Yeah Israel needs to grow up but so does Arafat...Unless they get rid of Arafat there is no way the peace process can start again. Arafat is an old "revolutionary" who wants to go down fighting. Problem is you have two very passionate people, but most of the population just wants it to end. Just finished Battle Ready (Tom Clancy) & I got alot out of it, might want to pick it up. It covers alot & brings light to some of the events that led up to GW II.
As for boycotting Comedy Central? WHAT YOU TALKIN BOUT WILLIS?! There the only thing holding the line !
I love bagels. Just mostly eaten the basic ones... but there's this one bakery some 600 km from where i live, that does THE best bagels in finland.. Have to get them every summer a bit, when parents go visit the old place there..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]I also agree. Israel is behaving horribly. [/B][/QUOTE]
And the Palestinian Authority (along with its pet terrorists) isn't? None of us in the US or Canada or Australia or Europe have to deal with what the people in that part of the world do - the potential that, at any particular moment, some lunatic could walk into the mall where you're trying to eat and shop and set off explosives wrapped around him (or her). When people are faced by that life, they go to extremes in order to protect themselves. Hell, look what Bush and Ashcroft have done here in the US, and that was after one (albeit one VERY nasty) terrorist attack on our home soil. Imagine what we'd see the government doing if that sort of thing happened every week or more.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I never said they weren't and I resent your implying that I think the Palestinians are innocent victims. The civilians on both sides are the innocent victims, the authorities on both sides (plus the palestinian malitias) are equally at fault (and very seriously so).
[quote]And it always irritates me when anyone saying anything negative about Israel get marked as "anti semitist" (unsure if that is the correct term). They are using it against anyone that doesn't agree with them[/quote]
I hate when people do that, It realy pisses me off. Theres a big differnce between being Anti-Semetic and Disagreeing with what the Isreali goverment is doing.. Disagreeing with the Isreali goverment has nothing to do with them being Jewish..
[quote]Yeah Israel needs to grow up but so does Arafat...Unless they get rid of Arafat there is no way the peace process can start again. Arafat is an old "revolutionary" who wants to go down fighting. Problem is you have two very passionate people, but most of the population just wants it to end. Just finished Battle Ready (Tom Clancy) & I got alot out of it, might want to pick it up. It covers alot & brings light to some of the events that led up to GW II. [/quote]
Both sides are acting like stupid little little children, that take the Eye for an eye thing to fucking far..
Edit:
Both sides dont seem to know that attacking each other is not the best solution... And attacking each other is just adding fuel to the fire.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mundane [/i]
[B]And it always irritates me when anyone saying anything negative about Israel get marked as "anti semitist" (unsure if that is the correct term). They are using it against anyone that doesn't agree with them. [/B][/QUOTE]
I feel the same way about the misuse of the term "Fundamentalist"...
Like I'm some fanatic who's going to bomb your house next week or something...
:eek:
(Maybe if I was an Exterminator, bombing your house wouldn't be a bad thing... :p )
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mundane [/i]
[B]I have nothing against jews, except for that I would like to bomb Israel back to the stoneage when I see how the people down there behave against each other (both palestines and jews).
Of course, bombing it is not the correct solution, but the United Nations should reclaim Israel, they gave Israel to the jews, now it is time to take it back, since the people down there can't take care of it. [/B][/QUOTE]
So you volunteering to put on the blue helmet, go down there and get your head shot off instead?
Frankly I have become fairly sick at this thread. Do any of you have a workable solution? no you dont, because the jewish population will NOT give up control, because they can never again trust a government or a country that isnt jewish. Its a fact of life. The arabs (and thats all the palestinans are, they are arabs not a seperate cultural ethnic group) want Israel destroyed and the jewish population expelled and actually quite a few of them would prefer DEAD.
Come up to a solution for that mess. you cant.
