I just saw on the overnight news that after being given several votes of "No Confidence" by the Israeli Parliament, Prime Minister Ariel Sharone (I'm sure I misspelled his name) dissolved the Parliament, stating that there would be new elections next year.
Now...That's more or less like what would happen if George Bush dissolved Congress, isn't it? This strikes me as a bad thing. I feel for Israel in its problems with terrorism and the bombings and such. I really do. But is anyone glad to see that the PM of Israel just pulled a Palpatine?
(for those of you who don't get the reference...Chancellor Palpatine in the Star Wars movies dissolved the Senate of the Republic and assumed personal direct control over all major matters, and promptly turned around and wreaked all sorts of havoc on people he didn't like, hence the conflict in the last three movies)
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
They tried to do a few No Confidence votes to boot Sharon and get one of their people in, but they all failed. So Sharon dissolved the entire parliment and ordered new elections to fill their slots.
I applaud him, really. Not many politicians have the balls to do something like that. They tried to use their pulling out as leverage to get him and his party to budge, risking an entire collapse of the Israel goverment, and he told them to /gofuk and ordered new elections to replace them.
And there's nothing they can do about it, since it was their choice to leave.
Edit: And he didn't do anything even near removing the goverment and putting himself as the head, like Palpatine did. [ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: Comrade Snoota ]
The goverment is still intact, and most of the Labor Party(Including their leader, the Foreign Minister Benjamin Somelongassjewishlastname) has agreed to stay on until the elections. The goverment is still there in case something major happens, but they're no longer "in session" until the new elections.
I'm wondering when the next Palestinian slaughter-fest will happen. Probably within a few days.
(Disclaimer - This is not to criticize a measured and proper Israeli response, but is instead wry commentary at how disproportionate their actions have been of late.)
I have a lot of respect for Sharon. In fact, I would go so far as call him the greatest leader any country has had since England had Churchill.
You talk about "disproportionate actions". The ONLY reason there is still a Palestinian state is because Sharon is a man of his word. He signed a treaty that said his country would not hinder the growth of Palenstine.
They attack his country, he shows them that he can wipe out their entire country at any time. He sends tanks in and drives them right up to Arafat's headquarters like it was nothing, knocks down a few walls with no resistance to make a message, and leaves.
The message is clear; "Stop this nonsense already, your entire goverment can be gone in ten hours if I want it."
The only thing wrong with the actions he takes is they're probably a bit missdirected. I'm sure Arafat could find the people doing this if he tried hard enough, but he's not behind any of the attacks and Sharon's message is mostly lost on the people that need to see it.
His approach to things is much milder than the approach we would take. Look at Afghanistan. Israel has this type of thing happen every day(not nearly on the same scale, but when 100 people get killed a week, every week, it's just as bad and adds up when it's been happening for decades now) and nothing worse than a few smashed down walls happen. It happens to us once and we go take over the entire country. [ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: Comrade Snoota ]
Then again, these are just my opinions. I'm not claiming to be absolutely right or anything. I just believe that diplomacy can, and often does, have as much effect as direct action.
quote:
Comrade Snoota was listening to Cher while typing:
I'm gonna have to get all preachy and dissagree with Drakk there.I have a lot of respect for Sharon. In fact, I would go so far as call him the greatest leader any country has had since England had Churchill.
You talk about "disproportionate actions". The ONLY reason there is still a Palestinian state is because Sharon is a man of his word. He signed a treaty that said his country would not hinder the growth of Palenstine.
They attack his country, he shows them that he can wipe out their entire country at any time. He sends tanks in and drives them right up to Arafat's headquarters like it was nothing, knocks down a few walls with no resistance to make a message, and leaves.
The message is clear; "Stop this nonsense already, your entire goverment can be gone in ten hours if I want it."
The only thing wrong with the actions he takes is they're probably a bit missdirected. I'm sure Arafat could find the people doing this if he tried hard enough, but he's not behind any of the attacks and Sharon's message is mostly lost on the people that need to see it.
