Arnold is the governor of california....
Some people have voiced a concern, but hey-hes an actor. He can act like a governor heheheh.
This will be interesting.
Printable View
Arnold is the governor of california....
Some people have voiced a concern, but hey-hes an actor. He can act like a governor heheheh.
This will be interesting.
I'd prefer to call him the Commander of California.
<does the happy dance>
Though I am kinda disappointed. He went from over 50% at the beginning to 48% at the time of this post.
I think this whole recall thing is a joke. How can people believe Arnold will do better job than Governor Davis? He has no past experience in politics. People only voted for him because every other person on the ballot were nobodies.
California should like his leftists social positions. At least he has tried to portray himself as a fiscal conservative. Economically, that's what they need. Davis was the other end of the spectrum on fiscal issues. They had good reason to remove him.
I still don't see how any sane person could vote republican.
cute. but...
flame bait
I don't see why any sane person would vote, period. But then again I don't see why any sane person would have sex with my momma, but alas everyone on my street does. Anyway don't disagree with Ah-nuhld, cause he will [arnold voice]rrrrrieepp your heaad off[/arnold voice]
:confused:Quote:
Originally posted by Silvercord
But then again I don't see why any sane person would have sex with my momma, but alas everyone on my street does.
Post her pic :eek:
I am warning you.
I warned you.
Click at your own risk
EDIT: and if you have some sort of wise crack comment like 'well haha that sure explains a lot' then you are perfectly correct and should say it.
I think this is actually going to be a massive negative for the republican party in CA. There is no way that Arnold can pull the state far enough out of rescession and deficate. If he does do it he'll have to cut so many popular programs that he'll get killed on that issue. The car tax that people are ticked off about is built into a law passed before Gray Davis' time and so now Arnold as to use the legislater to repeal that law. However, there's NO way that the strongly democratic state congress is going to make that easy on him, and even if he does get it repealed the funding he's going to loose will kill him.
Bottom line, I think he's inherited a bad situation and a congress that's hostile to him. I don't see him getting a new republican congress - due to social issues, and therefore he's just going to make republicans look bad so the democrats can retake the govenorship later.
PS sorry for my bad writing here - it's been a long day.
interestingly I agree with you kermi. You never see the effects of an economic policy very quickly. Tax cuts, tax increases etc... often take several years to show economic implact. Look at the roaring economy in the first years of Clinton, and the dip that started before his last year ended. He'd been in for 8 years. It was enough time for tax increases to take their effect.
Arnold will be gone next election. Elections really aren't about who the best man is anyway. They're about who is putting on the best show.
Arnold's not the governor, his advisors are.
probably true.
The only way this really effects me (and it does greatly) is that we won't be seeing a terminator 4. I'm really annoyed at that fact.
I'm not familiar with California's internal governmental affairs, but Arnold Schwarzenegger has zero political experience. I would definitely not want someone best known for killing people and robots alike in movies to be the governor of my state.
I think too many Californians fell for the media coverage and began thinking, "You know, maybe the governor we've just elected hasn't been doing such a good job after all, and Arnold is running?! Wow! I'll vote fo' da Terminator!"
And did anyone else notice that the winner of the recall election only needs to get a plurality of the vote, even if that means only a very small percentage of the vote? That seems like rule by the minority (oligarchy), not democracy, to me.
Give the guy a chance. Actors for politicians arent that bad. Take Ronald Reagan for example. He was a great prezident during his time in presidency... and those times werent very easy.
and he got shot
nobody is, because it doesn't exist, that's why they had a re electionQuote:
I'm not familiar with California's internal governmental affairs
silly face
but he lived, didnt he? however, i can gather that maybe some crazy might shoot him then say, " hes the F-ing terminator, HES NOT DEAD!" as they put arnold in a grave.Quote:
and he got shot
So in your opinion the Demicraps should govern our country. Do you want our country to be divided in to many different groups each one having their own rights? yes, you do? then vote Democrat.....Quote:
Originally posted by Brian
I still don't see how any sane person could vote republican.