Unless you want to invade and put UN peacekeepers everywhere and make the area a UN mandate, and occupy it with military forces, and kill alot of people (and watch alot of UN troopers die), you know, basicly what you all condem the US for doing in Iraq.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Unless you want to invade and put UN peacekeepers everywhere and make the area a UN mandate, and occupy it with military forces, and kill alot of people (and watch alot of UN troopers die), you know, basicly what you all condem the US for doing in Iraq. [/B][/QUOTE]
To be fear, much of the reason the US gets condemned for doing that in Iraq is because they did it without UN backing, but to be fair to the US as well, the UN security council is a fucked up system (particularly the veto thing) and the UN should damn well do its job rather than all its members playing stupid little games.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]To be fear, much of the reason the US gets condemned for doing that in Iraq is because they did it without UN backing, but to be fair to the US as well, the UN security council is a fucked up system (particularly the veto thing) and the UN should damn well do its job rather than all its members playing stupid little games. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually to be completely fair I wouldnt put it upto the general assembly either, because then we would be in real trouble. I hate to point out but dictatorships still outnumber democratic nations, and may of the so called democratic nations are "suspect", you would be letting the lunatics run the aslyum.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
No, I don't think that would work either, especially when you consider that a lot of the general assembly nations are dependant on the better off ones for aid and so are not likely to vote along with what they think but with what aid they can get for their votes. And, as you pointed out, a lot of dictatorships still exist.
[quote]To be fear, much of the reason the US gets condemned for doing that in Iraq is because they did it without UN backing, but to be fair to the US as well, the UN security council is a fucked up system (particularly the veto thing) and the UN should damn well do its job rather than all its members playing stupid little games.[/quote]
Thats been happening ever since the 1960s... Rememer in the 1950s when the UN was actly doing it job? Remember the Suez Canal Inident and Cyrus. where the UN actly fixed the problems in those places..
I remember during the Cold War the US and Russia kept Vetoing everthing. But during the 1990's the US vetoed Resultions 9 times while russia vetoed only 3 times... They need to get rid of the veto in order to make the UN more effective.. Allthough I cant see that Happening any time soon...
[quote]No, I don't think that would work either, especially when you consider that a lot of the general assembly nations are dependant on the better off ones for aid and so are not likely to vote along with what they think but with what aid they can get for their votes. And, as you pointed out, a lot of dictatorships still exist.[/quote]
Thats a sad part... I think most of the nations that backed the US in Iraq did it to get more AID money or did it out of fear of it being cut back on them... If you look at the list Alot of the countrys that backed the US were poor countrys...
Edit:
Here in Canada one of the reason why some of the people who actly supported the war where people who feared economic fall backs becuase of us not supporting it.(80% where against it and 20% were for Canada backing the war) I also think thats why Spain backed the US in the begining, despit 90% of the people being aginst Spain backing the US.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Thats been happening ever since the 1960s... Rememer in the 1950s when the UN was actly doing it job? Remember the Suez Canal Inident and Cyrus. where the UN actly fixed the problems in those places..
[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh they did? really in case you havent noticed Cyprus is still devided and the green line untill the 90's was the sight of peroidc fighting, in fact recent events have caused a slight destablization of the situation, And as for the Canal incident the US forced France and England to pull out, because it was starting to risk a collison with the Soviet Union, and the US wasnt about to fight world war III to protect English and French colonial interests.
Also if you eliminate the veto, your again back to letting the general assembly run things, which means again the lunatics running the asylum.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Here in Canada one of the reason why some of the people who actly supported the war where people who feared economic fall backs becuase of us not supporting it.(80% where against it and 20% were for Canada backing the war) I also think thats why Spain backed the US in the begining, despit 90% of the people being aginst Spain backing the US. [/B][/QUOTE]
Your numbers are extremely inaccurate. Polling was actually performed at the outset of this whole affair and the results are listed here:
Summary: the slightest majority of those Canadians surveyed believed that there was enough evidence for the UN to authorize going into Iraq. The survey found that a majority (54%) of English Canada supported war, while just 29% in Quebec did, at that point in time.
A CBC article here describes the results of polls asking different questions a month or so later on:
The article states that about 48% of Canadians polled believed the war was unjustified, while about 33% believed it was. 20% refused to answer or said they didn't know.
So, your claim of 80% of Canadians believed the war was unjustified is incorrect, and nearly by a factor of 2. You'd be more accurate to say that Canadians were close to being split down the middle in a way similar to the United States, with the exception of Quebec.
Of all the provinces, Quebec's citizens were most against the war, with Ontario and the Prairie provinces having the closest numbers for and against.