His approach to things is much milder than the approach we would take. Look at Afghanistan. Israel has this type of thing happen every day(not nearly on the same scale, but when 100 people get killed a week, every week, it's just as bad and adds up when it's been happening for decades now) and nothing worse than a few smashed down walls happen. It happens to us once and we go take over the entire country.
His message is a futile blow in the air. He attacks and terrorizes people that have nothing to do with the bombings, just as much as he attacks and terrorizes the corrupt Palestinian governement.
Guess what? The bombs aren't gonna stop because of threats, or even full out war. Not even eliminating every man woman and child in Palestina will stop them, because of the supporters in the rest of Middle East.
Sharon is just as much a terrorist as the suicide bombers. Or did you miss the fact that he stands accused to a number of crimes to human rights, including ordering the summary execution of a group of civilian Palestinians, some dozen years back.
Your hero is a suicide bomber. Just too cowardly for the "suicide" part.
quote:
Drakkenmaw had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I was against the scope of action we took in Afghanistan. I believe it could've been better handled with more diplomacy and less firepower.Then again, these are just my opinions. I'm not claiming to be absolutely right or anything. I just believe that diplomacy can, and often does, have as much effect as direct action.
THis is only true if both sides are level headed and wish to solve things.
Palestine has no wish to solve things peacefully. They want nothing less than the death of each and every person in Isreal.
I don't really think you can solve that wish dipolmacy.
quote:
Azizza thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
THis is only true if both sides are level headed and wish to solve things.
Israel has no wish to solve things peacefully. They want nothing less than the death of each and every person in Palestina.
I don't really think you can solve that wish dipolmacy.
It works too.
Iraq is in a nice, central location. Once we take over Iraq(as we're bound to at least try, anyway) and set up a United States friendly goverment we can use it to base operations into other countries in the region.
Iran would be the best target to make next. Geography class was almost ten years ago and I don't have a map handy, but I do believe they share a boarder with Iraq. And they don't like the United States that much, so it would only make sense to take out their goverment to prevent a possible invasion/retaliation to keep us out of the Middle East.
Those are the two "major" powers in the area, besides Israel and Israel is already the United State's little brother in the area. After that everything else would fall in line easy. Most of the countries even collapsing from the inside, where we could swoop in and "help" set up goverments.
quote:
Azizza thought about the meaning of life:
THis is only true if both sides are level headed and wish to solve things.
Palestine has no wish to solve things peacefully. They want nothing less than the death of each and every person in Isreal.
I don't really think you can solve that wish dipolmacy.
I tend to believe that no person on the planet is completely beyond rational thought. I have faith that it is possible to talk to people on a level of equality, and if one is not able to reach some common thread in thought at least find some compromise which may satisfy everyone.
But again, this is personal belief. I've never negotiated peace between nations, so I'm in no real position to make definitive claims. It's just what I think.
quote:
Drakkenmaw got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
I tend to believe that no person on the planet is completely beyond rational thought. I have faith that it is possible to talk to people on a level of equality, and if one is not able to reach some common thread in thought at least find some compromise which may satisfy everyone.But again, this is personal belief. I've never negotiated peace between nations, so I'm in no real position to make definitive claims. It's just what I think.
Unfortunately, the mindset Azizza represents is the only exception to this truth. It exists in every country, every city. It's an elevated mindset of "We > Them", and a firm belief that anything can be fixed by hitting it hard enough.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Zaza said:
... firm belief that anything can be fixed by hitting it hard enough.
Dude, anything can be fixed with force, even though it most likely will not be a good fix. Usally the more peacefull solutions work the best, but force will always work, that is if you have enought force to solve said problem.
Israel has a president, who afaik has to agree to dissolving parliament, but except for that has no real power. Control of the country lies with the prime minister. [ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: Gevarien / Modrakien ]
quote:
Pyscho had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Dude, anything can be fixed with force, even though it most likely will not be a good fix. Usally the more peacefull solutions work the best, but force will always work, that is if you have enought force to solve said problem.
Force generally creates a temporary fix, and more problems than the actual fix.
