+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: The Smoke Room (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: The Faggy Artistic Forum (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Fu to us foreign policy (/showthread.php?tid=1338)
- AdolescentMasturbator - 04-23-2002
Iran was on a fast-paced road to liberalizing the country. But by trying to intervene there it just gives the conservatives way more fuel than they should be having. The Revolutionary Guard breed are dying out. There have been reports of Iranian support of Al Queda but they have not been verified. Would I doubt it? No, there's a shitload of crazy clerics who might secretly do something like that. However I don't think there's mass support considering OBL considers Iran not to be a pure Islamic state as it is not Wahhabist. And I don't think there is a lot of love for the Taliban either since considering they nearly went to war with them. Everytime the US intervenes in Iran there is a mass wave of reactionaryism.
And why do you keep bringing up Arafat? No one on this entire board has expressed a liking for him. Instead of defending Israel's actions you say what Arafat did. We are not arguing about Arafat because we simply hate him too.
- OAS - 04-23-2002
Quote:all i need is a soda!!
Secret Santa brought that as a Haunaka gift and is still waiting. {
} CT, you keep speaking of the 40's and the 60's - 70's. The political landscape is vastly different, none of it in Israel's favor. Since these great victories for Israel, the US has helped Egypt build it's milatary and Russia has helped Syria grow. Hezballah is believed to be about 250,000 strong and the US has ignored Hezballah's growth while supporting Lebanon. Iraq will not directly get involved in supporting any military action against Israel because that would serve the US in it's interests to attck Iraq in the worlds view. Iran is a non player, there military is week and it's government is broke.
And it is sad to say but I must agree with AM, nobody supports Arafat here. However he is the leader of the Palestinians and must be dealt with as their leader. I believe the question is still, If Israel continues to deny Palestine it's right to be an independent state, therefore having no military can we fault the Palestinians for fighting for their freedom? We can all agree that nobody wants to see innocent civilians die. It is sad to see people that feel the only way they could be free someday is to blow themselves up. The Palestinians do deserve to be like anyone else, free. Freedom does not mean under the rule and watchful eye of a government that is completely fundamentaly different then they are.
Peace.
- Cunt-Twat - 04-23-2002
am and oas, the reason why i keep bringing up arafat is because his fine leadership role has brought his people to where they are today. id they wanted an idependent state next to israel, they could have had that in july of 2000, and according to dennis ross, again in dec. 2000, but arafat refused. i would love for the palestinian people to have a state of their own, but it will not happen with arafat as their leader. no one will speak up against him because they'll be killed, so right now, israel has no one to work with. as soon as a leader emerges, even sharon will be willing to make peace with the palestinians.
**btw, the big massacre in jenin has turned up 43 people dead, not 500+ like the palestinians have claimed. this is the same lies they told in 1982 in lebanon too.
- OAS - 04-23-2002
And how many people are willing to stand up to Sharon? If the Palestinians really wanted to get rid of Arafat, all they would have to do is blow themselves up when he is in a crowd. It can't be that difficult to get rid of him. They blow themselves up daily. Maybe that is more Israeli propoganda than truth? Deal with Arafat, don't ignore him. If the Palestinians want to remove Arafat, they will.
- Cunt-Twat - 04-23-2002
oas, the palestinians that outwardly spoke against arafat, are no more, as are their families. sharon, the arch terrorist according the palestinians, has spoken of a palestinian state, but not under arafat. i think that after he turned down the camp david offer, no israeli prime minister is willing to negotiate with arafat, not peres, certainly not barak or sharon. arafat screwed up the best offer his people will ever get, ever. no palestinian has any idea why arafat turned it down, but now no one is going to talk to him. why should they? he has said countless times over the last 19 months that the only person willing to make peace with him was rabin, he's been dead since 1995, it's time to move on. rabin was quoted as saying that no settlements would be up-rooted for palestine, so i don't think he was going to give the plo a state! peres was willing to give him whatever he wanted, israel held elections and he lost to netanyahu. netanyahu was willing to talk peace, and guess who blew his election...sharon, none of the settlers wanted sharon as defense minister because of what he did to the settlements in the sinai, the last time he was defense minister. barak won, and without the backing of the his gov't offered the palestinians a state, and arafat refused. the root of the palestinian problem is not israel or "occupation" it's their own leader. if he's exiled, it would force them to come up with a new leader, who will actually lead.
- AdolescentMasturbator - 04-24-2002
You want to exile Arafat? Do you realize what a huge mistake that would be? A large political vacuum would occur and violence would start exponentially increasing.
- Cunt-Twat - 04-24-2002
i think that at the begining, yeah violence will get out of hand, but it doen't make a difference b/c they're not being told to stop the violence now anyway. in the long run, arafat being out of the picture will bring about an new leader who wants peace, and prosperity for the palestinian people.
- Arthur Dent - 04-24-2002
Quote:arafat being out of the picture will bring about an new leader who wants peace, and prosperity for the palestinian people.