I'm sorry that I got the Qeubec Results mixed up with Rest of canadas result... This was over a year ago, and I have Crapy Memory
[quote]Majority (51%) of Canadians - Up from 45% Last Week - Now Say United Nations Has Enough Evidence to Authorise Military Action Against Iraq[/quote]
That all that says that there is enough Evidence that their to support awar
[quote]The numbers suggested that 48 per cent of those surveyed saw no justification for the war, compared to one-third of respondents who said it is justified.
About 20 per cent said they didn't know or refused to answer. [/quote]
My question is, is a united world possible in our lifetime? In the B5 universe it took another major war to unite the world under a democratic framework. What would it take to get this world under a true democracy? (as opposed to the U.N. a bueracracy). Personally im skeptical I don't think we will come even close to a united world there are just to many damn people who wont give up there little empires, religions, ideologies, & identity.
I guess is no, sadly... People are to fucking arrogent on this world.. Maybe near then end of our life times we will see an united world... I World Goverment would start like the EU.. and would proably start with a group of Mid-power countrys joining... The United States m China and Russia would be the last nations to join...
Also I have a feeling those three would try to prevent a United Earth to come into form, becuase it would make it vary hard for then to control other nations.
For one thing, it's going to take some seriously undemocratic means, and it'll take even longer before it's really one country, and not a bunch of countries trying to get along under a centralized government.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]I guess is no, sadly... People are to fucking arrogent on this world.. Maybe near then end of our life times we will see an united world... I World Goverment would start like the EU.. and would proably start with a group of Mid-power countrys joining... The United States m China and Russia would be the last nations to join...
Also I have a feeling those three would try to prevent a United Earth to come into form, becuase it would make it vary hard for then to control other nations. [/B][/QUOTE]
I hate to tell you the nation states in Europe are playing Real politik as hard as the US is, France is all about France and germany is all about Germany, and dont delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
Secondly how are you going to get the african and middle eastern nations to conform to you basic beliefs on human rights? thats going to take some killing I bet.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]I like Robin Williams' solution to the whole Jersualem thing. ;) (Those that have his "Live on Broadway" DVD, or have atleast seen it will get this.) [/B][/QUOTE]Time share. :D
Not trying to troll, but really, what would be so much better about a global government?
Most issues are best solved on a local basis, IMHO, where a consensus is more likely to be found due to more similarities of the parties involved. Making central decisions at a location removed from the situation introduces all kinds of potential for confusion and error.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]Not trying to troll, but really, what would be so much better about a global government?
Most issues are best solved on a local basis, IMHO, where a consensus is more likely to be found due to more similarities of the parties involved. Making central decisions at a location removed from the situation introduces all kinds of potential for confusion and error. [/B][/QUOTE]A perfectly valid opinion, and probably much easier and more realistic than a unified Humanity.
Comments
As for boycotting Comedy Central? WHAT YOU TALKIN BOUT WILLIS?! There the only thing holding the line !
[B]I also agree. Israel is behaving horribly. [/B][/QUOTE]
And the Palestinian Authority (along with its pet terrorists) isn't? None of us in the US or Canada or Australia or Europe have to deal with what the people in that part of the world do - the potential that, at any particular moment, some lunatic could walk into the mall where you're trying to eat and shop and set off explosives wrapped around him (or her). When people are faced by that life, they go to extremes in order to protect themselves. Hell, look what Bush and Ashcroft have done here in the US, and that was after one (albeit one VERY nasty) terrorist attack on our home soil. Imagine what we'd see the government doing if that sort of thing happened every week or more.
I hate when people do that, It realy pisses me off. Theres a big differnce between being Anti-Semetic and Disagreeing with what the Isreali goverment is doing.. Disagreeing with the Isreali goverment has nothing to do with them being Jewish..
[quote]Yeah Israel needs to grow up but so does Arafat...Unless they get rid of Arafat there is no way the peace process can start again. Arafat is an old "revolutionary" who wants to go down fighting. Problem is you have two very passionate people, but most of the population just wants it to end. Just finished Battle Ready (Tom Clancy) & I got alot out of it, might want to pick it up. It covers alot & brings light to some of the events that led up to GW II. [/quote]
Both sides are acting like stupid little little children, that take the Eye for an eye thing to fucking far..
