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

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:56:09 01/14/03 Tue
Author: The Serpent
Subject: Re: Let me a little clearer.
In reply to: schwabra 's message, "I don't need to express my support of Israel" on 13:47:38 01/14/03 Tue

I think you got a little hung up on my views on Mr. Sharon and Israel. Which, I guess you would. That might be a bit too personal, but I still have some agreements and disagreements for a few of your comments.

1) Hussein and Sharon are not similar. Sharon condone or support terror, or personally kill people that disagree with him.

Yes. But true to even the spirit of America Sharon will try peaceful activists and protestors for being or aiding terrorism. And.. well, the types of torture and prison camps they have for these so called "terrorists" (which "terrorism" now being defined as hurting a government's wealth - not people - wealth) are absolutely horrofing. In a way him and our W. Bush mob are just a lot more secretive (or they'll call it something else) about their misconduct, terrorism, and killing of people. They won't do it personally. I agree with that.

2) The idea of a "holy land" is not the reason for the conflicts we see in the middle East. There is a deep hatred of the Jews by the Arabs, that is promoted today. It is not a historical hatred because Jews as well as Christians once had a major role in the day to day functioning of the Muslim Empire.

The cause for this hatred stems from the fact that the Muslim Empires of old collapsed (not failed, collapsed). There is no unity in the Muslim or Arab world today, except maybe the hatred of Israel. The fact that the Jews were able to regain sovereignty was a slap in the face to them. Their egos were hurt, so they vowed to expell them. Tey failed. More hurt, more attempts, etc.

Let's go back to The Shah for second. The Iranian government was stolen by America and given to The Shah. His brutality literally killed off almost all moderate opposition. What choice did all those so fed up with him have to go? I'm sure you've heard of the Iatolla (who wasn't so moderate about his opposition) that's where they went. And that sprouted Islamic fundamentalism all over the Middle East. Which doesn't clash too well with Jewish fundamentalism.

It's insanely neive, arrogant, and narrow minded to believe that all of this hate and terrorism is over a few bruised egos and that their empires collapsed, and *boo-hoo* Israel remains to stand.

Yeah, right. That's like trying to tell me that the blacks are just upset because they're all lazy and need to get a job, and that's why there are slums and ghettos.

I'm sure those children throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers are really upset about their empires falling "Once upon a time." I mean, if this is the case, why aren't the Native American Indians bombing the pentagon? There's something else pissing them off. And it continues to boil. Rather it's the poison of a fundamental belief system or they're fed up with having to comply with the dictatorship and the continuos interference of America and Israel. And you might argue; well, in Israel, the daily chore of getting on the bus is risking your life, basically. They gotta defend themselves. I agree. Defend. Because if bombing innocent people stopped terrorism, why hasn't it stopped yet?

And I'm not even going to get into what we did to Afghanistan after Gulf War 1. Okay, I will.

Basically we said, after we wrecked the place, "See ya!" Don't you think there might be some bitter feelings?

3) The US has made mistakes in foreign policies.

To say the least!! There's The W.T.O., NAFTA, and GATT. Not to mention sweatshops, with wages very much lower than the cost of living, among other very horrible things.

We all are to blame for that.

Yup.

Our politicians are expected and allowed to lie to us.
Well, there are a lot of people who expect it, but is trying not to allow it. Like ways to change our voting system. Do you think our politicians would be so sadistic towards our daily lives if we could vote "yes" or "no" on them every four years and we actually had a choice?

We insist that they take away our freedoms and keep oil prices down all in the name of protection (of course in the 1950s it was the commies).

I mean, there's also Lybia and El Salvador who has oil, as well. But I agree with what you're saying. And the bills to take away more of our freedoms are The Patriot Act and Homeland Security. Some sit back and let these things happen, while their are others trying to fight those bills. I mean, I've seen them up close and personal. I used to be sort of a spectator in the sport of alternative media, but it looked like too much fun to be just watching.

4) Our position is much like the police in the Rodney King beating. The US has said we will disarm Saddam. Then we did not do it the last time. We say we will do it now, but we need a reason.

When Rodney King was told to remain stil, and he did not the cops felt a need to beat him down. Were there other options (like with Iraq)? Of course. But which ones will let them get what they want? The cops wanted him to stop moving to reduce their perceived risk to themselves; and the US wants to disarm Irag but has no right to do it short of military action( this too is from a perceived risk to ourselves).

Well, there was no need for that many cops to be beating him down (repeatedly). He isn't that big. But, I see what you're saying. However, no. The U.N. still hasn't found "weapons of mass destruction." I think it's funny that since Osama has continued to allude our bombing soldiers we suddenly want to attack Iraq. Did Mr. cowboy Bush and his creepy crew not notice the "mass destruction" thing when they entered the office?

This Gulf War (the second) is going to bring bigger problems down the road. Did Gulf War one spark the World Trade and Pentagon bombings? Jimmy Carter warned the first Bush that his war would set peace and middle eastern relations back at least twenty years. And look what happened. Even one of our own federal agencies presented W. Bush with the following: that thanks to further economic globalization, "Regions, countries, and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation. They will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism along with the violence that often occpanies it." This is the CIA talking. We're not even listening to them any more, apparently.

And I'm very sure Curious George wants a war. Not for any comfort that they'll kill off Saddam, but because the economy might get a little better. I just think it's awfully weird that every time a Bush gets in the White House, many people die. And it's not even Saddam Hussein!!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.