Bush's Speech

[norompanlasolas]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: He's a war criminal as much as Saddam (doesn't he have some nickname with massacre in it?) and will keep things going there forever. Hating and oppressing Palestinians is a way of life for him. He's turned one of the world's finest, bravest, and best trained armies (remember Entebi?) into a gang of thugs.

he is called the butcher of sabra and shatila, for the murders perpetrated under his command there. its well documented and proved, the only reason he is not facing the international court like milosevic is... well, you can guess what it is.

[Sir Taliesin]

I agree that Sharon is a monster, but the difference is he was elected in a valid election by his on people while Saddom took power at the point of a gun. To me his isn't legitiment. In my book that right there, is cause enough to get rid of him. It kills me to hear people call him a LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT!!! I don't think that about Arafat though. He was elected by his people. Sharon shouldn't be trying to get rid of him. The best solution for Israel is to move the settlers out of the West Bank (about 40,000 I think) and Gaza (less than 2000) and then build a wall around both places until such time as peace can be brokered, such as what happened with Egypt. Will that happen? Probably not, because the settlers have too much political power.

[ 10-09-2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[Timber Loftis]

Good Sir T:

I would simply point out that Democracy is not the only VALID form of government. It's ours, but not everyone's. Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are all as *valid* as a democracy. Especially if we're talking International Law. Just because we have elections doesn't mean everyone does. As well, unless there are humanitarian issues at stake, such as genocide (and I'm not saying that this is not the case with Saddam), you make internationally *legal* war on a Nation because of the way it interacts with other nations and the group of nations, not the way it governs its populace.

In logical syntax, there is a distinction of course between *valid* and *sound*. But the *soundness* of one form of government or another seems unclear as well.

[Jorath Calar]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: I agree that Sharon is a monster, but the difference is he was elected in a valid election by his on people while Saddom took power at the point of a gun. To me his isn't legitiment. In my book that right there, is cause enough to get rid of him. It kills me to hear people call him a LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT!!! ....

Neither was Bush!!! Okey maybe not from a point of a gun but those 2000 elections were really spooky

And by the way, Israel army is not defending their own land, they are defending a part of palestinian land they occupied in 1967, breaking just abut every peace contract there was about not moving civilans into occupied land. The palestinians are trying what they can to get back their own land.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Good Sir T: I would simply point out that Democracy is not the only VALID form of government. It's ours, but not everyone's. Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are all as *valid* as a democracy. Especially if we're talking International Law. Just because we have elections doesn't mean everyone does. As well, unless there are humanitarian issues at stake, such as genocide (and I'm not saying that this is not the case with Saddam), you make internationally *legal* war on a Nation because of the way it interacts with other nations and the group of nations, not the way it governs its populace. In logical syntax, there is a distinction of course between *valid* and *sound*. But the *soundness* of one form of government or another seems unclear as well.

While I see your point, I don't see how you can say that a dictatorship is a valid form of government. Living at the point of a gun is no human way to live. I for one, would do everything in my power to bring down such a government, if had to live under one. Luckily for me and for most of us, we don't. There is NEVER an excuse for TOTALITARIANISM! NEVER!

If you want to change the world, start with that!

And BTW, WE WERE WRONG TO SUPPORT HIM DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR. I never liked Reagan any way!

[Sazerac]

Speaking of Bush's speeches, has anyone else noticed that every time he opens his piehole, the stock market plummets? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] I know some economists have mentioned it! We investors cringe every time he's going to make a speech.

"The economy's great!"
The president said
But as he spoke
The stocks fell dead

(with a nod to Burma-Shave)

-Sazerac

[MILAMBER]

Now that the US relies heavily on the global economy and imported products, a war would be more likely to hurt rather than help the economic situation. We live in a different world now.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MILAMBER: Now that the US relies heavily on the global economy and imported products, a war would be more likely to hurt rather than help the economic situation. We live in a different world now.

I don't know about this. I haven't had the time to check up on it, but after Kosovo and the US bombing missions that were run out of Montana (*chuckle*), there was likely a LOT of rebuilding to do. I'm wondering who got the contracts. At the time, I remember hearing about both Brit and US plans to rebuild. I can imagine the "lowest bidder" wars between first-world contractors to get these jobs. Like I said, I haven't had time to check into it.

The Keynesian economic model is based on the production/consumption balance. Right now the model is hurt because consumption is down - check the numbers and you'll find production has not really dropped, except as has been absolutely demanded by economic pressures on businesses to voluntarily decrease their production rates. Production capabilities are near limitless compared to consumption rate potential. Thus, the basic factors that encouraged government spending during the New Deal are the basic factors that made WWII production get the economy booming, and are the same basic factors which would mean a war right now would help the economy.

Please, I've done a lot of musing over how war helps economy on many posts, but do not think I don't realize the human factors in this equation. I do not mean to sound so cold about it.

BTW, while on the topic. Guess who was a BIG factor in the US decision to create and Air Cav for Vietnam - Bell, which had a shinny new cheap workhorse helicopter (the UH-60) to sell. Guess who most strongly advocates (read: pays lots of money in lobbying for) continued drug wars in Columbia - Bell. Guess who gets the contract for helicopter use in Afghanistan and any possible use in Iraq - Bell. Bell also advocated for more use of "combined arms" in Kosovo, of course. I'm not attacking Bell in particular - it makes some damned good helicopters, despite minor expected glitches every now and then.

I'm just trying to back up my assertion that big economic factors are at work.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Jorath Calar: quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: I agree that Sharon is a monster, but the difference is he was elected in a valid election by his on people while Saddom took power at the point of a gun. To me his isn't legitiment. In my book that right there, is cause enough to get rid of him. It kills me to hear people call him a LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT!!! ....

Neither was Bush!!! Okey maybe not from a point of a gun but those 2000 elections were really spooky

And by the way, Israel army is not defending their own land, they are defending a part of palestinian land they occupied in 1967, breaking just abut every peace contract there was about not moving civilans into occupied land. The palestinians are trying what they can to get back their own land.[/QUOTE]I believe I said they should abandon Gaza and The West Bank in an earlier post in this thread. There will be no peace until then. Of course that leaves the problem of Jeruselem. I think it should be declared an international city like the Vatican is.

One historical fact about Gaza and The West Bank. The Israelis didn't seize either area from the Palestians. At the time of Israeli occupation, Gaza was under the control of the Egyptians and The West Bank was under the control of the Jordanians. According to the UN mandate in 1948, I believe they were to have been under the control of Palestian people. That never happened.

[Timber Loftis]

Don't forget the Golan Heights.

And, in 67 Israel made a radical and daring move. Fearing invasion from all sides, led by Egypt, it preemptively struck, occupying huge amounts of the peninsula. When it pulled back, it retained the three areas of occupation.

From the late 60's point-of-view, I'm not so sure how I feel about it. Do you get to keep occupied land? I guess it depends on the state of international law at the time. I mean, what's Texas?

But all that is in the far past from the modern perspective of the region. At this point, there is little argument in the world that Israel should leave the occupied territories.