Edit:
Both sides dont seem to know that attacking each other is not the best solution... And attacking each other is just adding fuel to the fire.
[B]And it always irritates me when anyone saying anything negative about Israel get marked as "anti semitist" (unsure if that is the correct term). They are using it against anyone that doesn't agree with them. [/B][/QUOTE]
I feel the same way about the misuse of the term "Fundamentalist"...
Like I'm some fanatic who's going to bomb your house next week or something...
:eek:
(Maybe if I was an Exterminator, bombing your house wouldn't be a bad thing... :p )
:rolleyes:
Time to break out my favorite comic phrase from "Everybody loves Raymond"...
They are idiots wrapped in Moron...
;)
[B]I have nothing against jews, except for that I would like to bomb Israel back to the stoneage when I see how the people down there behave against each other (both palestines and jews).
Of course, bombing it is not the correct solution, but the United Nations should reclaim Israel, they gave Israel to the jews, now it is time to take it back, since the people down there can't take care of it. [/B][/QUOTE]
So you volunteering to put on the blue helmet, go down there and get your head shot off instead?
Frankly I have become fairly sick at this thread. Do any of you have a workable solution? no you dont, because the jewish population will NOT give up control, because they can never again trust a government or a country that isnt jewish. Its a fact of life. The arabs (and thats all the palestinans are, they are arabs not a seperate cultural ethnic group) want Israel destroyed and the jewish population expelled and actually quite a few of them would prefer DEAD.
Come up to a solution for that mess. you cant.
Unless you want to invade and put UN peacekeepers everywhere and make the area a UN mandate, and occupy it with military forces, and kill alot of people (and watch alot of UN troopers die), you know, basicly what you all condem the US for doing in Iraq.
[B]Unless you want to invade and put UN peacekeepers everywhere and make the area a UN mandate, and occupy it with military forces, and kill alot of people (and watch alot of UN troopers die), you know, basicly what you all condem the US for doing in Iraq. [/B][/QUOTE]
To be fear, much of the reason the US gets condemned for doing that in Iraq is because they did it without UN backing, but to be fair to the US as well, the UN security council is a fucked up system (particularly the veto thing) and the UN should damn well do its job rather than all its members playing stupid little games.
[B]To be fear, much of the reason the US gets condemned for doing that in Iraq is because they did it without UN backing, but to be fair to the US as well, the UN security council is a fucked up system (particularly the veto thing) and the UN should damn well do its job rather than all its members playing stupid little games. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually to be completely fair I wouldnt put it upto the general assembly either, because then we would be in real trouble. I hate to point out but dictatorships still outnumber democratic nations, and may of the so called democratic nations are "suspect", you would be letting the lunatics run the aslyum.
Thats been happening ever since the 1960s... Rememer in the 1950s when the UN was actly doing it job? Remember the Suez Canal Inident and Cyrus. where the UN actly fixed the problems in those places..
I remember during the Cold War the US and Russia kept Vetoing everthing. But during the 1990's the US vetoed Resultions 9 times while russia vetoed only 3 times... They need to get rid of the veto in order to make the UN more effective.. Allthough I cant see that Happening any time soon...
[quote]No, I don't think that would work either, especially when you consider that a lot of the general assembly nations are dependant on the better off ones for aid and so are not likely to vote along with what they think but with what aid they can get for their votes. And, as you pointed out, a lot of dictatorships still exist.[/quote]
Thats a sad part... I think most of the nations that backed the US in Iraq did it to get more AID money or did it out of fear of it being cut back on them... If you look at the list Alot of the countrys that backed the US were poor countrys...
Edit:
Here in Canada one of the reason why some of the people who actly supported the war where people who feared economic fall backs becuase of us not supporting it.(80% where against it and 20% were for Canada backing the war) I also think thats why Spain backed the US in the begining, despit 90% of the people being aginst Spain backing the US.
[B]Thats been happening ever since the 1960s... Rememer in the 1950s when the UN was actly doing it job? Remember the Suez Canal Inident and Cyrus. where the UN actly fixed the problems in those places..
