I told you so.............

[casey73]

Hillary Clinton is an antisemitic bitch, as is the one who hired her, Barracks Hoosane Obama. Let us all get on our knees and pray to GOVERNMENT almighty for guidance. Only our Federal GOVERNMENT can show us the light. All you small business types, I'll be checking in a few months from now to hear how things are in workers paradise.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsM...5202DB20090301

Did anyone every doubt the antisemitic direction this administration was committed to? Can you say comrade

[Enzo]

Oh goody, the other right-wing, knee-jerk shoe hits the floor.

That darn Hillary. Why I bet she was behind the 9/11 thing too, and I hear tell she was the one who kidnapped the Lindberg baby. If we send any aid to the middle east other than to Israel, why of course we must be anti-semites.


As we all must know, Palestinians are all one huge monolithic terrorist cell. SO when some of them need medical aid, or some widowed mother wants food for her kid, and when some old guy works the ground to try to provide shelter for his familty, that is all a cover for their real activity - terrorism. We all know that all Palestinians are terrorists all the time to the exclusion of all else. WHy I bet they sit there between terrorist acts just drooling down their shirt planning terror.

God forbid we should make any effort to defuse this constant conflict. SOme palestinians shoot rockets over into Israel, so lets punish them all. Because after all the entire nation of them all get together, go over their notes and are all involved.

[Quantum Cat]

War and terrorism is what the Palestinians voted for when they elected Hamas. They got what they voted for, why are they unhappy with the results? They have no one to blame but themselves.

[Mark Hammer]

1) Voting patterns amongst Palestinians are every bit as regionalized as they are in the US and here in Canada. The principal difference is that Palestinian territory is discontinuous the area where the preponderance of voters preferred Hamas happens to be a geographicaly isolated region - Gaza. So where it would make no sense for one US state with a Democrat majority to "seize control" of everything up to the border of an adjacent state with a Republican majority, Hamas was able to seize control of Gaza, simply because it is small and separate.

2) The people who live in Gaza DO live in rather "provocative" circumstances, to say the least. Whether you think they earned/deserve it or not, it is highly unlikely that peaceful attitudes will come from such circumstances. If you want peaceful people, give them a full belly, a roof that doesn't leak, a hospital that can tend to their sick children or parents effectively, and maybe even some electricity. Some may think of it as an undeserved reward (and I suspect this includes casey 73).

3) I have little empathy for Hamas, but the thing to remember is that they share a lot in common with the NRA. Huh? What I mean is that they engage in a lot of community work, that many average Palestinians see as reflecting a legitimate advocacy role. In other words, they will vote Hamas because they think of Hamas as "decent guys". Now, it may be the case that they think that because Hamas has pulled some stunt like they did recently, when they swiped supplies from the UN (presumably to distribute to folks affected by the recent clashes, and earn "street cred" as the source of those much needed supplies). But all of that being said, there are a lot of folks whose affinity for Hamas is not based on the ulterior political motives of Hamas, or maybe even any strong feelings about "driving the Jews into the sea", but is based on something more banal; they did me a favour, so they must be alright. We have a similar thing here in Canada. Many people in Quebec voted for a regional party with avowed separatist leanings (the Bloc Québecois), not because they too have separatist leanngs, but because they wanted to vote for a party that they felt represented their region. I might point out also that their chief political rival Fatah skimmed a lot off the top during Yassir Arafat's time. So, many people side with Hamas, again not because they feel particularly aligned with the most extreme aspects of some Hamas members' beliefs, but because they see/saw Hamas as simply more honest (or at least, less corrupt) than Fatah. That's not unlike any American political riding where you vote for the "other" party next election when the last guy ends up on bribery and embezzlement charges. You don't have to be an extremist to do that, just cynical.

4) At the very same time, Hamas is not really a party, but a sentiment that expresses itself in something vaguely resembling a political party. As such, you can't really get rid of them unless you've eliminated the sentiment. And targetted assassinations - particularly those which result in "collateral damage" of children (and yes, I know all about the hiding out in schools stuff from back in the '82 battles in Beirut) - are NOT the way to change sentiments. The middle east is a region where honour is extremely important; important enough that revenge is an enduring emotion, and not something that dissipates quickly. So, Hamas is a gathering point for revenge as much as it is about anything else. And unfortunately, there's always going to be someone who still needs to avenge. If you're waiting for that to go away, you'll be waiting a long time. I'm not saying the desire for revenge is entirely unjustified. I'm just saying that it is always going to be there so you may as well factor it into your reasoning, accept it, and try to minimize it as much as practically possible.


So, unless casey is referring to something unarticulated in either the post or the linked-to article, or unless, he is using a different connotation of "anti-semitic", I find it very difficult to see anything particularly anti-semitic in the actions of this administration or of Sec. of State Clinton. The actions of many previous administrations were also not particularly anti-semitic, but only the Carter administration among them brought anything remotely resembling peace. The remainder had slipped into very narrow, and unproductive, thinking that viewed military strength as the only viable alternative. The result of that was some maintenance of borders, but an unfortunate legacy of generations of Palestinians who have known nothing else but refugee camps and behave desperately and counterproductively because of that.

If I am disappointed in America's supoprt for Israel in any way, it is that they have never stood shoulder to shoulder with Israel, gone on TV and proclaimed: "Please just stop shooting. We have been unkind and thoughtless in past, in our attempts to defend what we thought was worth defending, but we do not want to be your enemy. We do not want to impose hardships on you. We want to trust you. We think that only good things can come from us trusting each other as neighbours, and doing things to deserve that trust. So just don't shoot, don't bomb, don't mortar shell, don't attack in any way, for a period of, let us say 8 months, and we will do likewise. If you find reason to still hate us after that, so be it, but let us make just this small opportunity to see each other through new eyes, and not wearing the mask that history has placed on our faces. Give us a chance to do the right thing, and we will give you that same opportunity."

Wouldn't that be sweet? Unfortunately, it'll never happen, regardless of who the president or Sec. of State is because that is simply not the way elected officials behave, regardless of political stripe. They can't allow themselves to be that vulnerable, whether in the US, Israel, or Palestine.

So, as a guy who has to work on a humorous debate for whether the hamantashen is nobler than the latke for next Monday night's Purim-shpiel, as a guy who has never visited Israel but has loads of friends and relatives there, I honestly can't find anything in the current administrations pronouncements or behaviour that would lead me to take the same view as Casey 73. My opinion could be changed with the right evidence, but I haven't seen it so far.

Addendum: Oh yeah, I've also met both David ben-Gurion and Golda Meir, though I was still in grade school (the advantages of living in a national capitol). I have to say that, even in person, she looked like Lyndon Johnson in drag, although Ben-Gurion vaguely resembled Yoda in manner.

[bob p]

Originally Posted by Mark Hammer

3) I have little empathy for Hamas, but the thing to remember is that they share a lot in common with the NRA.

And I'm the guy who uses hyperbole to make his points? You've just compared an organization that promotes adherence to the Bill of Rights to a terrorist group. I guess there's a kernel of truth in that -- Hamas and NRA members are all able to tote guns, while Canadians aren't. I guess that in this respect the "haves" all look familiar from the position of the "have nots."

All friendly sarcasm, Mark. I don't mean any offense.

[bob p]

Originally Posted by casey73

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsM...5202DB20090301

Originally Posted by Enzo

Oh goody, the other right-wing, knee-jerk shoe hits the floor.

the healdine reads: U.S. to pledge over $900 million in Palestinian aid

I think enough of our money is already being wasted, and again this is not really a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I think that the people who respond to everything as being Left vs. Right aren't really paying attention to the fact that regardless of whether you're Left, Right or Middle, the money is still coming out of YOUR pocket, even if you don't care enough to know about it, or know enough to care about it. It looks foolish for anyone to point the finger at the other guy and call him dumb just because they don't like his political affiliation. In my case, I'm a Democrat and I am still outraged. I'm hoping that we're just participating in friendly sarcasm, and that the name calling and accusations of incomplete thought processes isn't serious. Ampage is has always been a civil place.

[hasserl]

If you want peaceful people, give them a full belly, a roof that doesn't leak, a hospital that can tend to their sick children or parents effectively, and maybe even some electricity.

If you just give these things to people then they have no reason to work toward developing them for themselves. If you want to enslave people, make them dependant on you, then this is a great formula for that, it works everytime it's tried.

Better yet Mark, give them the opportunity to develop these things for themselves. Give them protection from attack, give them orderly means of conducting business, and allow the natural forces of a free market to work. This is also a formula that works everytime it is tried.

[bob p]

I remember a joke about the Middle East that went something like this:

One guy says, "why can't those people learn to get along? that place has been embroiled in conflict for thousands of years."

Another guy says, "what do you expect? its a racial war. those people have hated each other for centuries and they're not going to stop fighting now."

Yet anohter guy says, "I think the reason they're fighting is because its hot, and there isn't much water."



personally, i feel enslaved every time the government takes money away from me for things that i don't want to spend my life breaking my back to pay for.

[Mark Hammer]

Originally Posted by hasserl

If you just give these things to people then they have no reason to work toward developing them for themselves. If you want to enslave people, make them dependant on you, then this is a great formula for that, it works everytime it's tried.

Better yet Mark, give them the opportunity to develop these things for themselves. Give them protection from attack, give them orderly means of conducting business, and allow the natural forces of a free market to work. This is also a formula that works everytime it is tried.

Umm, hate to contradict you , but I think you are confusing an American philosophy that has some merit when applied to people who actually have experience with full bellies in the past, and what may be more appropriate for those who life has not yet presented them with such opportunities. I'm not talking about encouraging people to be lazy. I'm talking about offering people a reason to take a moment to reflect on whether they need to continue to hate someone.

So, you're not entirely wrong; you're just jumping the gun by about 10 years. Come back then, make the same suggestion, and I'll agree. The simple truth is that people need incentives for everything, but the incentives often need to be different for different things.

Bob,

No offense taken. What I meant by the NRA/Hamas comparison is that they are both examples of groups that are seen as pure evil by some constituencies, and "just regular guys helping me out" in other constituencies....and neither of those views is entirely wrong. Personally, I think they (Hamas) are a huge fly in the ointment...and so is Yisrael Beiteinu (the 3rd place party in the recent Israeli election). But, like it or not, for as much as there are folks here and in Israel who see Hamas as nothing more than "terroreests", there are plenty of folks in Gaza whose entire experience with Hamas is that some Hamas guys scored them some food when there was nothing in the stores or money to buy it with, pulled their kids out of the line of fire (even though it was Hamas drawing the fire in the first place), scored them some medicine via tunnels to the Egyptian side, and maybe even cleaned up a building to use for a school. And that is their experience with Hamas.

Maybe one could even compare them to the Salvation Army. Some folks with have nothing but praise for the daily good works of the Sally Ann, where others will see them as little more than ethnocentric evangelists intent on suckering everyone in with good deeds as a ruse to convert them. Hell, for that matter, for all the misery they caused, there are plenty of folks in Afghanistan who yearn for the days of the Taliban, Iraqis that yearn for the days of the Baathists, and Russians who yearn for the days of the Soviet Union, because crime rates were lower. Honestly, sometimes there's no telling what people will find legitimate reason to find a soft spot in their heart for, and just because you/I find that stance surprising doesn't mean those folks cannot summon up a million reasons from their experience why they're just as perplexed at our stance.

[Mark Hammer]

"Ampage is has always been a civil place."