The british should rule your country. Heil Tony.
axon! let go of the hook! let go of the hook!!!
Sorry, I haven't noticed where you're from Brian. But now that I have...keep your nose in your own damn bussines, and let us decide who we should heil as supreme leader.....hahaha.Quote:
Originally posted by Brian
The british should rule your country. Heil Tony.
But seriously, personally I'm not a full blown Republican, sort of middle of the road. I do like Bush, even thought he dug him self into a hole which is WAAAYYY too deep for him...I do hope he is reelected. We'll see what happens.
why do you like bush, i mean, he can't like, oh what's the expression I'm looking for...oh yeah, he can't do anything correctly...he can't even eat pretzels without almost killing himself, must less run a country. if i ever meet bush im going to punch him in the face
and then im going to pull my pants down and make a poopey on his shoe
See, this is one of the things that is wrong with America. You can cll our President an idiot, (and everything else that silvercord said) and nothing happens. But when someone says something about a certaing Eagle's quartback (ahm, MacNab) all hell breaks loose.Quote:
Originally posted by Silvercord
if i ever meet bush im going to punch him in the face
and then im going to pull my pants down and make a poopey on his shoe
Silvercord: whatever you may think of our President is your bussines but he is STILL your president! and he is leading your country, - there should be a certain respect there.
The main reason I hate Bush is because of his annoying pauses in his speeches. Like every other sentence he just sits there like he's confused as crap.
He spends too much money too.
At least he has a genuine character. I would hate to look at Gore's fake, stiff, and alien like face whenever a speach is needed. BTW IMO the whole good ol' cowboy thing is just an act on Bush's part...and it worked briliantly.Quote:
Originally posted by frenchfry164
The main reason I hate Bush is because of his annoying pauses in his speeches. Like every other sentence he just sits there like he's confused as crap.
He spends too much money too.
I do agree on the money issue thought, that is hurting him the most. It seems like he thinks that America's money pot is bottomless.
Today, on the radio, a DJ remixed arnold's voice from saying "I'm a cop, you idiot!" into "I'm a governor, you idiot!". It was funny.
>>People only voted for him because every other person on the ballot were nobodies.
Come on!
Gary 'what yo talkn 'bot Willis?" Coleman
Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler and defender of US free speech
A porn star who wants to tax breast enlargements
and a cast of over 130 others.
Least it got nearly 60% of you out to vote. That 20% more than usually!
>>At least he has tried to portray himself as a fiscal conservative.
And also very 'hands on'.....
>>Arnold's not the governor, his advisors are.
So Rob Lowe is governor?
>>Take Ronald Reagan for example.
Yes but Regan was president of the Screen Actors Guild during the McCarthy communist witch hunts. He got some experience in dirty style politics there.
A better example would have been Jessie 'the body' Ventura.
Look at Arnie, he was surprised that the political media did not protect his reputation like the entertainment media has all these years.
>>Do you want our country to be divided in to many different groups each one having their own rights?
You mean like rich and poor?
Or coloured or white?
Or gay or straight?
Or Muslim or Christian?
>>But when someone says something about a certaing Eagle's quartback
That idiot said the QB only got the job because he was coloured. He reduced the debate to the colour of the mans skin.
I’m sure the Eagles pay him millions per year because his skin ‘matches’ their uniforms (rather than getting someone who can play).
>>IMO the whole good ol' cowboy thing is just an act on Bush's part...and it worked briliantly.
Yes it alienated the UN ie the rest of the world.
Put the US at war with half the Arab world. In a Vietnam style conflict it can't win/afford without help from UN members.
Opps......
(BTW where are the WMD that the US knew 100% Iraq had and could use in 45 mins?)
Encouraged Israel to attack its neighbours with its 'pre-emptive strike' policy. Now the US will loose more credibility in the UN, as it will have to veto the latest US Security council resolution against Israel (again).
Exemplary statesmanship GWB!
GWB, I hope a Koala goes feral when you are holding it when you come to ask us for more troops and cash later this month.
get a 'dog up ya!
