One question

Actually, we should televise Sharon and Arafat tearing each other apart with their bare hands. I'm sure Budweiser would jump on the sponsors' rights like shit on velcro.

Serioiusly though, I agree with the creation of a Palestinian state. Give full independence to Gaza and the West Bank, and make Jerusalem a secular "neutral zone". BUT, the problem is that people like Arafat and organizations like the PLO will not be satisfied until every Jew in the middle East is dead or gone, which is simply not going to happen.

 

How can you make that statement when they haven't had a chance since the creation of Isreal. If that's the case, that they'll never be satisfied - so then what do you suggest the solution is? Should a nuclear winter come to Isreal or all Muslim states? With a statement like that you're basically suggesting that our efforts in Iraq really don't matter a bit because Isreal will still be there - so then according to your theories why are we even bothering?

 

Actually they have had the chance and there's always a major sticking point that the two can never agree on. Usually its the control of Jerusalem. And generally it has been the Israelis who have been more flexible on most issues. One major tenant that the Palestinians have followed in all attempted peace talks thusfar is that they want control of the entire city of Jerusalem, and the Israelis won't agree to that. Both sides could have made more concessions or compromises, so I'm not necessarily defending one or the other. Just setting the records straight.

And I'm gonna dissagree with all of you and say that the reasons behind the terrorism is both politics and religion. Terrorist leaders use religion as a tool to incite their people to attack others for those leaders' political gain.

 

so waging a war in Iraq will do anything to solve this? From what I've read from you you suggest that the war in Iraq is concerning terrorism, yet the roots of terrorism is the existence of the isreali state - so how is their any relationship to the cause of ridding the threat of terrorism in the world by attacking Iraq. Please explain?

 

Might I also add that the 'current' sticking point was not that of the Arab community - it was from the Isreali community - they were not willing to pull out of Gaza. The proposal was made and announced by Bush and Sharon and before the Arabs even had the chance to accept it - Sharon's Isreal said no way. Not Sharon himself, but his government.

 

We said we were going to dismantle any governments that support terrorsim and that is what we are doing. In this regard, the problem with the terrorism in Israel-Palestine is that there is no Palestinian government to target. In the long run I think our war on terrorism will have an effect in Israel. Again, its one of those things that takes time.

Also, I did not say that the existence of the Israeli state is the cause of terrorism. Its a major factor, but if tomorrow the arabs rose up and destroyed Israel and all its non-Muslim inhabitants, and the Palestinians got the land to themselves, there would still be a lot of terrorism. Not all terrorist organizations operate in Israel. Terrorist leaders the world over twist their religion to make young people think Allah wants all westerners and/or non-believers dead. They just use Israel as another excuse ("look what they did to the palestinians" kind of thing).

Before the creation of Israel, this was a problem as well. Most of the hatred then was directed towards the British and other Europeans because that is who they had contact with and that is who was the most powerful at the time. America became the "main enemy" because we became the most dominant power and we sold weaponry to the Israelis (never mind the fact that there were only two real producers of arms at the time). We became such staunch allies of Israel because the USSR was supplying most of the Arab states with weapons. At that time the cold war was the issue, and I will not get into that now.

Ultimately, you can trace the whole coflict back to the 11th century and the Crusades. So if you want to play the blame game, I would put the initial blame on the Catholics of that period. And I am Catholic, so it's not the nicest feeling in the world. But a hell of a lot of things have changed in the last thousand years, so I don't think thats a valid argument.

 

Notice I said 'current' sticking point please? Don't feed me this jargin about the crusades. The fact is that we do not know if there would be a reduction in terrorism should Palestine actually be received as a state because Isreal has been too stubborn to budge one bit in the last 50 years to allow this to happen. Don't make claims that it wouldn't change anything when it has never happened. If it does happen and things don't change then well good job my friend you are right, but until then, your arguement regarding crusades and assumptions carry zero merit.

 

I still dont see how not adressing the preservation of any kind of life (other than the American way) and only promising more and more troops to replace those who drop dead. Saving these people is obviouslly not our first priority or we would be doing more then saying "Stay inside." Maverick you've proven yourself to be uninformed, biased, and cowardly. Picture if you will what would have happened if we never went to nam in the first place? Millions of S. Vietnamese slaughtered? What happened when we left? Millions.... plus all the American lives that were lost... and the innocents the Americans killed. Those were civil wars, wars we should never had been involved in. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you just saying "Well less civilians are dying now then in other wars." Your stong in your belief that other people must die for the country but your not willing to die yourself. Your patriotism shines like Bananas on yellow construction paper.