Really? Then either you weren't here. or you've plum forgotten the rather "intense" period in the year following the World Trade Centre tragedy. It was a period that I think a lot of members would rather forget. Things were said that did not speak highly of people.

Happily, we HAVE risen above that, and thankfully nothing since then has given us similar reason to sink so low again.

On the $900M...

The "wisdom" of foreign aid is something that will never cease to mystify me and many others. A neighbour and friend works for the Canadian International Development Agency, and frequently leaves me slackjawed when explaining to me who does and doesn't qualify for foreign aid. For instance, the Cayman Islands, the millionaire's favourite tax hideout, counts as a "developing nation" according to the international criteria, and gets foreign aid. Huh? Wouldn't surprise me a bit if all this time both Sudan and Zimbabwe were receiving millions from your country and mine. I encourage the more industrious and diligent among you to find out what your government gives in aid to various nations and post that info here.

Having said that, a lot of foreign aid is predicated on the pretty reasonable assumption that if you don't try to make potentially failed states viable, then you eventually end up with their problems on your doorstep. So, you can try to prop Haiti up, or you can fish the bodies off the Florida beaches. You can try and nurse a future Palestine to be economically viable and stable, or you can face the immigration and economic repercussions. It's a handout, a hand up, and domestic insurance. The trick is to provide foreign aid in a way that does not end up establishing dictatorships at the same time.

By the way, I was mulling over this one today. Just exactly how long does it take for the long-term effects of a dictatorship to finally dissipate? I should think we have enough historical case studies by now, that the relevant folks in the foreign policy community should be able to guess-timate how many years it will take for, say, the social infrastructure that Robert Mugabe, Papa Doc Duvalier, the Shah of Iran, or Pol Pot set up to finally wend its way to a stable egalitarian democracy. How many generations of government does it take, and to what extent can one expedite that process?

[Enzo]

AMpage was and is a very civil place - over in the body of it that is relevant to its purpose. The off-topic section - this area - has always been contentious, with its bible thumpers, left and right wing ideologues, sneering contrarians, and the whole rest of the carnival. The improvement we have made here is that no longer can you place a new poster name on each post. We used to have discussions between half a dozen anonymouses. Now at least you have to register your screen name.

[Quantum Cat]

The lesson is clear. Attack Israel, collect $900 million.

Does anyone believe Hamas won't continue their attacks? Why wouldn't they? On and on it goes.....

Dave Rich

[Mark Hammer]

Originally Posted by Enzo

AMpage was and is a very civil place - over in the body of it that is relevant to its purpose. The off-topic section - this area - has always been contentious, with its bible thumpers, left and right wing ideologues, sneering contrarians, and the whole rest of the carnival. The improvement we have made here is that no longer can you place a new poster name on each post. We used to have discussions between half a dozen anonymouses. Now at least you have to register your screen name.

With that qualification, I agree.

[bob p]

oh, i guess i've had my share of head-butts here. i remember getting attacked one time in the theory area, because i wanted to use books and math to solve a problem. imagine that! i was kinda surprised, but i chose to just let it roll off of my shoulder. in that respect, i guess my memory creates a favorable backward glance about ampage because i choose to forget some things.

i really do miss the days of the anonymous post. there were some really funny things said back then. i remember rolling on the floor! some very famous people visited ampage back then, and said some very funny things. not so much now.

as an example, does anyone remember that thread that morphed from a thread about Cloning a Soldano into a battle over who owes who royalties? We were visited by Mike Soldano, Ken Fisher, Jim Marshall, Leo Fender, Western Electric R&D, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and God. Each of them made their own claims, but in the end they were all trumped by Gerald Weber.

no, its just not the same anymore. i think that vBulletin requiring people to become registered users has made us much more serious.

[Mark Black]

We were visited by Mike Soldano, Ken Fisher, Jim Marshall, Leo Fender, Western Electric R&D, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and God. Each of them made their own claims, but in the end they were all trumped by Gerald Weber.

Wow - Gerald Weber posted here?