>>That idiot said the QB only got the job because he was
>>coloured. He reduced the debate to the colour of the mans
>>skin. I’m sure the Eagles pay him millions per year because his
>>skin ‘matches’ their uniforms (rather than getting someone
>>who can play).
So what? that was his oppinion? is freedom of speach no longer valid when you are an unspoken white? It wasn't such a big deal when Dusty Baker a few months ago said that whites cannot play good baseball in hot weather. Don't you think that racism/prejudice is turning a bit around. I mean if everyone should be equal why uphold affirmitive action?
We're stuck up idiots here in America...Vive la France!
I hope that this was a sarcastic comment. I hope that all Americans are proud to be American. Otherwise, get the hell out.Quote:
Originally posted by JaWiB
We're stuck up idiots here in America...Vive la France!
Maybe I should have said "freedomland" instead? Honestly, many of us have bad attitudes about how the world should work. I mean we live in a country where people can make others pay for their faults, and where people complain about the littlest things. If a "basic freedom" is slightly threatened people can over react while we miss the big picture. At one time, Americans died for their freedom, and now most Americans don't even know what true patriotism means. The people I admire most are those that would willingly go to another nation knowing that, although they may not be welcome, they are there to help others gain the basic freedoms which we take for granted.
- Silvercord wrote:
and he got shot
and your point?
ever notice how only the good presidents get shot?
why didnt nixon get shot? ever think about that? that wussy resigned! the only prez in US history to resign. hmmm... couldnt have been because he was being generous to the VP...
assasinated presidents were:
- Abraham Lincoln
William McKinley
John F. Kennedy
James Garfield
and those who were shot but not assasinated:
- Harry Truman
Gerald Ford
Ronal Reagan
Andrew Jackson
how come Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton didnt get shot? they are the only presidents that ever have been impeached! couldnt have been because they were doing something legitimate....
are you seeing a pattern there? Its not C++, dont try to decode it. its plain and simple.
now, I'm not taking sides with Arnold... but all im saying is that we should give this guy a chance now that he's in office. It's not like moaning and $$$$$ing about it is going to make any difference... now matter how much you do it... he will still remain governator.
Lets be patient and see how it develops... and those of you complaining from other states... back off... this is California business. IF you dont like the way things turned out... wait till next election.
>>It wasn't such a big deal when Dusty Baker a few months ago said that whites cannot play good baseball in hot weather.
I did not hear that.
I don't know who Dusty Baker is, not being an American.
Is Dusty Baker white? If so it realy can't be racist as it was not about his own race (racism defined as "the prejudice that members of one's own race are intrinsically superior to members of other races").
But it was not directed at a SPECIFIC player.
Either way it is still wrong to make judgements on a persons race.
>>I mean if everyone should be equal why uphold affirmitive action?
Because everybody is not equal yet. Not close.
>>they are there to help others gain the basic freedoms which we take for granted.
Like the right to bear arms..........
So is the US going to ensure all Iraqiis, Afghaniis have access to the same level of armament as the average American?
Hi all,
its no real suprise that Arnie won (why has everyone suddenly gone with ARNOLD ) Celebrities often do well in what amounts to a popularity contest.Over here we've had Seb Coe(athlete), Judi Dench and FFS Gyles Brandreth( TV presenter best known for wearing sad jumpers) so with Govenor Davis not doing so well and Arnie's coming in off the back of a successful movie release it was bound to happen. I hope he does well for the people of California, his wife should know something of politics even if he's not so hot.
As for GWB I agree with Novacain he has alienated the rest of the world, but his lack of concern for the rest of the world is no suprise when even after becoming president he admitted the were still STATES he had'nt been too. I'd thought a man running for the highest office in the land would at least make 1 visit each if only to the state capital.
Can someone tell me who said what about the Eagles QB, I interested to know. It would seem, just from a quick look at the Eagles website, that this guy is a decent player. The black thing sounds like someone spitting the dummy and playing the race card, the facts suggest he's there on merit and I don't belive any club would have a player on the team in that postion who couldn't play.
And this is a problem because? Is it pre-emptive, or retaliatory? Its not like the Palestinians have no blood on their hands. And you know the UN security council should keep their nose out of Israel. They prove time and time again that they are generally impotent anyway. They do not bother to meddle with any other sovereign nation in the same way they do with Israel. Imagine if they [the UN] tried to come in and tell the American government (or the British government, or any government that is truly sovereign) where it could go with its military, and what it could do. All this while aggressors were suicide bombing all over the place. I do believe the UN would be told to beat it. And rightly so. For a governent exists in part to look after the welfare of the people. Its funny how the media paints the Palestinians as the 'poor victims' and the truth is that Israel has been getting maligned for years over taking actions that nobody else would be criticised for.Quote:
Originally posted by novacain
Encouraged Israel to attack its neighbours with its 'pre-emptive strike' policy. Now the US will loose more credibility in the UN, as it will have to veto the latest US Security council resolution against Israel (again).
Anyway, this is off topic, so I will add my token comment here:
Hopefully Arnold does good for the people of California. :D
~/
>>I don't know who Dusty Baker is, not being an American.
>>Is Dusty Baker white? If so it realy can't be racist as it was not
>>about his own race
Dusty Baker is a black chicago cubs manager. And see you didn't hear anything about it, yet you did hear about Limbaugh. There must be something wrong here.
No he didn't. He said McNab is overrated and that the media props him up because they want a black hero. He was commenting on the media, not the eagles or their quarterback with relation to race. The media's pro-minority attitude was what he mentioned. But since you heard it from the media, I understand why you thought he said that.Quote:
novacain-
That idiot said the QB only got the job because he was coloured. He reduced the debate to the colour of the mans skin.
edit:
Good commentary on it. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...p_on_limbaugh/ Rush was hung on this because he's Rush Limbaugh, not because he said something terrible.
@Fillyourbrain,
Wow I never heard of Rush Lambaugh before your post but a little googling enlightened me
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/l...s-reality.html
This guy is a plonker and it would seem sacking this clown is long overdue. Although I'm sure he is just making a career out of being controversial and that means the fault is ours for listening.
Also I see nothing wrong with the media building up a black player, minorities will benefit from such a positive role model and if his performaces don't live up to billing, thats down the to the Eagles, they pay his wages and I don't think he's starting QB for nothing.
interesting perspective. The point is that he didn't say anything racist. If anything, he called attention to the media's racial favoritism aka racism.
You're an idiot.Quote:
whatever you may think of our President is your bussines but he is STILL your president! and he is leading your country, - there should be a certain respect there
We should not "respect" a leader just because he or she is the leader, what about all the national leaders today and in the past who are in fact totally useless:
Musolini, Hitler, Hussein, Pinochet are a few of the more obvious examples.
Should their respective peoples' have respected them, just because they were the national leaders at the time?
Here's an idea, maybe we should judge politicans on MERIT, instead of handing them "respect" on a platter merely because they have won a battle of spin.
Again you are an idiot, we shouldn't be proud of our own nationality just because it's "our" nationality, we didn't even control which nationality we ended up in.Quote:
I hope that all Americans are proud to be American
We should form our opinions based on rational, to simply drum into people that they should be proud of their country just because it's "theirs" merely blinds them to any faults, and correspondingly acts as inertia to beneficial changes.
kind of reminds you of nazism otherwise
and the true soldiers and people that fight for this country should actually be proud of the fact that people are able to protest, because they lay their lives on the line so they can have the right to do that.
> ever notice how only the good presidents get shot?
Christ, you're a moron.
>>Christ, you're a moron.<<
Moron
Well at least we wont ever have to worry about Arnold becoming President :rolleyes:
I would certainly have more respect for the current president if he didn't do so many things that will have a negative impact on the future of the United States and of the world as a whole: unilateral withdrawal from important international treaties (e.g., Kyoto Protocol), disdain for the United Nations and diplomacy in general, the invasion of Iraq, inappropriate tax cuts, attempts to repeal minimum wage laws by his Republican Party, attempts to concentrate power in the executive branch (e.g., the Patriot Act) , etc. ad infinitum.Quote:
Originally posted by axon
whatever you may think of our President is your bussines but he is STILL your president! and he is leading your country, - there should be a certain respect there.
No government is sacred. It should be seen as the expression of the people's will, not an end in itself. And why shouldn't a British citizen have the right to criticize the government of the United States? The United States acts internationally and has, thus, opened itself to international criticism.
And I have found it incredibly difficult to be proud to be an American since September 11, 2001. I am embarrassed by what our government has done in our names. Actually, I see the whole patriotism thing for what it really is now: a way to silence constructive criticism and to prevent people from finding out about all the horrible governmental-corporate collusion and general corruption that occurs in our government.
Firstly, I have not insulted anyone, and I don't know why you insulted me. Give me arguments that support your opinion instead of calling me an idiot. After that phrase your later arguments are seemed in a much dimmer light. How do you want to persuade anyone by starting your text by insulting them. You should think this over for the future.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
You're an idiot.
If you are comparring Bush to any of the above mantioned than there is something wrong with your reasoning my friend. And if you really think that Bush is at the same level as any of the above, than we have nothing to talk about.Quote:
Musolini, Hitler, Hussein, Pinochet are a few of the more obvious examples.
Quote:
we shouldn't be proud of our own nationality just because it's "our" nationality, we didn't even control which nationality we ended up in.
Actually a lot of Americans did have the control to which country they pledge their citizenship. Secondly if one despises ones one country, one can simply go to the country they feel good in. America is one of those places that millions upon millions of people would do anything to spend their lives in. That is one of the reasons why I am proud to be an American.
unregdregd: your arguments are quite plausable. Yet you could find "horrible governmental-corporate collusion and general corruption" in each and every government throughout history. The US is no different in that aspect by a long shot.
Quote:
I am embarrassed by what our government has done in our names
what would you rather be done after 9/11? would you let this pass as a simple slap on the wrist as Clinton did when the suicide boat has killed almost 20 American navy men in Yemen? Yes, Alqueda has "exposed" the fact that America is indeed valnurable, and if our government did not retaliate who knows what would have happened next.
I do agree with you about the wrongness of the Patriot Act. I don't agree with losing any of my freedoms because of anything that happened. I oppose almost everything within the Patriot Act.
I would love to write some more, but I need to get to class. Talk to you later,
axon
H&R since you've never heard of Rush, I suggest you should keep any comments to your self before you find out much more about him. It is curious that if he is "such a bad guy" that he has the most popular show in America!!!!
What you said irritated me, but i suppose i should have been more diplomatic so uh sorry.Quote:
Firstly, I have not insulted anyone, and I don't know why you insulted me.
I did give you arguments, ones i notice that you have still failed to address.Quote:
Give me arguments that support your opinion instead of calling me an idiot
Perhaps, but you see my friend i have come to the conclusion that it is practically impossible to convince people who are nationalistic in the manner you seemed to be displaying of the errors in their stance. Thus the aim becomes not to convince them but to demonstrate the nonsense of their stance so that others who are more borderline see it for what it is: tosh.Quote:
How do you want to persuade anyone by starting your text by insulting them. You should think this over for the future.
Axon you have failed to grasped the reasoning, i was not comparing Bush to any of them i was merely pointing out the error in your statement.Quote:
If you are comparring Bush to any of the above mantioned than there is something wrong with your reasoning my friend. And if you really think that Bush is at the same level as any of the above, than we have nothing to talk about
You implied that the president of the united states deserved repect IRRESPECTIVE of what one thought of him/her, it is that notion that i disagree with, the idea that just because of a position we should respect someone.
Should we respect Bush merely because he holds the post of president?
Hell no, our opinion should be based purely on merit.