Just like killing Hitler wouldn't have led to Himmler or Eichman or one of the others from taking power? hell, the reason Germany lost WWII was becasue Hitler was a terrible military leader. If we had assasinated him, someone who actually knew what they were doing would have risen to power and the situation would have been worse.
Beware of placing all the blame on an individual. If you remove Arafat, you have to remove EVERYONE associated with him. If you do that with the Palestinians, then nobody is left with any influence. Power vacuums are dangerous things. It's why Bush didn't take out Saddam during the Gulf War.
Today in the news, it was announced that Isreal was refusing to allow the UN investigation to go forward because they felt the commission was too political without enough experts in military and counter-terrorist policy. Commission may be allowed to go forward now that a US general has been added as a full member of the commission, but not until this weekend. Stall? Cover-up? Or just stubborn pride?
And I heard on the news last night that Sharon declared there would be no talk of compromise or concessions for 18 months. Interesting.
- crx girl - 04-24-2002
why is anyone even still discussing this? obviously they can't come to an agreement, none of us are, you're just gonna sit here and waste your time spewing out the same "facts" over and over again? don't waste your time.
- Arthur Dent - 04-24-2002
Quote:why is anyone even still discussing this? obviously they can't come to an agreement, none of us are, you're just gonna sit here and waste your time spewing out the same "facts" over and over again? don't waste your time.
But it's fun! All we're missing is a lot of good beer. :toast:
- OAS - 04-24-2002
We discuss this because if the world doesn't stay aware of what's going on there, we all loose. No we won't solve it, but we must stay knowledgeable of the facts. Both Sharon and Arafat are playing with fire. And oh yeah like Dent said, it’s fun!
CT, if I recall correctly and I'm not professing to be aware of all of the details, haven't all of the offerings given to Arafat for an independent state of Palestine included conditions that Israel would ultimately retain policing powers? Also, didn't this "independent state look pretty much like it does know with a separation of the West Bank and Gaza? Would Americans be happy if we had a war with China and China agreed to give us our independence but everything between the Appalachians and the Rockie’s would be China and we got the coasts?
Israeli supporters need to come to the realization that freedom to the Palestinians with conditions is not freedom. Until that issue can be discussed and resolved, Israel and the world will not realize peace.
- Cunt-Twat - 04-24-2002
Quote:All we're missing is a lot of good beer. :toast:dent, speak for yourself!!
since 1949, the un has been extremly biased against israel, they were sending in the former pres of norway, how many wars has norway faught? not too many, therefore they can't judge fairly about a military operation. and it's only postponed by 1 day, it was supposed to begin on friday, and now it's taking place on sat, andyway the muslim holiday is friday, so it's better for everyone that way!
oas, according to dennis ross this past weekend, he gave a drwaing of what the new palestinian state was to look like as of dec 2000. the only break up in the gaza and west bank is less than 8 miles across, and the were to have a bridge and/or tunnel for free passage to get their. he also said that arafat refused this because it would mean that isreal would be able to use palestinian air space to fly civilian planes over, and he had a problem with that. the israeli troops would occupy the jordan valley and redeploy over the course of 6 years, and then jordan valley would become part of palestine. dennis ross said israel agreed to this, while arafat refused. i think if anyone would know who the truth, it ould be mr ross.
- OAS - 04-24-2002
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not quite sure who Dennis Ross is???
- Cunt-Twat - 04-24-2002
dennis ross the us envoy in charge of making the peace accords between israel and the plo/pa under clinton, and he was personally in charge od the dec 2000 accords dealing with only arafat and barak.
- OAS - 04-24-2002
OK that rang the bell, thanks. The basic problem is still Israeli interference from the Palestinian viewpoint. Again, I support Israel as an allie and a democracy, but if I try to look at it from the Palestinian viepoint, the accord sucks. Yes it's a start, but until Israel is completely out of the picture, it is a bitter pill to swallow if your Palestinian and I would have a tough time believing Israel would vacate the Jordan valley. Even Clinton agreed that it was the best plan to put on the table at the time, but it was destined to fail eventually.
- Cunt-Twat - 04-24-2002
well, i think you said, until israel's out of the picture, the palestinians won't be happy. that's the problem, israel's not leaving. getting out of the jordan valley wasn't going to be an immediate thing, it would be gradual. king huessain I of jordan was against the israelis leaving the jordan valley cuz arafat thinks that jordan is palestinian land too. i'm not sure what his son, the present king thinks though.
- Arpikarhu - 04-24-2002
punch out cunt-twat.
- OAS - 04-24-2002
Quote:israel's not leavingAnd that folks is why we have and will continue to have, until the final conflict, "The war to end all wars", and everything else for that matter.
- Cunt-Twat - 04-24-2002
well i guess thie is the resurrection?
- OAS - 04-24-2002
Quote:well i guess thie is the resurrection?No. You already blew that opportunity. Remember. that's why you can't eat sammiches for 8 days and why Santa or the Easter bunny doesn't stop at your houses.
{
}