What logical solution can there be?

Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by montyfowler, Feb 20, 2004.

  1. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    Monty:

    I think your easy dismissal of OBL's resting his justifcation in US's support of Israel is overhasty. OBL is generally upset about the US interference in areas that are predominantly Muslim, and Palestine is the most visible (because unresolved) example of that interference. Even in Europe, Israel is seen as the second gravest threat to global stability, after George Jr. of course, and he had to work hard to wrest that dubious distinction away from Sharron's clutches.

    Also, your referencing of the Masada sight was unfortunate. Could you possibly have found a more perfect example of propagandistic shite? Try this one for the division: http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1947-un-partition-plan-reso.html
     
  2. montyfowler
    Offline

    montyfowler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +0
    Again, let me clarify...

    OBL and AQ use Israel and the conflict with the Palestinians as an excuse to attack us and other so-called supporters of Israel. What I meant was that this is not a valid excuse to essentially declare war on us or anyone else.

    You will find that as I participate in these discussions, I will try not to speak from an emotional point of view. That's not to say that I am dispassionate about the topics...quite the opposite. But in my experience, meaningful discourse is better served by debaters that can distill out the emotion and focus on reason as the basis for their arguments.

    Now back to OBL. Since 9/11 I have been paying close attention to the statements that come from OBL and his henchmen trying to determine if we are dealing with a madman or a mad man. There is a difference.

    If he is insane, then their can be no diplomatic or rational settlement of our differences. He must simply be hunted and killed like a dangerous animal on the prowl.

    If, however, he is a man who has, at least in his own mind, righteous anger towards us, then he must be dealt with very differently.

    I believe he is the latter. In the end we may still desire to hunt him down and kill him, but the man with righteous anger leaves a legacy that must be considered, unlike the troublesome animal which leaves nothing but a stain on the ground.

    Let's not forget or trivialize the fact the OBL has inspired dozens of young men and women to commit suicide on behalf of his cause. That is significant. This is a different enemy that requires different responses and considerations.

    First of all, AQ is not a nation state nor does it represent one. So the normal channels for diplomatic discourse do not exist. Any such discussions must be facilitated by surrogate nations or groups with affiliations to or contact with AQ. This is cumbersome and yields poor results.

    Add to this the simple fact that OBL and the AQ leadership have little or no desire to have diplomatic discussions with us. Their demands are quite simple. Let the Muslim world choose it's own path without interferrence from the West. And (this is really important) stop supporting the state of Israel and their pursecution of the Palestinians. Thus, ensuring the destruction of Israel.

    More tomorrow...
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +512


    I have something constructive to say. The truth is that the surrounding arab nations could easily absorb the palestinian population. But they don't. They'd rather force the entire group to serve as international poster children for their jihad against the west. It's sick and deceitful; they, and you, should be ashamed for propagating this anti-semitic rhetoric.

    You may feel you're done with me, but in actuality our relationship has just begun.

    We've only just begun
    Paul Williams and Roger Nichols

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We've only just begun to live,
    White lace and promises
    A kiss for luck and we're on our way.
    And yes, We've just begun.

    Before the rising sun we fly,
    So many roads to choose
    We start our walking and learn to run.
    And yes, We've just begun.

    Sharing horizons that are new to us,
    Watching the signs along the way,
    Talking it over just the two of us,
    Working together day to day
    Together.

    And when the evening comes we smile,
    So much of life ahead
    We'll find a place where there's room to grow,
    And yes, We've just begun.
     
  4. montyfowler
    Offline

    montyfowler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +0
    Continuing last nights discussion...

    The Bush administration is acutely aware that OBL and AQ have to be handled differently than your run-of-the-mill terrorist organization. They are not the Basques or Red Brigade.

    We cannot simply write off their leadership as homicidal maniacs anymore than we can treat them like statesmen. They are in fact a group of highly motivated killers with a half-legitimate political agenda.

    Take their primary demand: that the Muslim world be left alone by the West to determine its' own course and future. What does this mean?

    Simply put, they want the governments of every nation with a Muslim majority to become theocracies led by strong Imams who eschew all things Western. They want all contact with the West reduced to only essential trade and diplomatic contact. They do not want us in their countries, they do not want our culture or our habits.

    Now, taken apart from the terrorist actions on behalf of this agenda, the agenda itself is not necessarily a bad one. It is certainly isolationist and xenophobic in the extreme, but any soveriegn nation has every right to determine its own foriegn policy.

    The problem is created by the simple fact that this part of the Muslim agenda is utopian, and therefore, can never be achieved. What they want is impossible. That's bad for them and its bad for us.

    What can we do?

    The good news is that this is all well known by the Bush administration and Powell's State Department. They know what we are dealing with and have, to date, dealt brilliantly with the situation.

    The end-game for us is a simple choice between to options -- one easy, the other more difficult. The first option is to simply capitulate to the radical Muslim agenda and withdraw all Western presence in the aforementioned countries. This, for obvious reasons, will never happen.

    So that leaves the second option -- show the Muslim majority that a utopian dream is not only unrealistic, but it also limits the future of a people who were, at one time, one of the great cultures of the world.

    The problem for both sides is that the current conflict is being portrayed by AQ and other terrorist groups as a Holy War or Jihad. This is literally a religious war between Islam and Christianity (the dominant religion of the West) in the eyes of the Muslim on the street and some on our side.

    As with the Crusades of antiquity, this modern crusade that has been thrust upon the West will also fail to change the hearts and minds of a people who are as proud as they are ignorant, but not as much as they are dangerous and blind.

    The current situation in Iraq, however necessary the cause, only serves to inflame the ignorant Muslim masses, and give the Imams an endless supply of sermon fodder. But a free, open and democratic Iraq will help us to begin the very long and slow process of building real relationships in the region. Some future and currently unknowable solution to the Israel/Palestine problem will also bring stability and allow the entire region to concentrate on positive policy issues such as economic growth, social justice, and human rights. There is no country in the world better suited to shepherd the Middle East through the first steps of a new beginning than the United States.

    The Bush administration and their bold and daring vision for democratizing the Middle East will be remembered as one of the great achievements of the 21st century. But only if we stay focused on the goal, be steadfast in our resolve, and be willing to pay the price, both in financial and human currency.
     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +512
    Pretty good monty. Maybe you ARE conservative. Sounds to me like maybe you hang around lots of liberals and are tired of arguing the truth, so you started to believe their lies. I'm glad we could be here for you to pull you back from the brink.

    and, you're welcome!:D
     
  6. montyfowler
    Offline

    montyfowler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm getting a little tired of the term Neoconservative. It is the new codeword for "Jew-who-is-not-a-liberal" or "Reaganesque-Rumsfeld-loving-warmonger" or "politician-who-decided-to-actually-do-something-about-the middle-east-rather-than-just-talk-about-it".

    For the past 60 years the U.S. has tried to influence policy in the Middle-east via remote control. Our track record has been abysmal and the violence has gotten worse and worse.

    Now that we have a President and State Department with a tough, thoughtful, and reasonable foriegn policy on the Middle-east, the lefties (the great defenders of human rights and self-determination) are freaking out. The Bush administration properly determined that we can no longer stand on the sidelines and hope to have a meaningful impact on the game (to use a football metaphor).

    Now that we have suited up and stepped onto the field, the opponents are scared to death. Syria, Lebanon, Iran, the Emirates, and our "good friends" the Saudis are crapping their 90-day shitters. They cannot stand the notion of a protracted or, Allah forbid, permanent military presence in the region. They cannot fathom what a strong, secure and democratic Iraq will mean to the future of their little kingdoms.

    Just the mere whiff of our cruise missiles over Iraq was enough to cause Libya to disarm and join the world community. And yet, the libs still think that the Bush Doctrine is somehow making the world less safe for us and our allies.

    They are not stupid, nor are they missing the point. Instead they are transparently political and intellectually dishonest. They have placed themselves in the untenable possition of having to hope for the worst for America in order to win back the White House and Congress. Instead of casting aspersions on them, we should offer tham our solemn prayers and a healthy dose of pity. No wonder Nader looks good to some of them.
     
  7. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow,
    OK monety you're screwing me up. one minnute i'm dead sure that you're a Lib. and the next you come out with some fantastic conservative stuff. You baffel my mind. I'll still wait and see, but with some shacky suspicion I say Right on!

    Now to replly to your post.
    Exelent deductions. It is exactly the case that the laft is almost hopping for a blood bath in Iraq. So that the left can feel complacent and say "I told you so." THese people are anti-american in every sence of the word, It's the whole "Vietnam syndrom again."
    For political gains the left must have an american loss. They must have casualties in the thousands. THat is horrible. The goal of any conflict is to keep casualties at a minimum and have a populus back home with unwavering support. The Left hopes for none of this, I do feal pitty for them. There hatered of Bush and the republican party has cloweded their judgment. Peace is only a few steps away, but they would rather us fail and die than see Bush be responsible for middle-east peace.
    As to the Neo-con thing. I cnosider my self a Neo-con. The republican party has gone through many changes in the last 30 or so years. The major changes have occured over the last 20. A neo-con is a internationalist. We belive that it is america's responsibility to the world(even though they won't admit it)to ensure that peace and prosparity flourish, and that no govt. go byond it's boders to create instabiltiy. And to ensure that WMDs do not become a have all in the world of dictators and Barbaric regimes.
     
  8. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +512
    Yep. Monty gets the most improved student award. What a startling story of rehabilitation!:clap:
     
  9. kcmcdonald
    Online

    kcmcdonald Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    absolutly, he's a changed man. I had my doubts but look like he's coming around:clap: :clap:
     
  10. montyfowler
    Offline

    montyfowler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +0
    RWA and KCM,

    Cut it out guys...I'm not sure I want to be on your good side. It's way more fun being yelled at. ;-)

    I am what you might call a Conflicted Christian Conservative.

    Christian because I love the Lord.

    Conservative because..well...because we're right and they're wrong.

    Conflicted because sometimes what the Lord says and what our party does do not mix.

    That's why GWB's compassionate conservatism is the best way for our party to express our very human desire to care for one another. Not by giving them a handout, but instead offer those in need and hand up.

    Did you guys ever read a biography of Teddy Roosevelt? Now that was a true Republican with a conscience.
     

Share This Page