Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[Coney]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
and I definately do not want to pull a jerseydevil

What an excellent phrase......I intend to use that one often!

*adds "pull a Jerseydevil" to the Entmoot slang dictionary*

[Bombadillo]

On Took Talk I'd get pretty deep into this argument, but this is too big for me to follow along. So I'll just say this once and for all: Bush knows exactally what he is doing and he has a greater understanding of events in the world than many people know (save JD). Saddam is a lunatic. The Iraqi people are good people in general. America has been doing the right thing and I support Bush 100%. Bye.

[Elfhelm]

If Bush knows so much, where are the WMDs?

[Coney]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
If Bush knows so much, where are the WMDs?

You've gotta give the CIA time to smuggle them into the country

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
No respect for bullies.

You think this is bullying?

You didn't elect the UN? I didn't elect Bush. This united we stand nonsense only flies when your guy is in office. When my guy is in office your people are spending all their time muckraking. So don't think I will ever stand united with you. The implication that people who want peace are unpatriotic is likewise a bully tactic. I won't stand with a bully. You should stand united with ME when I say we should take the moral high ground!

Tell me where I ever said you had to "stand United" with me?

What muchraking would that be? The Whitewater scandal, the bjs in the oval office? You obviously are blind to the muchraking "your people" do.

Also - you don't even know me - so you don't even know who my "people" are or if I even have "people".

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
One time and one time only will I waste my breath bandying words with this flag waver.

You promise? I guess you really only want to discuss things with people who pretty much agree with you - or aren't as caustic as you are.

I was replying to someone else telling me that democracy is not about providing a forum for negotiating through problems. Your response is out of context.

You seemed to be using it as a reason for why we should continue to negotiate with Saddam and other regimes who refuse to negotiate.

Evil is an easy word to use.

I take it you deny that Saddam Hussein was ruling under an evil regime - which torutured and executed his own people. I guess you don't think it's evil to execute people by putting them into meat grinders while still alive or dipping them in acid.

I will repeat that the problem is that people are choosing to fight rather than negotiate. Fighting them back, especially when they are so good at hiding, will not solve the problem. The problem is in their heads. They must learn to negotiate. You can't force someone to be nice.

Oh- and how will you teach them to negotiate? I have to hear this one.

Sticks and stones... Shall we attack anyone who calls us weak?

You know damn well - at least I hope so that was not the reason why we attacked Iraq or Saddma Hussein. Everytime international opinion was against Clinton he's back off though. It was in the US interest to go after Bin Ladin before 9/11 - but because the world and many Americans rose up in outrage to him taking military action against the maniac - 9/11 occurred.

They want freedom, but their definition is different from ours. They want to be free to have Shaira law, which permits stonings for having an opinion different from your cleric.

Different than my cleric? Who is my cleric? I can careless if they want to stone people - but if you think that is what they think of as freedom then you really don;'t know anything about what you are talking about.

This trope is getting boring. You say it to anyone who disagrees with you. It sounds like "learning" means agreeing with you. Obviously you believe so strongly that you are right that any of us who think differently must be unlearned. In my opinion, you should learn about the misuse of the written word to manipulate public opinion.

No - it's just that many of your statements are based on feeling and opinion and not on facts of what is happening or what has historically happened in the region.

Laying blame will not stop the conflict. We moved them there after WWII as displaced people. Who cares? Only the future holds the hope of resolution. The past is just cause for more conflict.

See that's your problem. HISTORY AFFECTS THE PRESENT. You can NOT ignore the past. The past is why things are the way they are in the Middle East.

I never said "before" I said work together.

We have been working together. But if their interests go against the US interests - we're not just going to say "OH okay - we'll just go with hat you support" Why is it wrong for the US to follow what is in our best interest? All the other countries were. Do you think the France, Germany and Russia were against the war and going against THEIR national interests?

Degonaweda invited the snake man to the council. You can't build a nation without the snake man.

What?

US interests above the interests of the world? So you are showing your true colors, then?

If US security is at stage - then YES I support us taking action against public opinion of the world. The Middle East has been a problem for decades, actually for millenium. The status quo of what we were doing was not going to change anything. You can't wish for things to change - if the same things which have been repeatedly tried don't work.

We are not at war with all the countries of the Middle East, are we?

No - but you made the statement that if they had a voice in the UN that maybe they wouldn't be like this. They have a voice in the UN. Adn we are at war with the terrorist of the Middle East - ALL of them. They are all on notice is the regimes who support them.

[jerseydevil]

So now the rights of those people does matter to you? To my mind, caring about people only when it affects yourself is called hypocrisy.

