quote:

---

Originally written by Drakefyre:

While not all Israelis want a Palestinian state, Ariel Sharon has put that offer on the table at every single negotiation and it has been refused.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Omlette:

quote:the mistaken belief that the Apostle John was the John mentioned in the title

---

quote:

---

Originally written by *Sound Effect*:

My definition of enemy, or the "to each his own" mentality in general?
The former.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by *Sound Effect*:

quote:

---

The Americans had double tempi in foreign puppeteering in the Cold War, after all.

---

And that was unique to the US how, exactly?

'Double tempi' is a chess term referring to someone who has an essentially irrevocable lead in the action. The Soviets never got any further than reacting to what we did.

quote:

---

I'd have to doubt this; we've bombed the country a few years back into the stone age, so naturally the average income is going to decrease.

---

With Al Qaeda no longer raising hell, people have greater access to food, health care, they don't have to worry about getting randomly shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We didn't actually bomb them into the stone age, for the most part, the average innocent Afghani now has greater access to newer technology than they did before the conflict, because Al Qaeda no longer controls all the resources in the country.
Al Quaeda != the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance != any kind of effective government. They are just a less rabidly fundamentalist group of warlords; at least under the Taliban the country was more than a few steps up from anarchy.

quote:

---

I can say so because they haven't actually gone about trying to kill every man, woman, and child. Moral support doesn't make them the enemy.

---

Apparently this is just where we're going to have to agree to disagree, then.

Indeed. That kind of mentality leads to genocide :P

EDIT: And what exactly did that french phrase mean? "This animal is mean. One attacks it, and it defends itself" ???
'This animal is treacherous. If attacked, it defends itself'.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by *Sound Effect*:

A good point is made in that we shouldn't simply be content in how good we are, but should strive to be even better in the future. I don't think it's wrong to criticize the US in its actions, however there is something deeply wrong with calling the US evil and the true source of all problems in the last century (something I have heard people utter). See, this is why I posted on these message boards. There actually are intelligent people who can make good points and have constructive debates.
I would say that we have more than our fair share of blame in causing the world's problems. The Americans had double tempi in foreign puppeteering in the Cold War, after all.

Taron: We didn't actually declare war on Afghanistan, nor did we campaign to bomb the citizens. The article was referring to the fact that the average Afghani is somewhat better off now than they were before. Not to say we haven't neglected Afghanistan, which we have, but they are at least on the right track.
I'd have to doubt this; we've bombed the country a few years back into the stone age, so naturally the average income is going to decrease.

Alo, I'm going to have to completely disagree with you. If someone rejoices when American citizens are killed, in my mind they have painted themselves as enemies. If someone hates our country and want every man, woman, and child dead, how can you say they aren't our enemies?
Cet animal est méchant. On l'attaque, il se defende.
I can say so because they haven't actually gone about trying to kill every man, woman, and child. Moral support doesn't make them the enemy.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Desert Plah:

1. Alec, you're such a pessimist, and you always assume you're right. Many of these can be viewed as good or bad things, depending on how you feel about the world. I feel sorry for you in your case.
I tend to view people suffering as bad, yes, even if it's 'justified' by other people living higher off the hog than they were already. Apparently we're at odds there; I personally believe allowing anyone to have seconds, thirds, and fourths while other people's plates go empty is wrong -- on the other hand, some people would call the fact that anyone's having fourths 'success', no matter how little they need it.

2. I don't claim that this is all a result of Bushie.
The post strongly implies it. Anyone who says, 'Everything's coming up roses!' without a political motivation is a goddamn fool, because there's always about a great gross pounds dark cloud to one pound silver lining. Study history sometime, and realize that things haven't changed all that much. The world is an ugly, ugly place, and closing your eyes and shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" only makes matters worse.

3. You always assume you're right.

Am I to assume I'm wrong?

4. When I see reports of tens of thousands of people dying of starvation in Iraq, I might accept a few of these.
Oh, I retract it, then. The embargo, which included food and medicine, obviously had no negative effect on the Iraqi people.
I'd dig up an article on the predicted casualties of Shock and Awe if you'd like, or perhaps a few dozen on the impact of the wrongheaded embargo on the people (not the dictator) of Iraq; I'd prefer not to, if it's all the same to you.

5. You always assume that you're right.

It'd be nice if you'd respond to these point-by-point. Either you especially felt like repeating yourself or you had the same (albeit useless) response to two separate points...

6. We'll have to wait 50-60 years to find out if your predictions will come true.
The study of history tells you that looking for problems in hindsight is as useless as looking for solutions in foresight. All the signs of a budding theocratic one-party state friendly to the West and viciously oppressive to its own people are there, and the next thing I'd heard about Bush answering any of them'd be the first.

And thank you for allowing me to borrow your trademark numbering and repeated points.
I don't use this format; I find it abhorrent

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Desert Plah:

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...