I would be very suprised if the vast majority of people living in the US were not born there, but this particular point is merely an added absurdity it is not the crux of the argument.Quote:
Actually a lot of Americans did have the control to which country they pledge their citizenship.
... except there are many factors involved in where you live: Your job, your family your friends. Furthermore things are rarely that cut and dry one could dislike many aspects of the country one lived in whilst liking others.Quote:
Secondly if one despises ones one country, one can simply go to the country they feel good in.
What reason is there for someone to move because they disagree with some (or even all) of their countries actions? Why shouldn't they fight to try and help change them? What basis do you or anyone else have for dispariging those who disagree with a particular policy or poltical stance? Why should one be proud of ones country?
I'm English, the English did some pretty screwed up things in the last millenium and i'm sure as hell not proud of them. If i disagreed with the government over the war in Iraq (i'm kind of neutral) then i imagine i would not be proud of them, i'm sure as heck not proud of the ever more prominent new age nonsense that seems to be proliferating at an alarming rate over here - why should i be?
In fact why the hell should i EVER be proud of "my" country? I didn't choose to be born here, and even if I did, so what? I wasn't responsible for their past military victories, for Newton, for Dirac, for Elgar. What justification is their for feeling proud of other people's accomplishments? Biology induces feelings of pride for the actions of our friends and families but it is not biological determinancy but social indocrination that binds us to the nationalistic feelings of pride for a people grouped merely by lines drawn on a map.
As far as i can see America has a lot of things going for it, but your statement is still unreasonable, i would give almost anything to live a life of (relative) luxury; to live in an environment with modern healthcare, where clean water is bountiful, where I do not have to engage in back breaking physical labour for 16 hours a day just to earn enough for watery soup.Quote:
America is one of those places that millions upon millions of people would do anything to spend their lives in.
But is living in US really that much better than living in France? or Spain? or Germany? or the UK? or any other 1st world country?
So much better in fact that it merits doing anything to get there?
Doubtful.
Such opinions are not based on reason but on nationalistic indoctrination.
Axon i think you are inventing reasons to be proud of America to justify the pride that you already feel. The question you should ask yourself is why do you feel that pride. I would be willing to bet you felt this pride well before you even began to look at the reasons.Quote:
That is one of the reasons why I am proud to be an American.
It gets instilled into all of us, i feel it too, when they play Elgar and they show the classic British pomp and cirumstance demonstrated when the British withdrew from Hong Kong or when the Queen Mother died. I felt it. None of us our immune to the power of social influences, but our opinions need not be a slave to them.
Clyde: Know that I love to discuss such topics as we are doing right now my friend. Yet at the moment I'm really lacking the time to rebut your arguments, and believe me I am not the on to back down from a heated debate as the one that has developed. For the time being, I will step down thought, and respond to everything tomorrow. This reply is just to let you know that my silence does not mean submission. Till then,
axon
Actually, the Canadian government 'signed up' for that protocol and it is generally understood that it is going to cost that country a lot of money...Quote:
Originally posted by UnregdRegd
I would certainly have more respect for the current president if he didn't do so many things that will have a negative impact on the future of the United States and of the world as a whole: unilateral withdrawal from important international treaties(e.g., Kyoto Protocol),
Money is just a ticket to human effort and ingenuity and sometimes it's worth spending.
Is this "Kyoto Protocol" the one which deals with environmental stuff? I was talking to someone from Britain who mentioned it when I said something about global warming...When I said it sounded like a good idea, he replied, "That's exactly what everyone else thinks too... sounds like some of you Yankies have got your head screwed on right afterall :)"
I imagine we will lose a lot more than money if we don't start taking care of the planet
>> Actually, the Canadian government 'signed up' for that protocol and it is generally understood that it is going to cost that country a lot of money...
Actually they will make a lot of money.
Thru 'carbon credits'.
Countries that produce ozone polutants must 'even' this up with these carbon credits. Carbon credits can be gained by growing trees and other environmentally friendly activities.
I understand a multi billion $ deal set between Japan and Australia is moving to Canada after Australia followed the US lead and did not sign.