[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh they did? really in case you havent noticed Cyprus is still devided and the green line untill the 90's was the sight of peroidc fighting, in fact recent events have caused a slight destablization of the situation, And as for the Canal incident the US forced France and England to pull out, because it was starting to risk a collison with the Soviet Union, and the US wasnt about to fight world war III to protect English and French colonial interests.
Also if you eliminate the veto, your again back to letting the general assembly run things, which means again the lunatics running the asylum.
[B]Here in Canada one of the reason why some of the people who actly supported the war where people who feared economic fall backs becuase of us not supporting it.(80% where against it and 20% were for Canada backing the war) I also think thats why Spain backed the US in the begining, despit 90% of the people being aginst Spain backing the US. [/B][/QUOTE]
Your numbers are extremely inaccurate. Polling was actually performed at the outset of this whole affair and the results are listed here:
[url]http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=1757[/url]
Summary: the slightest majority of those Canadians surveyed believed that there was enough evidence for the UN to authorize going into Iraq. The survey found that a majority (54%) of English Canada supported war, while just 29% in Quebec did, at that point in time.
A CBC article here describes the results of polls asking different questions a month or so later on:
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/31/poll030331[/url]
The article states that about 48% of Canadians polled believed the war was unjustified, while about 33% believed it was. 20% refused to answer or said they didn't know.
So, your claim of 80% of Canadians believed the war was unjustified is incorrect, and nearly by a factor of 2. You'd be more accurate to say that Canadians were close to being split down the middle in a way similar to the United States, with the exception of Quebec.
Of all the provinces, Quebec's citizens were most against the war, with Ontario and the Prairie provinces having the closest numbers for and against.
But, why bother letting facts cloud this debate?
[quote]Majority (51%) of Canadians - Up from 45% Last Week - Now Say United Nations Has Enough Evidence to Authorise Military Action Against Iraq[/quote]
That all that says that there is enough Evidence that their to support awar
[quote]The numbers suggested that 48 per cent of those surveyed saw no justification for the war, compared to one-third of respondents who said it is justified.
About 20 per cent said they didn't know or refused to answer. [/quote]
That leaves 32% in support
Also I have a feeling those three would try to prevent a United Earth to come into form, becuase it would make it vary hard for then to control other nations.
[B]I guess is no, sadly... People are to fucking arrogent on this world.. Maybe near then end of our life times we will see an united world... I World Goverment would start like the EU.. and would proably start with a group of Mid-power countrys joining... The United States m China and Russia would be the last nations to join...
Also I have a feeling those three would try to prevent a United Earth to come into form, becuase it would make it vary hard for then to control other nations. [/B][/QUOTE]
I hate to tell you the nation states in Europe are playing Real politik as hard as the US is, France is all about France and germany is all about Germany, and dont delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
Secondly how are you going to get the african and middle eastern nations to conform to you basic beliefs on human rights? thats going to take some killing I bet.
It will take another Alexander the great to fix this planet.
[B]I guess i'm right in the statement.. People only understand one thing, Violance.
It will take another Alexander the great to fix this planet. [/B][/QUOTE]
More like 8 or 9 Hitlers to take over the world.
:alien:
[B]More like 8 or 9 Hitlers to take over the world. [/B][/QUOTE]
Bah... With one Alexander the Great there would be less blood shed....
And yeah your right. It will take 8 or 9 hiltlers to fix this planet.....
Anyone want to Volunteer for Hitler #2... I'll be Hitler Number 5.....
.
[B]I like Robin Williams' solution to the whole Jersualem thing. ;) (Those that have his "Live on Broadway" DVD, or have atleast seen it will get this.) [/B][/QUOTE]Time share. :D
Most issues are best solved on a local basis, IMHO, where a consensus is more likely to be found due to more similarities of the parties involved. Making central decisions at a location removed from the situation introduces all kinds of potential for confusion and error.
[B]Not trying to troll, but really, what would be so much better about a global government?
Most issues are best solved on a local basis, IMHO, where a consensus is more likely to be found due to more similarities of the parties involved. Making central decisions at a location removed from the situation introduces all kinds of potential for confusion and error. [/B][/QUOTE]A perfectly valid opinion, and probably much easier and more realistic than a unified Humanity.