See the problem is - you don't kno wme nor did you bother going through all my past threads. I have ALWAYS cared about the people of the Middle East. So you can call it hypocrocy if you think - but you're wrong. I think the US should have gone into Rwanda and I also don't think Clinton should have been a wimmmp and left Somalia at the first sign of blood. A TRUE leader would have explained to the American people why it was important for us to be their and would have pressed ahead. Clinton wasn't a leader - he followed the polls and swayed like the wind.

The Muslims almost made it to Paris. They were turned back at Poitiers. Then the Pope offered remission of sins to the King of France if he would drive the infidel from the Holy Lands, etc, etc, etc... It's all about insane religious fanatics hating each other, and the West is just as guilty as the Middle East.

I agree that religious fanatism is wrong on both sides. This isn't a religious war though. Bin Ladin has tried to convince people of the Middle East it is. If they feel it is a religious war - then that isn't going to change except by the actions that America takes in Iraq. We are allowing demonstrations against the US to continue, we are allowing the pilgrimage marches. The west is NOT engaging in a religious war.

So you are saying that we are at war with all Arabs?

No - we're against all the terrorists and the countries who support them. This includes Saudi Arabia who is an "allie". They have to change their governments to allow more freedom for their people, more oppurtunities and stop supporting terrorist groups.

Funny. I never said it was suspect. I said it was a fine marketing ploy.

You said you found it highly suspect.

Yes, it would take all the money we wasted on bombs to make fuel cells viable.

You didn't answer my question as to where the power in the fuel cells come from. So I guess you don't know.

I made a prediction about the lashback effect of Bush throwing our money away. I believe time will prove me right. There is no other proof or disproof of a prediction.

Your right - but so gfar you haven't been right. Everyone said that North Korea would take advantage of the situation, that the would dig their heals in even harder against the US. North Korea is now willing to have multilateral talks. Syria is asking what it needs to do in order to make America happy. The Middle East is scared right now - and they should be. They have to work to bring peace to the region.

It is such a tiresome little tactic. I'm sure others see that you use and use and use the same nonsensical non-argument, too.

Your statement on social security indicated to me that youy actually have no idea how it works. Sorry if asking you if you know how it works seems to be a "nonsensical non-argument" to you. If you think that it's a tiresome tactic - then don't respond to them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
So you are saying we have to keep our oil-based economy and drive our gas guzzling monstrosities in order to help those poor people in the Middle East? Because that's what it looks like you're saying.

No actually my feeling is that we have to make these countries move away from a solely oil based economy. But there is a lot more that requires oil than just cars.

Yes, we're all aware that plastics come from oil. What does that have to do with converting our energy source?

I again ask you - where does the alternative fuel sources for cars come from before they become "clean"? Do you think that electric cars are clean? or what does it take to process hydrogen for use in "clean" cars? Maybe you should look at what is involved to produce these energies before spouting off about clean fuel sources - you'll see that most of the times their only clean at the point they are used. To process hydrogen right now creates more pollution than it prevents once it's in the cars - not to mention there aren't a lot of hyrdrogen stations out there. Electric fuel cells have to be recharged from energy powered from power plants - many of these are gas or coal. So they either still use gas to produce the electricity or add more pollution to the air through the dirty coal burning plants.

My point was that the sanctions only hurt the poor people. I don't see how you disagree.

I don't disagree. But I haven't see you come with any other alternatives to anything.

But the point is, why Bechtel? The answer is out there, time will tell.

The answer is becuase their are very FEW countries who have the experience to handle a job this big. It has to be done right.

So we brought them freedom? I could have supported the ousting of Saddam if the President had told us who he was going to replace him with. My biggest fear has been that he's just created a power vaccuum for the religious extremists to fill, which is nothing short of counterproductive. Oh look, there's a million Shiites in Baghdad screaming "death to America" today. Well, that really worked out backasswards!!

It's been only 2 weeks since the war "ended". of course the clerics were going to have some people chanting that. But that isn't the majority of iraqi s - but that is what you'd rather concentrate on. Things have been going MUCH BETTER than a lot of people who were against the war said. Actually things seem to be going very well. Better than what I expected so far.

p.s. With all your flag waving, I would like to know if you ever backed up that flag by volunteering for service.

I couldn't join. But I had wanted to go into the Air Force. My brother is in the Navy, my father was a Navy Seals and my grandfather was in the Navy in World War II. i can stil be proud of my country and be a "flag waver" withouth having been in the military. I did consult for the DoD though and Department of Energy.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So you honestly think that the Palestinians had no role in the wars against Israel?

Some of them had a role, but I'll get to that further later.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The Israeli are occupying most lands that were captured during the wars. Currently Iarael has only been going into gaza and other Palestinians reas AFTER a terrorist attack. I do think that the settlements should be eliminated and I do think that Israel is at fault in some areas - but I do NOT feel they are the most to blame. The UN and England created israel out of some of the lands england had conquered from the Ottoman Empire. The land did not belong to the Palestinians - there has never been a "Palestine".