And no, everything can't be fixed with force.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Zaza wrote:
Force generally creates a temporary fix, and more problems than the actual fix.And no, everything can't be fixed with force.
YES IT CAN
**kicks Zaza in the groin**
quote:
Drak: I tend to believe that no person on the planet is completely beyond rational thought. I have faith that it is possible to talk to people on a level of equality, and if one is not able to reach some common thread in thought at least find some compromise which may satisfy everyone.
quote:
Zaza: Unfortunately, the mindset Azizza represents is the only exception to this truth. It exists in every country, every city. It's an elevated mindset of "We > Them", and a firm belief that anything can be fixed by hitting it hard enough.
Damn that Winston Churchill! He was so wrong! Good thing Neville Chamberlain didn't listen to him, but damn the British population who finally did. [ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: Caldur Ral'Nyn ]
quote:
Caldur Ral'Nyn had this to say about (_|_):
Damn that Winston Churchill! He was so wrong! Good thing Neville Chamberlain didn't listen to him, but damn the British population who finally did.
Wow, you... obviously have no idea what Za was talking about.
This makes me cry.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Caldur Ral'Nyn:Damn that Winston Churchill! He was so wrong! Good thing Neville Chamberlain didn't listen to him, but damn the British population who finally did.I ramble unrelated patriotic things because I have no valid arguments.
[ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: Zaza ]
quote:
Zaza's account was hax0red to write:
I've been talking to Faz too much and have caught the 'let's use the strike command to befunnystupid' fad.
I joke! I kid! [ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: Comrade Snoota ]
"Dude, like, what were we fighting about?" *toke* "Uhh... I don't know, but man i've got the munchies." *toke* "Yeah me to.." *much giggling commenses*
HUMOR PEOPLE HUMOR!!
quote:
Comrade Snoota had this to say about Knight Rider:
I joke! I kid!
I have been offended!
Thou'rt smelly!
quote:
I ramble unrelated patriotic things because I have no valid arguments.
Unrelated? Your blanket statement about the mindset of certain people who think We>Them. Hit hard. Not related? Actually, it does relate. By your argument you could say the samething about Churchill. He was viewed as an old out of touch British Empire superior than thou war monger. They dismissed his views and isolated him from government, while cooler heads would prevail. Point being, he was right.
Your blanket statement would dismiss anyone who had the view the only soultion is strong and swift action. When it might be exactly what is needed.
Apply case to this thread. The Jews were making peace, giving up land, using diplomatic means for peace. It fell apart. The attacks didn't stop. The Palestinian demands grew even more and more. How much are the Jews supposed to give away? How much are they supposed to bend?
As for the comment not knowing what I'm talking about by one person, or I have no valid argument. What the hell do I know in comparison to boards? My degree in Comparative Politics, working several years in this area of the world covering the conflict. Pursuing my Masters in International Relations doesn't give me any insight to the topic or how history relates.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Caldur Ral'Nyn wrote:
Unrelated? Your blanket statement about the mindset of certain people who think We>Them. Hit hard. Not related? Actually, it does relate. By your argument you could say the samething about Churchill. He was viewed as an old out of touch British Empire superior than thou war monger. They dismissed his views and isolated him from government, while cooler heads would prevail. Point being, he was right.Your blanket statement would dismiss anyone who had the view the only soultion is strong and swift action. When it might be exactly what is needed.
Apply case to this thread. The Jews were making peace, giving up land, using diplomatic means for peace. It fell apart. The attacks didn't stop. The Palestinian demands grew even more and more. How much are the Jews supposed to give away? How much are they supposed to bend?
As for the comment not knowing what I'm talking about by one person, or I have no valid argument. What the hell do I know in comparison to boards? My degree in Comparative Politics, working several years in this area of the world covering the conflict. Pursuing my Masters in International Relations doesn't give me any insight to the topic or how history relates.
So, basically, your point is that because some people considered Churchill as I consider Azizza, it somehow invalidates my opinion? That's pretty god damn retarded. Some people consider everyone in USA to be evil. Does that invalidate calling anyone in the world evil, just because it's wrong?
