SkyDekker 1,465
Recommended Posts
QuoteI did a google search
US aid to ISRIEL 93 billion
cost to each US citisen $17,000
and all we get was the USS LIBERTY
hummmmmm
but why
..
Mr. Namgrunt, no offense to ya. But it is spelled I-S-R-A-E-L. Israel.
Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.
rehmwa 2
QuoteI think it is indicating though what the average level of posts has become in this forum.
that is SO true
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2319452#2319452
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Plucky 0
Quote
.. and are still killing each other over who owns the most goats ..
This really bothers me. Do you realise this is the WorldWideWeb? Have you ever been to any of these places and sat down and spoken to these people about their troubles?
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuote
.. and are still killing each other over who owns the most goats ..
This really bothers me. Do you realise this is the WorldWideWeb? Have you ever been to any of these places and sat down and spoken to these people about their troubles?
yup, stereotyping an entire nation of people based on what you see in the movies really sucks
good thing it doesn't happen here
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
pirana 0
QuoteAs for all of those Third World African countries, they've been on this earth as long as anyone else, and are still killing each other over who owns the most goats.
Check your history and you'll find that powerful imperial countries have a habit of decending upon, destabilizing and controlling weaker RESOURCE RICH countries. It's very profitable if you can exploit the local labor, limit development and just harvest their resources for your gain. It's even more profitable if you then turn around and loan them back their money in such a manner that they can never pay off the debt, only the interest.
Two things strike me about this post.
1 - Other countries need to be allowed to mature, even if some of their behaviors rub us wrongly. It is easy to be righteous and forget that we are not that long removed from slavery, voting rights only being available to white land-owning males, grabbing land from the natives that were already here for about 10 or 20 thousand years, and so on and so forth. Heck, we are still dealing with vestiges of the Klan. Should someone come and invade us to put a stop to that? I'm not apologizing for the worst of the behaviors, just trying to understand them.
2 - You hit on one of the dirty little secrets of most financial aid given out by the IMF, the US, and just about anybody else that can afford to give out significant amounts of money. It comes with a shitload of strings attached. It's not like a home mortgage where you pretty much only have to promise to have a house and pay back the money. Almost universally, loans from the US (direct or indirect) require the money be spent on US goods and services, often with certain companies. Guess which companies they are.
That money never actually leaves the country. Some developing country gets talked into thinking they need some humongous infrastructure of a power grid, ends up in debt up to their eyeballs, profits from the project end up in the accounts of a few select elite US industrial giants, and profits from the ongoing business end up in the pockets of the ruling elite class of the borrowing country while their citizens continue to eat mud pies and live in cardboard shacks.
Underdevelopment is a process - not a status. There is nothing underdeveloped about a nomadic population living a very simple agrarian lifestyle. Their level of development is commensurate with their culture and economic system. Underdevelopment is when gross inconsistencies exist side by side as the result of radically uneven maturation of an economy and culture.
The reason our political leaders hate folks like the President of Venezuela is because they refuse to play the game and spend all their borrowed money buying US goods and services. They actually want to use the full amount to evenly stimulate THEIR OWN economy. How audacious of them!
So the spin doctors go to work portraying the guy as a monster, and if that doesn't work, we assassinate them.
That's not a perfect description of every situation, but is pretty much the formula is in place.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
pirana 0
QuoteQuote
.. and are still killing each other over who owns the most goats ..
This really bothers me. Do you realise this is the WorldWideWeb? Have you ever been to any of these places and sat down and spoken to these people about their troubles?
Oh, oh - pick me, pick me!!!!
I have been to a couple places like that - in Africa. The most telling part to me was when you asked questions about controversial topics and the person looks around (Belushi style) to see who is within earshot before they answer. That's when you realize you are not in Kansas anymore. I made a cynical comment about the President's picture being everywhere and our guide gave me a very serious warning about how loudly I talk about such things - not so much for my sake as his.
That being said, the best source of honest information are retired diplomatic corps workers. (Forget about getting anything that resembles full disclosure or a balanced story from the mass media, politicians, or anybody who pontificates based on those 2 sources).
The crap diplomats see and the nature of their business requires they not be honest until they are retired. I have been lucky enough to know a few, and the best you could say is that they have, without exception, reservations about the way the US does business. Usually it is more like serious disappointment.
