Asta-la-vista Babey...

**FillYourBrain** · 10-11-2003

the reason it's not that simple is because of strong beliefs on one side or the other. There are only three possibilities for resolution:

- Jews are wiped out
- Palestinians are wiped out
- many centuries go by where a strong power holds both sides back and the desire for the land on one side or the other fades.

realistically, with the beliefs both sides have, those are the only real solutions. That is reality. So keep dreaming about diplomatic solutions if you so desire.

**Clyde** · 10-11-2003

realistically, with the beliefs both sides have, those are the only real solutions. That is reality. So keep dreaming about diplomatic solutions if you so desire

Don't be such an idiot, they came close to peace through diplomacy before (how exactly do you explain the protracted cease-fire?), a slightly more generous offer by Barak's administration would have resulted in peace. Whether that peace was long lived depends on how stupid the people in power behaved, with a Barak instead of a Sharon i suspect it would have been long term.

When you talk of the beliefs "both sides" you ignore the fact that even in such an extreme environment the number of people unwilling to make any kind of compromise are still greatly outnumbered by those who are willing to make some compromises to achieve peace.

The West could go a long way towards solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, how? With money. America could literally stop Israel taking agressive action by threatening to break off economic contact, money could be used to help relocate people, and even to provide humanitarian incentives.

It is much harder to directly influence the militant groups present in Palestine however a measure of control can be gained over them by interacting with the Palestinian governing bodies, again economic influences and showing a GENUINE desire to find a solution can go a long way (-of course they aren't going to listen if this is coming out of the mouth of the people who are funding their enemy!). What's more terrorist organisations thrive on public good will, if the Palestinan population actually believed they were getting a reasonable deal, and there was a real chance for peace, the terrorists would suddenly find themselves losing support rapidly.

But instead of that, what is the US government doing? Paying for more weaponary.

A solution is feasable, to throw up our hands and say "oh well there can never be a solution, we may as well arm one side", is amazingly stupid and ethically repugnant.

**kermit** · 10-11-2003

There was a comic strip where there is a man who say's 'I'm a peace lovin' kind of guy...' And then the next frame shows him with a gun, and he says, '..And there ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead man.' Now then, do you understand that when the Arabs talk peace, they mean it in the sense that when the Jews are wiped out (hence no more opposition) then there will peace? That is what its all about.

**Clyde** · 10-11-2003

Now then, do you understand that when the Arabs talk peace, they mean it in the sense that when the Jews are wiped out (hence no more opposition) then there will peace?

"The Arabs", "The Jews", "The French", "The Americans".

Yay go go gadget generalisation.

**Fountain** · 10-11-2003

Clyde, why does this issue bother you so much? Or, to put it another way, why do you give a stuff?

There are lots of horrible things go on in UK you know, not just in middle east. Do you care about these too?

AND, WHERE is ARNIE? Send him to middle east-not only is he a Governor, he could sort out the entire region with only a toothpick!

**Clyde** · 10-11-2003

Clyde, why does this issue bother you so much? Or, to put it another way, why do you give a stuff?

People are suffering and dying, is that not reason enough?

There are lots of horrible things go on in UK you know, not just in middle east. Do you care about these too?

Yes, but i don't value 100 Englishmen more than 100 Frenchmen, 100 Israelis or 100 Palestinians.

People, irrespective of the land they are born into, are equal.

There are (fortunately for me) far less horrible things in England, than in Israel.

**Fountain** · 10-12-2003

There are (fortunately for me) far less horrible things in England, than in Israel.

That is your opinion. I know of lots of people suffering in UK. Just because people arent being bombed or shot here doesnt mean they suffer less.

**novacain** · 10-12-2003

The only solution to the middle east requires a fair playing field.
While Israel holds military supremacy it will not negotiate.
So either the US has to stop supplying arms and vetoing UN resolutions against Israel (50+ uses in last 50 years)
OR
some one has to start giving the Palisteinans arms so they can take the war to a conventional footing.

I prefer the less arms choice....

>>Ari Fleisher addressed that "quote"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...30701-6.html#18<<

[scarcasm]

I'm so glad Ari cleared that up.

How dare the Prime Minister of Palestein LIE like that about such an important matter. GWB should sue for defamation.

[/sarcasm]

Oh wait, Ari only said he did not HEAR GWB say that and that he was not in all the meetings. So GWB could have said it and Ari is just spinning it.

Like the WMD ready to be used in 45 mins that the US knows 100% exist but have so far 0% found......
That Iraq is buying nuke material from Africa.....

GWB would never tell a Muslin that the Christian god spoke to him and told him to attack Muslims. Or that his results in a US election was more important than lives in the middle east.

or live on TV say

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity and incubency." - George W. Bush

**Waldo2k2** · 10-13-2003

>>Take Ronald Reagan for example. He was a great prezident during his time in presidency

BS
walk a mile in my shoes and tell me he was a good president...reaganomics totally screwed my parents over.

**FillYourBrain** · 10-13-2003

BS
walk a mile in my shoes and tell me he was a good president...reaganomics totally screwed my parents over.

Explain. How did major tax cuts hurt your parents?

**~~Silvercord~~** · 10-13-2003

Don't be such an idiot, they came close to peace through diplomacy before

that's just it, they're always 'close to peace' with their 'new roadblock to peace' plan...but then hamas goes and blows up a church or bus and the israeli military rockets a house down and it craps the bed.

