FK official war thread !!

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by gerbick
Laughable? I'm willing to give them a chance to show they are willing to change; however, it will come only with proof and trust that's earned.

Which is only as it should be, but that must come equally from Israel too.

[gerbick]

we've basically screamed at Sharon for his actions in the past, davo. yeah, getting that whole region to disarm would be incredible. possible? I seriously doubt it, but I'm leaving room for the surprise that it may actually happen.

gds - I doubt that Syria would be next. why? I'll tell you why... it's too close to Israel, and that would make it justification for the extremeists in Syria - and don't forget Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon - to just walk or drive over, and boom... if not chuck some missles - like SCUDS - over to their neighbour.

either way, I can remain hopeful, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

and this is a time I don't mind being wrong...

oh, and concerning history, I'm surprised that you don't go back to 1948 and see how that really honestly started what's still ongoing now. blame the UN on that one too perhaps? they should go fix it.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by gerbick

either way, I can remain hopeful, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

and this is a time I don't mind being wrong...

But that would be true of EVERY initiative put forward for the Middle East, no?

And I actually never mind being wrong, if it means a more positive outcome overall

[gdstudios]

Originally posted by gerbick
gds - I doubt that Syria would be next. why? I'll tell you why... it's too close to Israel, and that would make it justification for the extremeists in Syria - and don't forget Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon - to just walk or drive over, and boom... if not chuck some missles - like SCUDS - over to their neighbour.

either way, I can remain hopeful, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

You would support going into Syria Gerbs? I'm shocked.

[gerbick]

Originally posted by gdstudios
You would support going into Syria Gerbs? I'm shocked.

naw dude. I'm not for going into Syria at the moment. I keep reminding you about Hezbollah. they just don't honestly give a **** dude. they will take bomb everything, no matter the cost. they are pretty high up there on the extremist level.

so no. no going into Syria. send the UN inspectors.

[gdstudios]

Originally posted by gerbick
naw dude. I'm not for going into Syria at the moment. I keep reminding you about Hezbollah. they just don't honestly give a **** dude. they will take bomb everything, no matter the cost. they are pretty high up there on the extremist level.

so no. no going into Syria. send the UN inspectors.

But what's good about you is that you at least see them as a threat. Your method to stop them is more passive than mine, but cool. It's nice to debate with people who are at the very least, moderately observant. I get the impression that some of our board buddies don't even see Syria as a problem. Rather, they blame America and Israel for the tensions there.

Hezbollah in Israel could be a problem, but honestly Gerbs, every time the Arab world tries to annhilate Israel, they fail miserably. Israel is just too well-equipped. With the fall of Saddam's regime, and the pressure on Syria, I see a decline in the numbers of suicide attacks against Israel.

And as I keep saying, I just can't wait until the Palestinians get statehood. Then more people will see what the Arab world really wants - a Middle East that does not include Israel.

[gerbick]

Originally posted by gdstudios
But what's good about you is that you at least see them as a threat. Your method to stop them is more passive than mine, but cool. It's nice to debate with people who are at the very least, moderately observant. I get the impression that some of our board buddies don't even see Syria as a problem. Rather, they blame America and Israel for the tensions there.

Hezbollah in Israel could be a problem, but honestly Gerbs, every time the Arab world tries to annhilate Israel, they fail miserably. Israel is just too well-equipped. With the fall of Saddam's regime, and the pressure on Syria, I see a decline in the numbers of suicide attacks against Israel.

And as I keep saying, I just can't wait until the Palestinians get statehood. Then more people will see what the Arab world really wants - a Middle East that does not include Israel.

yeah, Syria is seen as a problem, but you have to understand one thing... the extremists are the true problem. I don't see Syria a true issue, but you know... they have some hard core people inside.

and lately, they haven't done anything, truth be told...

passive? naw, just not really in a rush to stir up the hornet's nest when I don't have to.

if that was the case, then Egypt would be considered a threat, as well as parts of Saudi Arabia, what not. personally, Israel needs to calm the hell down. Sharon needs to be ousted. He's a ruthless ****er.

[gdstudios]

Originally posted by gerbick
yeah, Syria is seen as a problem, but you have to understand one thing... the extremists are the true problem. I don't see Syria a true issue, but you know... they have some hard core people inside.

and lately, they haven't done anything, truth be told...

passive? naw, just not really in a rush to stir up the hornet's nest when I don't have to.

if that was the case, then Egypt would be considered a threat, as well as parts of Saudi Arabia, what not. personally, Israel needs to calm the hell down. Sharon needs to be ousted. He's a ruthless ****er.