The point of most people having never been exposed is a very good one.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteI think it is indicating though what the average level of posts has become in this forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that is SO true
http://www.dropzone.com/...post=2319452#2319452
the concept of action and reaction really isn't that difficult.
falxori 0
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've always been a student of international relations and history, so let's put this into some historical context.
In 1948, when the UN partitioned Palestine into 2 separate Israeli and Palestinian Arab states, the Arabs rejected partition (which would have given the Palestinians a sovereign nation immediately) and attacked Israel from all directions, bent on its complete destruction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok... Now I'm confused. The UN told the Palestinians that they were taking half their land and expected them to be happy about it? I don't see how they expected any reaction other than the one they got.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, you're not confused - you are dead on; and that is the reason this will not go away. It was a blatant land grab, and we would do the same thing if it were forced on us. Well, we would do a more conventional thing, but only because we have the resources to do so.
If a group of immigrants with lots of cash started buying up land, and got the UN to back them in efforts to consolidate their holdings and declare an autonomous state within US borders, I think we would react very strongly.
The honest answer to the honest question is that we let it happen because Israel represents a friendly foothold in a very valuable place. It is basically a civilianized version of a US military outpost, manned by someone else's troops. Very convenient.
Don of Borg - Cool, calm, collective
actually, no she's not.
Israel's claim to this land is as strong if not stronger than the palestinians. both nations have a proven history in this area (although the jewish one runs a lot deeper) and you can't call it a "land grab". the difference in 1948 was that the Israeli side was willing to settle for less than it deserved in order to build a state and the arab side did not.
Quotef a group of immigrants with lots of cash
can you really call the poor WWII refugees who had lost everything but their lives and then the immigrants who were kicked out of the arab states and northern africa without their property people "with lots of cash" ?
your description is absurd.
Quoteand declare an autonomous state within US borders
Israel was not founded "within" any country's borders. there was no palestine on top of which Israel was founded. you simply don't know the historic facts (like many others here)
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
falxori 0
i'm a bit tired of having this discussion over and over but it seems that in every new post about this subject you go back to your old mantras even though you were proven wrong over and over in the past...
last time I've checked, Israel was the smaller outnumbered country surrounded by many countries (including well funded ones) that try to destroy it over and over again.
don't forget the "rocks" that come in the forms of AK-47's , RPG's, rockets and many many tons of explosives that accidently (i'm sure the pure palestinians don't mean to) find their ways into school busses...
My family's house in Hebron was stolen in 1937 during the arab riots (and there was no israel then) and i have family members and friends who were blown up in busses. but still I don't want to kill all palestinians and if they stop their terroristic ways i'm more than willing to give up some of the land i hold sacred for the chance of living in peace.
but as you mentioned, you, as the palestinians, wouldnt.
that sums it all. if they want it all and would never compromise, there will be no peace.
the reason is because it exists and has a right to exist. the palestinians are the reason why the two countries can't exist side by side peacefully.
it seems that you don't get peace by pulling out and leaving them to run their own businesses. what you get is rockets across the border. or is that the palestinians' idea of peace?
QuoteIt's like putting five 4 year olds up to fight Mike Tyson
last time I've checked, Israel was the smaller outnumbered country surrounded by many countries (including well funded ones) that try to destroy it over and over again.
QuoteMost of the times the Palestinian throw rock and get slaughtered by the Israeli solders.
don't forget the "rocks" that come in the forms of AK-47's , RPG's, rockets and many many tons of explosives that accidently (i'm sure the pure palestinians don't mean to) find their ways into school busses...
QuoteIf you stole my house and killed my family I would want you dead no matter what the cost.
My family's house in Hebron was stolen in 1937 during the arab riots (and there was no israel then) and i have family members and friends who were blown up in busses. but still I don't want to kill all palestinians and if they stop their terroristic ways i'm more than willing to give up some of the land i hold sacred for the chance of living in peace.
but as you mentioned, you, as the palestinians, wouldnt.
that sums it all. if they want it all and would never compromise, there will be no peace.
QuoteIsrael doesn’t deserve peace because they are the reason there is no peace for the Palestinian.
the reason is because it exists and has a right to exist. the palestinians are the reason why the two countries can't exist side by side peacefully.
QuoteYou don’t get peace by killing peoples children and destroying their homes.
it seems that you don't get peace by pulling out and leaving them to run their own businesses. what you get is rockets across the border. or is that the palestinians' idea of peace?
