Rice is anti-american

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SisterMidnight

Am I the oldest one here other than one dude who started this thread?

Not by a long shot [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]

[Hendrik]

Originally Posted by SisterMidnight

[

It's all about tolerance-- if people showed tolerance and respect for other's views and*basic human rights most of the conflicts discussed in this thread (global and personal) would disintegrate. Don't call me simplistic, because it really is that simple.

Yeah, it is indeed that simple. Although I have sometimes self-doubts [img]smileys/smiley19.gif[/img] that I am thinking too naive or "with the eyes of a child". But then I think: hell no, Henders! There is no other way to stop that war sh*t (in every part of the world).

It's like you said in a similar way:
EGOS</font> are for arseholes. And one day EGOS</font> will stab the world to death, if we let them. EGOS</font> are - at this time - more dangerous than any virus. For every crap we have doctors! Why is there no one for healing such bullsh*t??

[Hendrik]

Originally Posted by SisterMidnight

I think I'm the "old lady" on this forum. (39, btw)

[img]smileys/smiley1.gif[/img]

[Hendrik]

Isn't it annoying to see that new surveys show that Nader maybe costs important votes for Kerry? [img]smileys/smiley18.gif[/img]

[SisterMidnight]

Henders--[img]smileys/smiley1.gif[/img] "through the eyes of a child" is the best way to look at things! Remember how we used to see the world before we were corrupted by the harsh reality of it all? Remember the trusting, hopeful, joyous experience of childhood when we thought everyone was our friend and there was beauty and wonder around every corner and with each new day? Wish we could bring that perspective to the adult world sometimes.


Angela-- glad to hear I'm not the lone ranger! [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img] *granny shakes her finger at the kids from her rocker on the porch*


Oh and btw-- the youngest guy I ever dated was only 3 1/2 years younger. Have dated guys up to 10 years older, though that has always been more socially acceptable...... double standards!!! [img]smileys/smiley7.gif[/img] (Go Demi and Ashton! I heard they're tying the knot now.) Plus guys take so much longer to mature..... you almost have to date someone older to be on the same page..... [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img] just kidding, guys!!! [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]Edited by: SisterMidnight

[jendolyn]

Kidding or not kidding that feels true more often than not.


To me at least.

[Magnus]

It is amazing how it has survived allthese attepts.Itis now even an exile. If you take a look through its history you'll see that it is legendary already! Long live the "anti-american thread!"

[Kristi]

Originally Posted by Wheels

You may say that I am a dreamer... but I'm not the only one... perhaps one day you will join us... and the world will live as one. [img]smileys/smiley27.gif[/img]

[img]smileys/smiley27.gif[/img], nope youre not the only one! [img]smileys/smiley4.gif[/img]

[Kristi]

SisterMidnight - I too enjoy your comments here! [img]smileys/smiley31.gif[/img]... and the most years between me and a boyfriend have been almost 5 years! what can i say, i like em mature!! When i was in high school i could hardly stand the guys in my grade, i was always after the ones a couple years older than me! [img]smileys/smiley4.gif[/img]

[Kristi]

Originally Posted by Magnus

It is amazing how it has survived allthese attepts.Itis now even an exile. If you take a look through its history you'll see that it is legendary already! Long live the "anti-american thread!"

[img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img].. where did that come from? [img]smileys/smiley1.gif[/img]

[Miss Pink]

Originally Posted by LilMis156

[img]smileys/smiley27.gif[/img], nope youre not the only one! [img]smileys/smiley4.gif[/img]

Count me in lads! [img]smileys/smiley27.gif[/img]

[Kristi]

im no lad! [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]

[Miss Pink]

u all woman!!!

[Magnus]

Originally Posted by LilMis156

[img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img].. where did that come from? [img]smileys/smiley1.gif[/img]

From the bottom of my heart of course! [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]

[dylanfan]

Originally Posted by emmett

i hope we can agree that both sides are wrong sometimes. we both want to see a two state solution i think. and we both want the violence to end, on both sides. maybe we should focus on what we agree on, as i think we agree on a lot actually, despite our differences. don't we?

Emmett:


I think we do agree on a lot but vary on certain critical distinctions. the attachede editorial by noted columnist George Will does a much better job at analyzing 242 than I ever could.It explains where my starting point is which differs from yours and it explains it well. That being said it wouldn't surprise me if our end points are all that different. Have a good one and to the rest of my eskimo friends apologies for thethe indulgence.


Washington Post, April 18, 2004


Mapping Survival


By George F. Will


The United States government is not a speed reader, but after 37 years


of reading U.N. Resolution 242, the government finally read it accurately


on Wednesday. The government saw what is not there -- the missing definite


article, "the."


Passed after the 1967 Six Day War, 242 required the withdrawal of Israel


"from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Not from "the


territories." Israel insisted on deletion of the "the" because it implied,


as Arab and other powers acknowledged by vehement opposition to the


deletion -- withdrawal from all territories.


This was strategic ambiguity. On Wednesday ambiguit On Wednesday


ambiguity was abandoned. In his letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,


President Bush said:


"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing


major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the


outcome of the final status negotiations will be a full and complete return


to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a


two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."


It is fine to talk about "new realities," such as patterns of settlement,


but this new U.S. policy also, and primarily, comes to terms at long last


with an old reality. It is that 242 also recognized the right of every


state in the region to "secure and recognized boundaries," which Israel's


1967 borders were not.


But wait. Palestinian spokesmen, denouncing the new U.S. position, speak


not of the 1949 armistice lines but "the 1967 borders." It is not in the


interest of the Palestinian Authority to have the world reminded -- being


willfully forgetful, it needs much reminding -- that Israel's 1967 borders


were accidents of the military facts on the ground 18 years before that.


Bush, by emphasizing 1949 rather than 1967, reminds those who forever say


"Israel is being provocative" that for 56 years -- since Israel's founding


in May 1948 -- the problem has been that, to Israel's enemies, Israel's


being is provocative. Hostility to Israel predated 1967 and would not be


cured by a return to 1967 realities.


The territories occupied by Israel since 1967 have been lawfully held


because a nation that occupies territories in the process of repelling


aggression launched from them can hold them until the disposition of the


lands is settled by negotiations between the relevant parties. Palestinians


and their supporters have tried to erase this fact by semantic infiltration


of the world's political vocabulary, getting the territories routinely


referred to as "Palestinian lands." Actually, in law the territories are


unallocated portions of the 1922 Palestine Mandate, the final disposition


of which is still to be settled by negotiations.


And there, for 56 years, has been the rub -- the absence of a suitable


interlocutor for Israel. Meaning a negotiating partner not committed to the


destruction of the "Zionist entity," or completion of the project


interrupted but not abandoned when the last Nazi death camps were liberated


59 Aprils ago.


It is instructive -- and wonderful -- how few and optional have been


references to Yasser Arafat in discussions of Wednesday's developments. In


a life of terror, his only service to peace was his demonstration, at Camp


David in July 2000 with President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister


Ehud Barak, that the most that Israel could ever offer in the way of


concessions is less than the current Palestinian leadership will accept.


Which is why Wednesday's policy flowed ineluctably from Bush's June 24,


2002, pronouncement that the first prerequisite for progress is for the


Palestinian people to produce "regime change": "I call upon the Palestinian


people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." That


prerequisite being unattainable, Sharon has chosen unilateral disengagement


-- the fence -- and a long wait for the time when, in Bush's words, "the


Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security


arrangements."


In 1998 the then-governor of Texas, visited Israel and was given a


helicopter tour of the nation's vulnerabilities. Bush saw the place where


Israel, from 1949 until 1967, had been nine miles wide. Back home, Bush


said: Why, in Texas we have driveways longer than that. Bush's host in the


helicopter was Sharon.


Sharon, who is 76, is a reminder of why it is reasonable to prefer young


doctors but old politicians. Young doctors, because recently in medical


school they learned the latest panaceas. Old politicians, because, having


lived long enough to not hope for miracle cures to political problems, they


do what they can, on their own.


georgewill@washpost.com

[Vienna]

Originally Posted by Jarv

it's just that im not really up to speed on current affairs and am findin' this thread really interesting and am very impressed by the high level of intellect that most eskimos seem to have, and find myself actually lookin' forward to what the next person has to say. no harm was intended, .

same here Jarv...it's providing me with an education here!!![img]smileys/smiley1.gif[/img]


oh and emmett what do you mean it's not like that in real life....i bet you're a right charmer with the ladies!!!!


p.s can i marry you too...i love a man with intelligence and opinions!!! Edited by: Vienna

[administrator]

yeah i read that last night. i think it's a pretty terrible argument, from a very conservative columnist.

i'm tired of hearing the argument that the lands are "disputed" and not "occupied" because israel is entitled to hold onto its land until an agreement is reached. as far as i'm concerned, what bush is promoting now will mean that there can be no future basis for territorial ownership in international law. if someone takes somebody else's land then there'll be no way of saying "hey you can't do that!"

qouted directly from resolution 242:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; "

i don't think it can be much clearer than that.

anyway, if i was to recommend a journalist who i think knows more than anyone on this issue i would recommend that people read Robert Fisk's articles in the Independent. even if you disagree with him i think it'd be good to get the other side, which doesn't seem to get much (any?) publicity in the usa.

[administrator]

Originally Posted by Vienna

p.s can i marry you too...i love a man with intelligence and opinions!!!</font>

yeah, i'd love to marry you vienna!

[Vienna]

excellent!! [img]smileys/smiley27.gif[/img]


but i think we should maybe go on a few dates first you know....we don't want to jump the gun!!! [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]

[cille]

oh yeah, emmett - so glad you wanna marry us. this comes from someone who really don't believe in marriage, but the polygamy sort of makes it more desireable!


...and the family's growing by the hour! weeel-cooooome vienna![img]smileys/smiley17.gif[/img][img]smileys/smiley27.gif[/img]


(emmett, can't believe you are not desired in 'real life' - with those thoughts you have, great taste in music, and then i think i remember a picture of you in one of the picture threads that should melt anybody's hearts...)


jeez. feel like a cougar here, thinking of what jendo said about age... so, i like'em young... what's 4 years anyways? really think it's more about quality than quantity, no?

[Kristi]

exactly... qaulity far outwieghs quantity! id jump on the "lets marry emmett" bandwagon, but im afraid i dont wanna get married yet! [img]smileys/smiley36.gif[/img]

[cille]

don't think i'll ever get ready, but that just proves my devotion to this family even more [img]smileys/smiley2.gif[/img]


really, you're welcome, lilmis. always loved that pretty fishy smile of yours[img]smileys/smiley27.gif[/img]

[Vienna]

oooh thanx Cecilie (that is your name right????[img]smileys/smiley9.gif[/img] my memory is terrible!! or what do you like to be called?!?[img]smileys/smiley9.gif[/img])


so you like em young eh?? i guess i like an older man...but i dunno how much older emmett is!!!


edit: just figured out emmett is four years older than me!!!Edited by: Vienna

[Mario]

Originally Posted by jendolyn

P.S. How is the war on Iraq creating a nation for each religion???

Saddam didn't kill people for their religion

The US refuses to divide up the country for each religion, that was the point. Sadam ethnically cleansed the Kurds up North.

Originally Posted by jendolyn

Mario, a political Science major with a focus on international relations and yet you have never touched the subjects of Northern Ireland or Israel?

Despite what your nightly news may say, those are incredibly miniscule issues in the study of international relations. And political science is not History. We studied the US as a hegemonic power in Asia, and how to incorporate China into that equation; we studied Nato's role in the world; we studied China and the US in re: india-pakistan.

But this links back to my earlier comments: Political Science is a study of long range plans and theories. Thats how policy makers have to think. And thats not how most of you guys are thinking. You're condemning for the short term effect the only way to suceed in the long term.

Originally Posted by jendolyn

1) What about the McCarthy era?

2) ...how does "selfless" match with the Marshall plan?

3) How does the desire for its values to reign in every country apply in the case of Chile where Pinochet's regime was supported?

4) I believe that if America, the U.S. had ever had a war fought on its soil they wouldn't be as prone to consider it the best way to go about things.

I numbered these ramblings for structure's sake...

1)This had nothing to do with speech, and everything to do with association. And I have no idea what you're talking about...

2) !!! I don't know what you possibly could mean by this. But the US spent half a century protecting Europe and Germany economically, with troops, etc. in probably the most brilliant international policies ever carried out.

3) I've commented on this like 5 times now. Short Range v Long Range Strategy.

4) The US Civil War was one of the bloodiest battles in history. One day (I forget which battle) is still single bloodiest day in the history of man.

Beyond that, such a comment shows a complete lack of comprehension of international politics. Saddam, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc only respect force. It is the only means available.

Originally Posted by SisterMidnight

You know, I've been reading this thread and looking at the images of that brave young girl, Rachel Corrie, who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer......

What happened to the US shouldn't be meddling in other countries affairs? I never heard about her before, but I have no sympathy for her whatsoever if she was in Israel trying to stop a bulldozer from knocking a building down. Further, I think its a GREAT move on Israel's part. That'll certainly stop the next idiot co-ed from interfering in such a ridiculous fashion.

Originally Posted by jendolyn

1) Clinton did drop a bomb or two on 'em talibans, or isn't that using force? It was right at the time he was being impeached so some malicious minds had actually said it was to divert attention.


2) Wars are economically and humanly costly. Because after the embargo (that banned the entry of such basic ailments as bloody aspirin) had killed two hundred thousand iraqi children (they died of things like the flue and minor infections, what you'd cure with Neosporin) it was a bit laughable to speak of "saving the iraqi people".

3) Because Europe, the people do not want war. Don't, don't,don't.

4) It is never only the U.S., never. International treaties impose allegiances. Just go and check how many "foreign" soldiers lost their lives in every single military intervention of the U.S. Allow me to say (and i understand you may be offended) that no country has ever embarked in a war, never helped anyone because it was right or good or kind or what what. It is naive to believe that a country will spend money and lives and effort because it is "right" with no economic return. And what did it stop in rwanda exactly. Cause you know, a genocide occured. [/b]

1) No, Clinton attacked IRAQ at that time. Because Bill Clinton also believed IRAQ was a threat to the US.
And because they wouldn't allow weapons inspectors, because Clinton believed they had WMDs.
After that, they still refused to accomodate weapons inspectors, and after a decade of the same game, Bush finally took Saddam out of power.

2) That was not an embargo. Lots of supplies went into Iraq, were forcefully taken by Saddam Hussein, sold to other countries, and the profits went into his personal bank account. After a couple years of that, the US stopped sending aid since we were basically just donating millions of dollars to the Build Saddam Another Palace Fund.

3) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

4) Soooooo...? This is the point in your post I start to get dizzy from all the flip-flopping.... Fix things but not through a military presence. Don't act unilaterally, but everything you results in other nations getting involved in your aid. Work through peace, but in Rwanda you waited too long to send in the military.

You're wrong. Lots of country do lots of things b/c its good. It is in the US national interest, for example, to help others because its good. It makes the US look good, strengthen's the perception other nations have of us, etc. Is it national interest? Yes. But national interest often is merely doing what is good.

[administrator]

I'm going to lock this thread now. There wasn't a problem until Mario started talking about Rachel Corrie being "an idiot co-ed...interfering in such a ridiculous fashion". Mario scares me, and what he said makes me so incredibly angry that I can't describe it in words.

For anyone interested in reading about Rachel, who is a hero of mine, I suggest you read some of the e-mails from before she was murdered:

http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0304/030420.htm