Learn to relate points.
If we're talking recent peace attempts, the Jews agreed to give up land, but no land was ever turned over. In fact, in the time space between the agreement and the point when it was all supposed to be handed over, more land was captured.
That's nice. Then if you're so clever, why can't you construct an argument?
Or, if you didn't get my point: Did Churchill believe that every English person in the world was evil and unreasonable? Because that's what Azizza generally says about the Palestinians. People who start dividing people into "Those Arabs" and "Us decent people" are idiots, even if they somehow solve something. If Churchill thought as above, then he was a moron, even if war was needed.
You can't point out a SINGLE occurance and say "Hey, the mindset worked there, it must be infallible!", try arguing for how this standpoint would work on the Israel/Palestine situation instead.
My point wasn't related to Azziza. I didn't see him make a sweeping blanket statement in this thread. My point was related to YOUR blanket staement in this thread.
Did I say or imply your opinion was invalid? No within certain contexts, but your so-called point would imply all people with that view are wrong. You don't specify that in some cases it maybe the correct action/point of view.
I was pointing out a historical situation that refutes your single blanket point. Nowhere did I say that makes it the correct view in every case.
BTW, in your further points what you are infering is that Azziza's opinion is invalid, as your isn't?
BTW2..Where is your argument? There isn't a constructed argument illustrating a point trying to prove a conclusion. It was a blanket statement dismissing someone's opinion. The same thing you accuse me of and has your knickers in a knot.
BTW3... Who is resorting to name calling? [ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: Caldur Ral'Nyn ]
quote:
Check out the big brain on Caldur Ral'Nyn!
Actually, that was Churchill's view of the Hindu's in India.My point wasn't related to Azziza. I didn't see him make a sweeping blanket statement in this thread. My point was related to YOUR blanket staement in this thread.
Did I say or imply your opinion was invalid? No within certain contexts, but your so-called point would imply all people with that view are wrong. You don't specify that in some cases it maybe the correct action/point of view.
I was pointing out a historical situation that refutes your single blanket point. Nowhere did I say that makes it the correct view in every case.
BTW, in your further points what you are infering is that Azziza's opinion is invalid, as your isn't?
BTW2..Where is your argument? There isn't a constructed argument illustrating a point trying to prove a conclusion. It was a blanket statement dismissing someone's opinion. The same thing you accuse me of and has your knickers in a knot.
BTW3... Who is resorting to name calling?
No, see first of all, people who *do* believe that an entire countries population are evil/dumb/whatever are wrong. People are way too different to be able to work this in. Azizza has stated his clear opinion on this in a lot of threads like this one, which I was replying to, and he refers to this opinion in his above post, blaming Palestine for absolutely everything in this conflict.
That is my point.
What is YOUR point then? You were very much trying to invalidate my point by a rather crashed try at sarcasm. And if that was indeed Churchill's view of the Indians, then he was wrong. He might've been a brilliant leader, his solutions might have worked, but it's completely unrelated. He was wrong about that.
Yes, since you know... I claim Azizza's opinion to be invalid, then that would mean it is invalid if I'm right, no?
quote:
Zaza painfully thought these words up:
No, see first of all, people who *do* believe that an entire countries population are evil/dumb/whatever are wrong. People are way too different to be able to work this in. Azizza has stated his clear opinion on this in a lot of threads like this one, which I was replying to, and he refers to this opinion in his above post, blaming Palestine for absolutely everything in this conflict.That is my point.
What is YOUR point then? You were very much trying to invalidate my point by a rather crashed try at sarcasm. And if that was indeed Churchill's view of the Indians, then he was wrong. He might've been a brilliant leader, his solutions might have worked, but it's completely unrelated. He was wrong about that.
Yes, since you know... I claim Azizza's opinion to be invalid, then that would mean it is invalid if I'm right, no?
No where in my above post did I claim that every palasinian was to blame. But yes in the past I have said that the only way this will stop is if every man woman and child of Palasine is killed. Now is that what we want? Umm NO! Is that what we should or will do? NO!But that is what it would probably take, because people are stupid.