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
falxori 0
QuoteOk... Now I'm confused. The UN told the Palestinians that they were taking half their land and expected them to be happy about it? I don't see how they expected any reaction other than the one they got.
yes you are confused.
the UN recognized that BOTH nations have a claim to this land and divided between them.
it wasn't "their" land. and if you claim it was "their" land, please back it up with some facts.
the jewish part was also offered less than half of what they considered to be historic Israel (including Jerusalem who was mean to be international ground) but they accepted it. why? because they wanted to build a nation in peace.
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Cute.
I suspected you would be unwilling to answer it.
The answer, of course, is that killing your family members would make you MORE likely to want to kill the people who killed them. Other people are like that, too, and the sooner we realize that most people are like that, the sooner we will have a chance at stopping the cycle of violence.
I suspected you would be unwilling to answer it.
The answer, of course, is that killing your family members would make you MORE likely to want to kill the people who killed them. Other people are like that, too, and the sooner we realize that most people are like that, the sooner we will have a chance at stopping the cycle of violence.
QuoteQuoteOk... Now I'm confused. The UN told the Palestinians that they were taking half their land and expected them to be happy about it? I don't see how they expected any reaction other than the one they got.
yes you are confused.
the UN recognized that BOTH nations have a claim to this land and divided between them.
it wasn't "their" land. and if you claim it was "their" land, please back it up with some facts.
I wasn't claiming the land was theirs. The poster above me did, which was what was confusing, because I'd thought the UN decision had been based on both groups having some kind of claim. From what I remember, while there was a population of Jews in the area at the time (1948?) the Jewish claim was based on ancient history, while the Palestinian claim was based on current presence.
pirana 0
QuoteI've always been a student of international relations and history, so let's put this into some historical context.
In 1948, when the UN partitioned Palestine into 2 separate Israeli and Palestinian Arab states, the Arabs rejected partition (which would have given the Palestinians a sovereign nation immediately) and attacked Israel from all directions, bent on its complete destruction.
Ok... Now I'm confused. The UN told the Palestinians that they were taking half their land and expected them to be happy about it? I don't see how they expected any reaction other than the one they got.
Actually, you're not confused - you are dead on; and that is the reason this will not go away. It was a blatant land grab, and we would do the same thing if it were forced on us. Well, we would do a more conventional thing, but only because we have the resources to do so.
If a group of immigrants with lots of cash started buying up land, and got the UN to back them in efforts to consolidate their holdings and declare an autonomous state within US borders, I think we would react very strongly.
The honest answer to the honest question is that we let it happen because Israel represents a friendly foothold in a very valuable place. It is basically a civilianized version of a US military outpost, manned by someone else's troops. Very convenient.
Don of Borg - Cool, calm, collective
actually, no she's not.
Israel's claim to this land is as strong if not stronger than the palestinians. both nations have a proven history in this area (although the jewish one runs a lot deeper) and you can't call it a "land grab". the difference in 1948 was that the Israeli side was willing to settle for less than it deserved in order to build a state and the arab side did not.Quotef a group of immigrants with lots of cash
can you really call the poor WWII refugees who had lost everything but their lives and then the immigrants who were kicked out of the arab states and northern africa without their property people "with lots of cash" ?
your description is absurd.Quoteand declare an autonomous state within US borders
Israel was not founded "within" any country's borders. there was no palestine on top of which Israel was founded. you simply don't know the historic facts (like many others here)
Bullshit. You read some history, you obviously have not. Do a Google on the history of Palestine. Most pertinent to today's crisis is the time from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire thru WWI and the Balfour Declaration. By the time of the date you give (1948) the dirty deals had already been made.
If you are one of those people who want to play the game of going back only as far as is convenient to your opinion, then you'll want to go back only as far as about 1200 BC. May come as a shock to you, but the first Semitic tribes (who eventually became the Jews) arrived about that time and ran the previous (and earliest recorded) occupants off the land. Another group they tried to run off, but could not, were the Philistines, for whom the land is named.
What's your answer to that? More vague accusations that I do not know what I'm talking about, or do you have some facts (dates, names, events) to back them up?