It's because the country was under British control that there wasn't a Palestine, but the British did make a promise to the Arabs in exchange for support during World War 1. They promised that the Arabs would receive the independence of all Arab land in Asia, with the exception of Aden.

During the war, two other agreements were made that were contradictory to the first one. One of them was that the Ottoman Empire would be divided between Britain, France, and Russia, and the other was that there would be a home for the Jews in Palestine.

They backed up their agreement with the Arabs and confirmed it when they questioned it, upon hearing from the Turks that the British had made these opposing agreements.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I would recommend these books...
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land

Thanks for the suggestion, but we have a lot of books on the subject already at our house.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Life for the Palestinians was a much better 3 years ago before they set their latest hmocide bombings against israel. Most Palestinians traveled into Isreal for work. These people are out of jobs now because Israel views a open border with the Palestinians as a security risk.

I also did say in one of my posts that the reason why terrorism flourishes in the Middle East is from the poverty (or actually the uneven distribution of wealth). Also - I don't see how that allows it be accwetable for people to blow up buses, restaurants, malls, etc.

Not acceptable, but if you realize what the cause is (The lack of justice for them) and try to grant them hope for a future, you might get somewhere. Trying to bomb or kill off these people isn't the way to do it.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Israel only goes into the refuge camps after terrorist attacks.

Perhaps that's true in the most recent cases, but in those cases, what did the Israeli soldiers do? They blew up infrastructure. 'Terrorist infrustructure'. Education materials, banks, records, farming equipment, schools, things that the US and UN had spent millions of dollars building up. They were destroying the Palestinian future, to cause them to leave, in the same way they have done in the past. I'll get to that soon.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think you look at it as more being all of Israels fault and refuse to look at the israeli side. Israel was living in peace before the Arab counties decided to attack it. So how did Israel initiate the hate there?

I'll tell you how they initiated the hate there. The Palestinians were furious at the Arab nations, furious, for not coming in and liberating them from Israeli oppression sooner than they did.

The Zionists, before a single Arab soldier had come against them, acted on their own to form their state, while the UN was still trying to find a suitable agreement between the two sides. They were reconsidering the partition plan, which had earlier been rejected by the Arabs. As the British ended their mandate and while their troops were withdrawing, the Zionists took matters into their own hands. They occupied numerous towns and 300,000 Palestinians fled, either because of terror methods or because they were terrified into going. And they had good reason to be terrified. At the town Deir Yasin in 1948, the Israeli soldiers murdered 254 people, including women and children, and they used the bodies to clog up a well.

[Lief Erikson]

On May 19, 1948, the State of Israel was established. The UN sent a mediator to Israel to help resolve the growing difficulties, but he was assassinated by Jewish terrorists.

THEN, the Arabs came to help the Palestinians. They came with 55,000 troops against Israel's 120,000 and were defeated. During the course of that war, 450,000 more Palestinians left or were forced out of their homes. 200,000 Jewish settlers were given immediate housing in "abandoned" Arab houses. 121 Arab villages were occupied by these settlers, but there were 429 villages that the Israelies couldn't immediately occupy. The UN was calling for the Palestinians to be given back their land and permitted back into their homes, and the Israelies had all these buildings open. But they had no place for the Palestinians; they bulldozed all of those villages to rubble.

In 1954, more than one third of Israel's Jewish population lived on absentee property and nearly a third of the new immigrants (250,000 people) settled in urban areas abandoned by the Arabs.

Between 1949 and the middle of 1954 there was an average of one thousand cases of infiltration per month along the various frontiers, of Palestinians attempting to cross the armistice lines in order to be reunited with their families or to return to their homes. Many of these people were simply put back on their side of the line when caught; others were killed or jailed.

On October 21, 1948, the Israeli government imposed martial law. They limited the Palestinians in Israel, restricting their movement and abilities to act, making them second class citizens. Many were labeled "absentee" by the government as well, which enabled the government to expell them and place Jewish Settlers into their homes in their places.

The Arab nations had good excuse to come after Israel (Though there were also other reasons), and these expulsions and destructions or theft of civilian property were not even nearly all war related. As I have demonstrated, after the first war with the Arab nations, nearly half of the expulsions had still taken place before there was any Arab troop movement against the Israelies. The recent destructions of Palestinian infrastructure in the West Bank was not targetting terrorism alone. The destructions of hundreds of Palestinian villages and settlements and the immigration of thousands upon thousands of Jewish Settlers into Palestinian homes (in defiance of UN regulations) wasn't self preservation. It was expansion. Just as we can see happening now.