>> Kermit >>Its not like the Palestinians have no blood on their hands.
I was referring to Israel’s attack on Syria.
As to who is 'winning' Israel v Paleistein I think you just have to compare casualties and GDP (average income, living standard).
how can you compare any of these figures between the two countries. Isreal is heavilly supported by the US, both indirectly and directly with billions of dollars in aid and weapons. Palastine is a country under siege. In our [American] media you only hear about the Israeli casualties, but nothing about what crimes against humanity the Isrealites are commiting against the Palestinians.Quote:
Originally posted by novacain
As to who is 'winning' Israel v Paleistein I think you just have to compare casualties and GDP (average income, living standard).
Don't get me wrong, I condemn the palastinian "terrorist" attacks against innocents [women, children, unarmed citizens]. But in reality they are only retaliating against an oppressor. When Poland was under Natzi oppression you had similar acts committed daily; only difference was that these were against army men.
Unfortunately a big part of our country [America], is controlled by supporters of the Israeli couse...and there is nothing any of us can do about it.
So you see Clyde, I am critical of my country as well. I see how my statement about respecting Bush could be seen as "blind loyalty"; I guess I had a bit too much of bombarding him thrown in to my face. When the war was about to begin all around my university people carried signs "Bush = Hitler", and some other statements which I truly dispise. Emails from anti-war student organizations were sent daily where the whole US government was condemned for its actions. Unfortunately these same people can only shout few lousy phrases, but when confronted do not want to discuss. And it seemed like the college students joined the loud voices, not knowing what was really going on. A bunch of these, so-called protesters, admitted to protesting just because they are college students, and "that is why they should protest."
I'm not sure if any of this makes sense as I am dog tired, and I cannot articulate my words the way I would want to.
One more thing to novacain: I'm not certain where you are from, but if anywhere in the US a suggest whatching international media to get a bit bigger picture of what is realy going on around the world, and esspecially the middle east. I am an avid watcher/listener of the BBC.
axon
WTF??
I am Pro Paleistein.
I think that the US sending over 40% of all it foreign aid (+billions in intrest free arms loans and tax deductible private donations) to the worlds 16 richest country is deplorable.
If you had looked at the figures I recommended (since the start of the Infatada) you would have seen my point.
Here is a list of the UN Security Council Resolutions Israel is in violation of;
252 (1968)
262 (1968)
267 (1969)
271 (1969)
298 (1971)
446 (1979)
452 (1979)
465 (1980)
471 (1980)
484 (1980)
487 (1981)
497 (1981)
573 (1985)
592 (1986)
605 (1987)
607 (1986)
608 (1988)
636 (1989)
641 (1989)
672 (1990)
673 (1990)
681 (1990)
726 (1992)
799 (1992)
904 (1994)
1073 (1996)
1322 (2000)
1402 (2002)
1403 (2002)
1405 (2002)
1435 (2002)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...esolutions.pdf
Here is the list of UNSC resolutions Paleistein is in violation of;
See the difference?
Did he really say that..... oh dear.Quote:
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.
-- George W. Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas
Ari Fleisher addressed that "quote"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0701-6.html#18
The UN is meaningless, they have no real power. Those violations are proof.
Ok fair enough, it seems that perhaps i misjudged you, my apologies.Quote:
So you see Clyde, I am critical of my country as well. I see how my statement about respecting Bush could be seen as "blind loyalty"; I guess I had a bit too much of bombarding him thrown in to my face
Do you think Israel would have gotten away virtually scot free without US backing?Quote:
The UN is meaningless, they have no real power. Those violations are proof.
ha, without the US backing, the neighboring arabs would attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth. Now that's good policy! :rolleyes:
If the US had not backed Israel, and the surrounding Arab nations had removed the Israeli government the day after it formed (bearing in mind of course that the whole origin of Israel involves the Palestinians effectively being told they no longer run their own country) do you think the situation would be worse or better than it is today?
the historical argument is irrelevant to today's policy. US failing to back isreal today would result in a blood bath. Again. Great policy! Glorious Day!
edit:
"Happy happy, Joy Joy!!" - Ren and Stimpy
Without the US, there certainly would be a blood-bath in the middle-east, but it would be dispensed by Israel.
ah, then US is holding the evil Jews back? interesting, I wonder why arabs always say we have Jew love and we need to die.