If you need a couple direct links to good quality documents of the area's history, I'll be happy to provide them. I'm a relic myself and would rather read books.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
falxori 0
QuoteI wasn't claiming the land was theirs. The poster above me did, which was what was confusing, because I'd thought the UN decision had been based on both groups having some kind of claim. From what I remember, while there was a population of Jews in the area at the time (1948?) the Jewish claim was based on ancient history, while the Palestinian claim was based on current presence.
so you weren't confused
and yes, you are right, the UN (or what was the UN at the time) tried to find a solution to the situation where both parties had a claim in the region and it based its maps on the population layout at the time (coastal area mostly to israel and mountain area (west bank) mostly for the arab. after the war Israel was founded, the west bank was under jordanian control and gaza under egyptian (and that wasnt fun for the palestinians either.
again, my apologies for confusing your confusion...
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
falxori 0
QuoteIf you are one of those people who want to play the game of going back only as far as is convenient to your opinion, then you'll want to go back only as far as about 1200 BC. May come as a shock to you, but the first Semitic tribes (who eventually became the Jews) arrived about that time and ran the previous (and earliest recorded) occupants off the land. Another group they tried to run off, but could not, were the Philistines, for whom the land is named.
your original post reffered to the creation of Israel as a "land grab" from the Palestinians. what you call "dirty deals" after WWI , i will call giving the Jewish people their home land back after 2000 years.
as for the historic debate.
you can go further than 1200 BC but even if you do, and you name the Philistines (who btw were only living on the southern coastal area) as the "owners" of the land, it doesnt change my arguemet.
the historic Philistines have nothing to do with todays Palestinians.
and no, i don't want to go into the debate over who was here first, determining who was here 3000 years ago will not lead to a solution, i only go there when people claim "land grab" and that land is Palestinian.
the land can be related to both and both will have to share it or kill eachother trying to get it all.
history has proven who was willing to share it and who wasn't.
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
rehmwa 2
Quotethe concept of action and reaction really isn't that difficult.
I'm very familiar with the whole "they started it" argument.
most parents are
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
beowulf 1
the fact that the land was the jews back 2000 years ago does not make it forever theirs.
Quote
it seems that you don't get peace by pulling out and leaving them to run their own businesses. what you get is rockets across the border. or is that the palestinians' idea of peace?
Talk about an inaccurate oversimplification! So I guess that the Gaza OFFENSIVE going on right now is Israel's idea of peace. You and I have talked about this before and it's obvious that we disagree about who's entitled to what land and who's victimizing who. I stand by my assertion that they only way to sort this out is by first having the US withdraw all of it's financial support until the Israeli military stands down and then sending in massive numbers of international peacekeepers and actual diplomats. Both the Israelis and the Palsetinians need to be forced to sit at the table and talk. Sure, the timing was suspect but the PA did actually speak the words "Israel has a right to exist" a week ago. That was a small window of opportunity that was slammed closed by Olmert.
falxori 0
Quotethe fact that the land was the jews back 2000 years ago does not make it forever theirs
maybe not. but its as valid if not more valid that the arguements stated here why this land is not theirs.
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
beowulf 1
I don't think so.
That land should have a government representing all the people there not just Jews. From what I have read that is not what the Jews want at all.
That land should have a government representing all the people there not just Jews. From what I have read that is not what the Jews want at all.
falxori 0
QuoteSo I guess that the Gaza OFFENSIVE going on right now is Israel's idea of peace
no, its Israel's idea of responding to rockets flying out of Gaza when there is no Israeli in the gaza strip and for the taking of a soldier in a military operation across the border.
this offensive is for trying to get the soldier back and for punishing the Hamas led PA who is responsible and even carried out this attack.
i agree with the rest of your post about forcing the sides to sit and talk. but that has nothing to do with the US aid to Israel. by that logic the PA should stop getting internation aid as well, but i dont hear you say that
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
falxori 0
Quotedon't think so.
That land should have a government representing all the people there not just Jews. From what I have read that is not what the Jews want at all.
thats one option but it had failed in the past (see yugoslavia, czechoslovakia, etc. for example)
forcing two different nation to sit under one government will not work in the long run
the only option is having two states side by side, the population is not that mixed and the land can be divided (the maps are pretty much drawn).
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
Off course it isn't true. I find it pretty amazing that people actually reply to that with seriousness. Specially if the poster is someone who has a somewhat longstanding history with other posts. Should have been pretty obvious. I think it is indicating though what the average level of posts has become in this forum.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites