq, so we've made a promise we probably shouldn't have made in exchange for nothing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Turks Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 22:31:10 08/05/02 Mon I agree with everything you said about the Turks and our alliance with them. They were a cornerstone of NATO in the days of the Big Bad USSR, so anything they did went. We built their military to be the second strongest in NATO except for the US in conventional forces (few Americans know this) through massive aid. Israel, Egipt and Turkey have been the main recepients of US economic and military aid from the 50s on-going. However, Turkey's value as an ally seems doubtful in today's international environment. But in order to reduce aid to Turkey, you do need a president that can point Turkey on a map.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: LOL Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:13:51 08/07/02 Wed Before 09/11, the President had no interest in foriegn affairs and except for Mexico, he pretty much ignored other countries. This isn't the first time in history that events forced a President to think beyond domestic issues.(Jefferson, Wilson, Jimmy Carter all tried to ignore the outside world until they had to face it because the world doesn't go away if you ignore it).