And yes I do believe that palestine has done more to continue this conflict that Isreal.
Isreal gives palestine land and they get bombed, They respond to the bombings by attacking the people who bombed them and they get bombed, they go after the leader who has not only allowed this from his people but also encouraged it, they get bombed. They do nothing in reply, they get bombed.
Your nice palastenian groups are terrorist. Arafat is nothign but a thug.
Isreal has shown time and time again that they are willing to work with the palesinian people. Arafat and others have said they will accept nothing less than the death of every person in Isreal.
Which side do you think I am gonna choose?
I'm not saying Israel is to blame for any of this, I'm just saying it's not as clear cut as so many people here seem to believe, and that there are reasons that most of the world can't agree on who is right and who is wrong in the affair. There's a reason it's so controversial. Because it's not as simple to come to a conclusion as you seem to think, much less the conclusion you seem to have come to.
Nowhere was I arguing the simpistic or complex view of the conflict. I was addressing those statements made.
quote:
Caldur Ral'Nyn enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
My conlusion? Ummm, no. My conclusion has nothing to do with that. My initial post is was about Drak and Zaza's statement. I was pointing out a period in history where the belief everyone could be reasoned with were incorrect, and a person who held the use of force turned out to be correct. It had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palenstine issue. It was directed at those statements made.Nowhere was I arguing the simpistic or complex view of the conflict. I was addressing those statements made.
Chamberlain didn't compromise. He rolled over, let Hitler have what he wanted, and chastized those against him because he wanted nominal peace instead of actual stability.
I was talking politics, not burying your head in the sand. Compromise, you know.
A rather simplistic solution would be for the Israelis to give back the land on the west bank and those contended areas they took in the 7 Days' War, give some express assistance to Palestine in setting up a stable governmental system, and make a promise to only retaliate for terrorist attacks within the boundaries of the legal system. The Palestinians meanwhile would have to set up a system of lasting and stable governing, make efforts to bring those in refugee camps into stable positions as citizens, and allow international peace-keepers to work with the police force in Palestine to bring terrorist networks under control.
It wouldn't be perfect, and I don't see how it will ever actually be done, but that would solve it. Both sides need to give up some things, both sides need to work with each other. Hence why it's a COMPROMISE.
I don't think Bush could safely dissolve congress.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Kinanik:
I don't think Bush could safely dissolve congress.
That would be funny to watch though.
quote:
Kinanik had this to say about John Romero:
I don't think Bush could safely dissolve congress.
He could probably could get some HCl down the back of Strom Thurmond's shirt before he could hobble away...
I add nothing!
Anyway...I think dissolving Parliament is a baaaaaaaaaad idea. Sharon is a tough guy, and I know Israel needs a tough guy in command, but there is such thing as overkill. If history proves me wrong in this instance, so be it.
As for Churchill...that was a case of the right guy being in the right place at the right time. Any other situation and Churchill might've faded to obscurity. Lord knows he had his problems. On the other hand, it was the right place and the right time and he was certainly the right man.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Drakkenmaw had this to say about Captain Planet:A rather simplistic solution would be for the Israelis to give back the land on the west bank and those contended areas they took in the 7 Days' War, give some express assistance to Palestine in setting up a stable governmental system, and make a promise to only retaliate for terrorist attacks within the boundaries of the legal system. The Palestinians meanwhile would have to set up a system of lasting and stable governing, make efforts to bring those in refugee camps into stable positions as citizens, and allow international peace-keepers to work with the police force in Palestine to bring terrorist networks under control.
Israel has a history of trading land for peace. An example of this were giving the Sinai Pennensula to Egypt. Somehow I do not think that they would abandon a stratagy that in the past yielded grand results. Infact two years ago they offerd a vast majority of the Gaza strip and the West Bank to the Palestinians. They refused and started the current little tirade.
If the Isralies thought that giving land to the Palestinians would solve their problems I'm shure they would give it an attempt. However they do not want to appear to be yeilding to a terrorist threat. Doing that would pull every genious with fertilizer to Israel.