(NOTE, added to what I posted earlier.)

...you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
I find it hard to believe that the Iraqis have a QOL advantage over Americans thanks to Herr Bush's war.
...foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.
...the way for them having been opened up by foreign colonial imperialists.
...the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events.
The US military didn't start participating in international events on May 1 2003.
Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit.
The Iraqi government is a figurehead. The US military still holds all the power in Iraq, and if they left there'd be a dictatorship in a heartbeat. Being as how all this takes is a couple of diplomats, this does not mean anything re. national stability.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
Again...
...Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.
And religious fanaticism, kept in check for decades by the Saddam Hussein government and generally considered one of the only positive checks for his rule, is back with a vengeance. I'd look for purdah laws by the next Presidential administration, and sharia-based capital crimes codes before that.
...for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites
celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
See the last point.
...the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.
The vast majority of which are related to oil, for which Halliburton received the vast majority of reconstruction contracts, for which the numbers were so ludicrously padded as to put the era of Teapot Dome to shame.
...Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.
Two murderous fanatics are gone. The price? Thousands of slightly less murderous fanatics running the country for centuries. Yeah, sounds reasonable.

...children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with
the government.
Where was our concern for the children when we enforced the embargo against the Iraqi people (NOT Saddam Hussein OR his military, who remained well-fed)? Then again, I suppose if you expect consistency in moral strength from the right, you're gunning for dissapointment.

...political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.
'Shock And Awe' is a wonderful step up from Tacitus. We kill 500,000 people and call it humanitarian.

...millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
The decades-long suffering of millions of longsuffering Zaïrans? Still going strong!

... Saudis will hold municipal elections.
Muncipal elections are the most risibly falsely 'democratic' process ever. By and large, they have little more democratic rooting or effect than elections for high-school student body president.


... Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.
This is so ambiguous that I don't even want to bother tackling it, but I will anyway: Choices between what and what? And choices to which parents? The Bush Administration's voucher system offered more choices to some parents, after all.

... Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.
Oh boy, a hereditary monarchy has moved from traditional economics to baroque capitalism. Let's all break out our American flags and cheer for MORE opportunities to go from 'poor' to 'starving' and 'rich' to 'ludicrously rich'!

...the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian -- a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.
Are you implying this is Bush's doing?

...Saddam is gone.
Why do people deal with the person before the issue? I'd prefer Saddam remain in power if he could be voted out of office, or even had the oversight of a strong parliamentary body. The Bush administration seems to be happy setting up a brief spat of anarchy followed by a dictator with a different name and face but similar policies; and someone who's likely to be an Islamic fundamentalist, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Sir David:


Alec, I'm not ignoring the problem, I just don't see how a system of inequality solves the problem of inequality. And I find it ironic that you end your rant by calling me a ranting idiot.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Distantly Bemused:

Foo Fighters - Times Like These

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Sir David:

I know that I'm guilty of making wild statements with no evident basis, but really, Alec, how could you be such a hypocrite? In other words, please explain yourself. I really don't understand how racial equality leads to racism and oppression.
Racial equality doesn't. Ignoring racial inequality and hoping it'll go away tends to make it worse, and that's what you're basically in favor of.

Well, I'm sorry for the well-off C student too, Alec. But I'm quite a bit more sorry for the not-so-well-off A student who has been getting 3 or 4 hours of sleep a night, because when he gets home from his two jobs, which still haven't given him enough for an old rust bucket, he actually has to study and do his homework. The hard-working, white student, living in poverty, whose work and study results in nothing, nothing but a trailor and a few years at a community college, if he's lucky. And I can't say I feel too sorry for the rich, bright, and popular but lazy young man who can happily get by with a B in school, due to the fact that the color of his skin will get him into the college he wants, no matter how hard he works for it. I really can't say I feel too sorry for that poor, poor, downtrodden African American.
Affirmative Action displaces the C students, not the A students. I've been saying that for the last two pages. I've grown more than tired of you prating on the same point I've addressed three or four damn times in the same damn way. Let me say it over and over so as to make sure you will have *no* excuse to bring up the 'white A student who suffers because a black B student is admitted due to affirmative action' nonsense again:
Affirmative Action displaces the C students, not the A students. The students with the lower averages are pushed out as a result of AA; those students who have a higher average are very secure in spite of AA, and would be so even if AA started pushing out B-average students. Colleges don't have a quota of high-level students which causes them to magically boot out higher-level students before lower-level ones due to a government policy. Affirmative action is hurting the C-averages. Affirmative action is hurting the C-averages. Affirmative action is not hurting the A-averages, or the B-averages. Affirmative action is not hurting the A averages. Affirmative action is not hurting the B averages.
Are we understood, or must we go around the bend on this one for another page, you ranting, selectively-deaf idiot?

---

quote:

---

Why do harbor such animosity towards those with lighter skin?

---