Syria is a big problem. They de facto own Lebanon and run Hezbollah. It's a damn shame too. I'd love to have even one ounce of trust in the Arab governments over there, but history is history. Looking back, I see lawlessness and constant attempts to bury Israel, that's it. No technology, no attempts to become productive. Inclinations to have government RUN by religion, let alone seriously guided by it. I see dangerous people. Then I look at poor Israel sitting in the middle of utter lawlessness and pure, raw, unadulterated hatred. Israel doesn't hate ANY of the people in ANY of the Arab countries. Wish I could say the same about their neighbors. As a pick-me-up for the beaten, battered and brutally slaughtered Jews of the Holocaust, Britain offers the Jews the land that is now Israel in 1948. At the same time, the United Nations, when declaring statehood to the Israelis, offers the same deal to the Palestinians settled there and they declined. For nearly 60 years they have been harrassed and tormented for something that is really Britain's fault as I see it. Most reasonable people believe the Palestinians should have a state in the region, but everyone knows that their methods are absolutely disgusting. Sure, Israel settles on Palestinian land and even kills civilians once in a while when seeking terrorists, but the Palestinians blow themselves up in the middle of crowded areas constantly. I know, I know, they have no other method to defend themselves against the mighty US-supplied Israeli military, but I will never support any people who behave like wild animals in order to have their voices heard. Why can't they have someone eloquent and wonderful like Martin Luther King or Ghandi to speak for them. Violence only begets violence and they should know that. But that ends my small rant about the Palestinians. I feel sympathy for them only in that they deserve a homeland and they should've been given it decades ago. BUt the sympathy ends there.

[david petley]

Originally posted by gerbick
but hasn't your mantra been that the US should leave?

you have a point, but it conflicts all 190+ pages prior what you've been stating.

no, you are just wrong, it has always been that they should not have gone.

It was a poorly thought out and hastily produced response to a potentially explosive long-term situation.

Now that they have done so, and in a way that leaves a potentially unstable situation, I am glad they are looking for solutions, and they will be very hard ones to come by.

As I said, there are thousands of well trained soldiers in civilian clothing wandering around amongst uniformed soldiers and real civilians, and I guess it could be easy to inflame a crowd enough to scare coalition soldiers into shooting them.

What a way to fight a war, in the media with civilians as the pawns between one army in uniforms and one not.


dp

[gerbick]

just a philosophical question, DP.

what happens when isolationism either breeds xenophobia or just doesn't work? what happens then? what would you prescribe?

hell, that'll be a way to get rid of the whining *****es out there that like to point fingers to other countries all the time though...

I mean, it goes against the teachings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to be so isolationist.

[clifgriffin]

When'd this thread get revived?

[swampy]

Originally posted by Hellsbellboy
I don't believe Marines would just fire into a crowd throwing rocks.. what's intially said, and what did happen are 2 very different things.. some witnesses said they fired into the crowd, marines said they fired at people carrying weapons and that they were fired on.. a Sgt that was there said so.. others say different things..

so I see:

A 14-year-old boy is driven away from Wednesday's shootout

[CVO Chris]

Isn't the young Syrian president Bashar a reformer?

Oh yes, something I found: *Boink*

[david petley]

Originally posted by gerbick
just a philosophical question, DP.

what happens when isolationism either breeds xenophobia or just doesn't work? what happens then? what would you prescribe?

If it doesn't work?? Try something else...try anything else, just stop looking for solutions to problems at the control end of weapons.

I mean, it goes against the teachings of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to be so isolationist. [/B]

Like to provide a bit of detail on where you get these pieces of information?

Gandhi, from my understanding, seemed to have little interest in much but freedom from rulers from other countries who were opressing his people, he also believed that there were non-violent responses possible to violence, and that they, in fact, achieved more.

Can you point me to some anti - isolationist speeches he may have given, or writings he may have written? I would like to know more.

Ditto with MLK really, wasn't he basically all taken up with equality for man......black, white, yellow or green?

david p.