EDIT: and also clyde with what you said regarding the USA funding Israel, I fundamentally agree with you, that we should STOP giving them (4 billion?) $ every year, but also remember regardless of what we give them in the future they have nukes NOW...Israel absolutely WILL flatten the Middle East with tactical nuclear weapons before they can be over run or whatever...did you hear about the bombing in Syria they conducted? Hardly a nuclear strike, but it shows that they are still willing to go WAY out of their way to kick the cream out of terrorists

**novacain** · 10-13-2003

>>but also remember regardless of what we give them in the future they have nukes NOW...Israel absolutely WILL flatten the Middle East with tactical nuclear weapons before they can be over run or whatever...did you hear about the bombing in Syria they conducted? Hardly a nuclear strike, but it shows that they are still willing to go WAY out of their way to kick the cream out of terrorists<<

LOL!

And where do you think they got the idea for pre-emptive strikes against those who 'harbour terrorists'? (proof of the terrorism is of course an optional extra ie Iraqs WMD)

And where do you think they got the nukes ect?

Could you please explain how Israel is different to Iraq.

Both attack their weaker neighbours.
Both are in violation of UNSC resolutions and have been for decades.
Both have been supplied with WMD by the US (Iraq was supplied with WMD by the US in 771 instances, according to the US governments Riegle Report, up until Iraq invaded Kuwait).
Both have or in Iraqs case, rumored to have, MWD.

So why is the US helping Israel and attacking Iraq?

**kermit** · 10-14-2003

Originally posted by novacain
>>but also remember regardless of what we give them in the future they have nukes NOW...Israel absolutely WILL flatten the Middle East with tactical nuclear weapons before they can be over run or whatever...did you hear about the bombing in Syria they conducted? Hardly a nuclear strike, but it shows that they are still willing to go WAY out of their way to kick the cream out of terrorists<<

LOL!

And where do you think they got the idea for pre-emptive strikes against those who 'harbour terrorists'? (proof of the terrorism is of course an optional extra ie Iraqs WMD)

And where do you think they got the nukes ect?

Could you please explain how Israel is different to Iraq.

Both attack their weaker neighbours.
Both are in violation of UNSC resolutions and have been for decades.
Both have been supplied with WMD by the US (Iraq was supplied with WMD by the US in 771 instances, according to the US governments Riegle Report, up until Iraq invaded Kuwait).
Both have or in Iraqs case, rumored to have, MWD.

So why is the US helping Israel and attacking Iraq?

It is true that Israel could Nuke the Middle East so good that it would be some cheap Real Estate for the next 500 years or so - If Israel was like Iraq, they would have done it already. If they were like any of the countries over their they probably would have. But they have not. Why? Many reasons I am sure, but it shows they are not like the rest of them. As far as Israel being so evil for attacking Syria - It seems to me that they would not if there was no buildup of Terrorism against their country, however I think it would be Pollyanna of the Israeli government to act as though nobody was intent on harming the citizens of that country. Seriously, if some of their neighbouring countries thought they could do it, and could get away with it, they would Push Israel into the sea - something that Israel has not done to anyone else. They have shown great patience as far as I am concerned - on two counts - 1) That the UN keeps meddling with their weak resolutions against them, and two, that they put up with all the lies and BS of the media that they get from the Arab leaders who are against Israel.

**Clyde** · 10-14-2003

that's just it, they're always 'close to peace' with their 'new roadblock to peace' plan...but then hamas goes and blows up a church or bus and the israeli military rockets a house down and it craps the bed.

I wouldn't say they are always close to peace, they have been close before and it's failed for various reasons. That doesn't mean peace will inevitably always fail, and i don't think it in anyway justifies giving up on diplomacy.

There is simply no other solution, neither side will EVER just 'give up', the only way forward is via the negotiating table.

but also remember regardless of what we give them in the future they have nukes NOW...Israel absolutely WILL flatten the Middle East with tactical nuclear weapons before they can be over run or whatever...

I think Israel could be prevented from taking such action simply by threats from countries with economic strength like the US to break off trade. (In fact if they did randomly start nuking i think even the US would be unable to stop the international community using trade sanctions to criple the Israeli economy).

If the US stopped funding Israel i don't see Israel suddenly being overrun, even without nuclear weapons the Israeli armed forces are far stronger than their neighbouring countries. But it would do wonders for the US fight vs. terrorism, and it would also mean that the US (and perhaps the West as a whole) could actually have some measure of influence on the Palestinians - (who currently simply see the West as allied with Israel).

They have shown great patience as far as I am concerned - on two counts

- 1) That the UN keeps meddling with their weak resolutions against them,

The UN resolution are violations of international law, many of them involve human rights violations, the reason they can "put up with them", is because the UN is unable to effectively enforce consequences and a large part of that is because of the United State's position.

and two, that they put up with all the lies and BS of the media that they get from the Arab leaders who are against Israel.

... there is plenty of nonsense about the Israeli conflict around; in the US as far as i can see the media seems biased towards Israel, in the muslim world it seems biased towards the Palestinians.

Showing "great patience" is fairly easy when there's more BS favouring you than against you in the places that really count: e.g. the US.

**~~Silvercord~~** · 10-14-2003

So why is the US helping Israel and attacking Iraq?

I dunno, I guess because we're kind of invested over there...we made the room for them there...that and they're Jewish not arab

even without nuclear weapons the Israeli armed forces are far stronger than their neighbouring countries

only because we give them like 4 billion in aid per year

And where do you think they got the idea for pre-emptive strikes against those who 'harbour terrorists'? (proof of the terrorism is of course an optional extra ie Iraqs WMD)

it wasn't a pre emptive strike, it was in retaliation with the latest bombing

And where do you think they got the nukes ect?

directly or indirectly from the US of A