Mainman: Dont you see that its a little... I dunno, imposible to dismantle an entire populus of beliefs? People hate America. Killing a group of these people isnt going to make the others change their minds. "Your either with us, or your with the terrorists." What of this phrase? That sounds like a man with a focused enemy doesnt it? Everyone who doesnt help us beat the shit out of this country obviouslly is working with them! But your right... What were doing is the right thing, right? After Iraq it will be another 3rd world country, then another and another, and more civilians will die, more troops will die, more wasted life... But terrorism will no longer exist right? Becuase we control the middle east right? And their all allies of Al-Quida right?

 

Listen to what? I posted a link to the NPR website with a reference to a poll which showed most Iraqis supported the invasion. You have provided absolutely nothing to back up your claim.

Actually its pretty obvious what the point is, and who is dodging it. In order to defeat Nazi Germany, we had to invade occupied Europe and that meant civilian casualties. So would you have supported that or not? Would you have said "D-Day? What the fuck kind of plan is that? Civilians could get killed! Let's stay home." Because those are the choices. Whether you are willing to make them or not is another matter.

But soon enough its clear that you do see what the point is, because you tell us:

So it DOES depend on the situation after all, although you won't come out and admit it. By the way, Saddam had already invaded two countries and attacked two others, didn't you know this?

Saddam the evil leader killed 100,000 kurds IN ONE SINGLE CAMPAIGN. He has nevers stopped committing mass murders. What you are saying is that "OK, so maybe Saddam was killing TEN TIMES as many people on a regular basis, and he was doing it deliberately, and would have done it forever, but still, civilians are dying so I am going to suspend rationality long enough to pretend these are equivalent.

Picture what would happen if we never went to Korea. Probably millions more starving to death, which in your calculation means nothing because who cares about millions starving when we can prevent thousands of civilian casualties!

 

1)You have to listen past the stuff that you like. The stuff that makes you smile. I am aware of that report, I remember hearing it and thinking "Huh... maybe we are doing some good." But then LAST MONTH (not March) I heard that statistic on my way to school. I wish I could provide back it up but I cant seem to find a link to it (convient I know.)

2) Ok while most people have choosen to compare the war to Vietnam you went the other way and compared it to WW2. Fair enough but lets look at it. Hitler was making immediate and constant attmept to expand, and was succeding at an alarming rate. Even then we remained out of the war did we not? It was only after Japan attacked that we decided we would need to go to war, but we avoided it as long as possible. And we saw how effective D-day was didn't we? I think I would have disagreed with invading Germany, no doubt. Japan seems like a more sensible retaliation doesnt it? Unfortunatlly due to actions taken at the start of the war (apeasment and such) it was inevidabble that we fight in Europe. That was 50 years ago, and the arguments some put forth is that our tactics have changed to preserve human life... well it doesnt look like it.

3)I didn't think I would have to sit and explain to you the details... I was simply pointing out that your analogy was not the best in the world. The deaths are never justified, be it because of Hitler or Saddam

4)Your missing the point. We went to stop those deaths and the numbers reduced but people are STILL DYING. Doesnt that mean something is still wrong? Is it the terrorists or our tactics? Are we doing all we can to eliminate civilian casualties or are we just trying to get the terrorists at all costs?

5)I like how you skipped over Vietnam... But back to your point, where is it our job to police the globe? In this instance its not about civilian deaths but the whole casualties of war. Was it our job to go? NO! But lets not kid oureselves either. We didnt go for humanitarian reasons, we went to stop evil communism. Again its a matter of probability, no way of knowing.

 

1. If you ever find anything, let me know.

2. Its not the actual merits of the individual case that matter, it is whether they even need to be considered.

The fact that you consider it wrong that we invaded Nazi Germany is pretty much enough for me to rest my case. Basically, no matter how horrific the crimes, you would never try to stop any warmongering dictator because civilians might get killed, and it would only be "hypothetical" that Hitler would go on killing millions.

3. "Your missing the point. We went to stop those deaths and the numbers reduced but people are STILL DYING." I think it is pretty easy to make the case that the numbers HAVE been reduced, if you look at Saddam's track record.

4. "We didnt go for humanitarian reasons, we went to stop evil communism." That's the same thing, if you look at communism's track record. In the case of Korea, just look at North Korea to see what we prevented in South Korea. If you think that preventing humanitarian catastrophes are "not our problem" I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to promote here except "who cares" isolationism.

 

Give me a fucking break. It's a picture of 9/11. It was all over the newspapers, TV's, and the internet. He is one of a multitude of people who want to remember the victims of that attack. He is not attacking, insulting, or disrespecting anyone with that picture up. It is absurd, and pathetic really, that more than one person has bitched about a fucking 9/11 picture. If I had died, I would want people to remember me, and not just slap it in a text book for kids to learn in history class while they are half asleep. Get over it, all of you. I may not agree with all of Maverick's views either, but if that is all the ammo you have got for him, you are in poor status.

 

I hope a lot of people don't think the way you do, becasue they would all be wrong, the Muslims started the first Crusades.