[CVO Chris]

Operation CDMA freedom

[gdstudios]

Yes CVO, that's it. The record industry is as scary as Saddam. Interesting read. I still don't get why US companies friendly with the Bush Administration profiting from this war is such a big deal. Anyone remember Bill Clinton, Vernon Jordan, Monika Lewinsky, Dee Dee Myers and Revlon? Psst, friends help friends out, even while in elected office. It happens.

[CVO Chris]

Oh well if they're friends then I guess that's okay with everyone

[swampy]

it happens, but it doesn't make it right.

It means the end of a free market and competition,leads to monoplies and encourages bribery and corruption.

Is that what being "free" and "liberated" means ?

[gdstudios]

Originally posted by swampy
it happens, but it doesn't make it right.

It means the end of a free market and competition,leads to monoplies and encourages bribery and corruption.

Is that what being "free" and "liberated" means ?

May not be right but it won't change, goes against human nature.

It does not mean the end of a free market and competition, it may stifle it, but it does not end it. It certainly could encourage bribery and corruption, but it's by no means a definite..

Yes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilence.

You see, most free peoples have discovered the flaws of the system already and have learned to cope with them, because their is no price enough for freedom. Freedom is a God-given right, not a privilege. I would rather have absolutely corrupt politicians running the show in a government complete with checks and balances, than live under the reign of a greasy dictator or in a Marx-type Utopian society. That's right, I'll take back-stabbing, money-grubbing, self-righteous politicians ANY DAY! Doesn't make it right, though.

[gerbick]

Originally posted by david petley
If it doesn't work?? Try something else...try anything else, just stop looking for solutions to problems at the control end of weapons.

so you're saying that it may not work? and no, before you or swampy think I'm playing devil's advocate or baiting you, I'm asking genuine questions out to seek clarification, not anger you. so I ask these questions out of curiousity, not jest. I've been mistaken in the past a bit too much...

Like to provide a bit of detail on where you get these pieces of information?

Gandhi suggested that the Hindi and Muslim communities could indeed get along. It is largely argued otherwise, but speeches and his non-agression towards the sudden influx of Pakistani Hindus that were basically pushed out by the Muslims, and he still continued talks with them for ambition of being a "good neighbour"... the information is out there. if need be, I can probably cull some quotes.

Gandhi, from my understanding, seemed to have little interest in much but freedom from rulers from other countries who were opressing his people, he also believed that there were non-violent responses possible to violence, and that they, in fact, achieved more.

freedom and equality with a wish to seek no more aggression to all. certain quotes like; "What greater folly can there be than claiming that Hindustan is only for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims alone?" - tend to show his support for an integrated, self-ruling (from self-rule, I mean away from British brutality as well as the inner-conflicts of then India/Pakistan religious battles) community.

Can you point me to some anti - isolationist speeches he may have given, or writings he may have written? I would like to know more.

I guess my question would be could you point me to isolationist speeches? I'll post speeches that I can find/remember that are more in-depth later today.

Ditto with MLK really, wasn't he basically all taken up with equality for man......black, white, yellow or green?

wrong. Malcolm X was the isolationist. As well as the Black Panther Party's Huey P. Newton. They wanted absolutely nothing to do with American white society. MLK, in as late as his famous "I have a dream" speech stated clearly how segregation was not the way to go, and that he knew that one day, "little white and black boys and girls will play together" [paraphrase] and that was his ultimate goal. His reforms, if you look at them as a whole, was to take black society from a "second-class citizenship" with limited rights, to a fully integral part of American society.

There are no isolationist speeches you can find from Martin Luther King Jr., ever.

Anyway, back to the America should not have gone issue you seem to have. If they should not have gone, then your point of view should always reflect that. But pointing out the policing situation; contradicts. This is how... that's like if you had a daughter, and you told her not to go to some party. She goes anyway, you call her cell phone, and then you tell her to "be careful"... not tell her to "come home"... if you were against it, then your whole perspective would revolve around your original statement.

not that last one you've made. basically, you're now stating "ok, you're there, now you better do a good job, and you're in a difficult situation..." which I'm sure, that latter sentiment, they know infinitely more intimately than you shall ever know. however, you didn't state, "go home"... per usual.

and that is what lead to my question. just seems like it's... well, out of place.

and again, I'm not here to bring out the anger in DP or whomever. notice my careful use of verbiage above. I asked a question out of respect. as a man, I request that you answer in kind.

thank you in advance.