Or are they just uptight? :p
Yup-the ones with the biggest and most guns can do what they like. And I for one dont give a damn.Quote:
Originally posted by BMJ
Without the US, there certainly would be a blood-bath in the middle-east, but it would be dispensed by Israel.
What happened to the Arnie storyline? I like Arnie. Maybe I can vote for Arnie to be next UK Primeminister.
Talk about Arnie, not the usual tat that all threads suddenly vanish into.
If a policy has been a disaster in the past perhaps its time to reconsider it.Quote:
the historical argument is irrelevant to today's policy.
.... engage brain then post.Quote:
US failing to back isreal today would result in a blood bath. Again. Great policy! Glorious Day!
1) I don't know if you noticed but its a blood bath now.
2) If the US stopped funding Israel tommorow the Israeli government would still be able to totally destroy all of its neighbours for a long time to come. Even without handouts the Israeli economy outstretches that of its compeitors as does its miltary technology.
By backing Israel in a blatently unbiased manner, the US alienates itself from the Muslim world, pours petrol on the fires that burn in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, undermines the only meaningfull global institution designed to keep countries within humanitarian guidelines and plays straight into the hands of anti-Western terrorists eager for new recruits.
Great $$$$ing policy.
No matter what happens, Israel will always be at odds with its neighbors...It seems its only a matter of time before an all-out war starts in the middle east...and it likely would draw a large part of the world into conflict as well...If Israel continues their aggression, it also seems likely the the UN will start condemning them, and perhaps that will lead to even less Israeli cooperation--the whole situation is just a time bomb waiting to explode
The problem is not inherently unsolveable, there have been times in the past where peace has been close.
The US needs to STOP backing Israel and instead put pressure on both parties to go back to the negotiating table. The only way the conflict will ever end is via the formation of a separate Palestinian state and that is only possible through diplomacy.
Many of the major obsticles to peace are due to the amazingly idiotic placement of Jewish settlements right in the middle of Palestinian territory, if instead of buying Israel yet more tanks and missiles the money was instead used to help rellocate these settlements real progress could be made.
Sorry for my lack of knowledge, but isn't part of the issue dispute over territory?Quote:
Many of the major obsticles to peace are due to the amazingly idiotic placement of Jewish settlements right in the middle of Palestinian territory, if instead of buying Israel yet more tanks and missiles the money was instead used to help rellocate these settlements real progress could be made.
yes, that's basically it. People who feel strongly on either side believe the territory is rightfully, historically theirs. So it's silly to listen to anyone who speaks as strongly as Clyde does.
Love you silly Clyde ;)
Yes it is, but if you look at the maps, you realise instantly where the problems are coming from.Quote:
Sorry for my lack of knowledge, but isn't part of the issue dispute over territory?
They need to draw a line between a Palestinian state and Israel.
The problem is that when Israel took control, they put out settlements but instead of placing them in or next to Jewish areas, they placed them slap bang in the middle of Palestinian populations.
If these settlements could be moved (and thats no insignificant task) finding a diplomatic solution that both sides were reasonably content with would be much MUCH easier.
Its not about whether the land "should" be one way or the other, it's simply a matter of logistics, where ever you draw a line one side loses a large amount of its population to the other state. To help reduce that you move some of the Jewish settlements they are "islands" of Israeli's in a sea of Palestinians.Quote:
People who feel strongly on either side believe the territory is rightfully, historically theirs
The question is simply: What can be done to solve the problem, and what is being done now to exacerbate it.Quote:
So it's silly to listen to anyone who speaks as strongly as Clyde does.
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.
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.
"The Arabs", "The Jews", "The French", "The Americans".Quote:
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?
Yay go go gadget generalisation.
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!