A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wow.

so this new "terrorist" guy from chicago- do you think really he's just a crazy guy who is Islamic, but now Islamic crazy people think about killing Jews. his first thought was go to the temple and kill someone in the parking lot-

The paper paints it like he's AQ, but really I think he's simply nutso. Like say if David Berkowitz was religion of peace, he would choose to kill maybe just Jewish couples instead of any couples. killing one person in a parking lot isn't really an AQ action, you know? Of course we're better with him gone.

I think he's just some asswipe lunatic looking for negative attention. The news is reporting that he had no link to any organized terror organization.

Bad luck for him that he picked the same day some other asswipe lunatic decides to kill three lawyers in Citicorp Center and that results in a complete shutdown of trains to half the Burbs and keeps planes circling over O'Hare for a couple hours. The city guy got all the media.

BTW, I don't think it's a cpoincidence that the lawyers who were killed were IP guys. Odd, it's usually only divorce lawyers who get shot here. Any thoughts?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
1. Fuck 'em. Israel won it and they're gonna keep it. You can argue whether it was right or wrong all you want, but that's where the Europeans decided to let "the Jew problem" settle itself, since it was easier than trying to repossess the land and personal property the Jews had been dispossessed of by the Nazis' decision to try and kill them all off.

So the Palestinians get to pay for the Nazis crimes? Europe couldn't and didn't want to repay the Jews for what they did to them, so the decided to make the Palestinians pay?

The US conquered Iraq. So following your logic, couldn't we keep it? So would it be OK for the US to expel the Arabs out of Iraq? We won it fairly and squarely in a war?

Originally posted by taxwonk 2. If you really believe that countries can't hold onto territory because they possessed it under hostile terms, when are you planning to give your house back to the Mexicans, so they can give it back to the Spaniards, so they can give it back to the Indians?

I am having trouble with your logic here. So are you saying it was OK for the US to grab land from Mexico, and it was OK for the US to ethnically cleanse the Indians so therefore it was OK for the Israelis to do what they did?

Or were those things were wrong, but since the US did wrong things in the nineteenth century the Israelis get to do wrong things too?

So what is it? It seems to me that those things were wrong and it is wrong that Israelis did what they did (and continues to do). Or those things were OK so it is OK that Israel did what it did?

So are you justifying ethnic cleansing?

Originally posted by taxwonk
3. Russia decided it was cheaper to simply turn Hungary, Yougolsavia, Romania, etc, into vassal states than it would be to occupy over the long haul.

So under your doctrine of: "if you win, you can take other peoples land" it would have been OK for Russia to hold Hungary and Romania to this day, and still not allowing the native populations to vote? Or if they wanted, they could have expelled the native populations of Romania and Hungary and replaced them with ethnic Russians?

Originally posted by taxwonk
4. On Iraq, we can't really move the Texans in until we move the troops out. And, well, we can't ever really move all the troops out. So I guess we'll be occupying Iraq for the idefinite future, but not with Texans.

What do you mean? Under your doctrine we don't have to move the troops out at all, ever. The Israelis never moved their troops out. We can just expel the Arabs in Baghdad and leave our troops there. And then fill the empty land with Texans. If the Arabs we just expelled start giving us trouble, we just conquer the land they moved to (maybe Syria), and then militarily occupy the land they have been pushed into so they don't give us anymore trouble about wanting their original homes and land back. How is that different from what the Israelis did?

Originally posted by taxwonk 5. When Israel kicks Arabs out of their territory, it really isn't ethnic cleansing or tribalism, so much as a recognition that they can't trust them and can't police them. Anyway, they have the whole rest of the Middle East to settle in, so....

Isn't that ethnic cleansing and aren't you just giving excuses for ethnic cleansing? It seems to fit the definition to me: expelling the native population because of their race (and religion), and replacing the population with people from somewhere else who are of another religion and race. When the Serbians tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo couldn't they have made the same argument you made? The Albanians can't be trusted and they couldn’t police them? And besides the Serbians could have argued that the Albanians they were expelling could go live in Albania or the rest of Europe.

Originally posted by taxwonk
6. Once again, fuck 'em.

(the new, pragmatic) Taxwonk

The power of your intellect is truly dazzling. That sort of logic is very persuasive.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think he's just some asswipe lunatic looking for negative attention. The news is reporting that he had no link to any organized terror organization.

Bad luck for him that he picked the same day some other asswipe lunatic decides to kill three lawyers in Citicorp Center and that results in a complete shutdown of trains to half the Burbs and keeps planes circling over O'Hare for a couple hours. The city guy got all the media.

BTW, I don't think it's a cpoincidence that the lawyers who were killed were IP guys. Odd, it's usually only divorce lawyers who get shot here. Any thoughts?

link to citicorp please

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The failure of the EU constituent countries to even come close to voting in favor of a Constitution was its death knell. It's only going to get worse from here.

I just read in the economist today that Finland became the sixteenth country to rafity the EU constitution (out of twenty five). So far just France and the Netherlands haven't ratified. It looks like six of the other seven left are gong to ratify. That will put a little pressure on the Netherlands and France.

Didn't some states turn down the US constitution? The US constitution allowed for some supermajority instead of unanimous consent for the Constitution to become the law of the land (and superceding the Articles of Confederation), when the controlling legal authority of the time, the Articles of Confederation, called for unanimous consent for any amendments or changes to those articles. Maybe they will pull some such legal trickery in Europe to get in their constitution?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the Palestinians get to pay for the Nazis crimes? Europe couldn't and didn't want to repay the Jews for what they did to them, so the decided to make the Palestinians pay?

The US conquered Iraq. So following your logic, couldn't we keep it? So would it be OK for the US to expel the Arabs out of Iraq? We won it fairly and squarely in a war?

I am tired of theory and circular argument, Spanky. In theory, it was wrong for Israel to expel Arabs from Israel. Big fucking deal. It was wrong for the Baylonians, the Romans, and the Muslims to expel the Israelites from Israel.

So what. I agree it was wrong. You keep casting for an argument so you can be a snarky self-satisfied putz by arguing in cirlces until whoever you've set your sights on gets tired and walks away. I'm not playing.

Propose a solution or let it go.

I am having trouble with your logic here. So are you saying it was OK for the US to grab land from Mexico, and it was OK for the US to ethnically cleanse the Indians so therefore it was OK for the Israelis to do what they did?

Or were those things were wrong, but since the US did wrong things in the nineteenth century the Israelis get to do wrong things too?

So what is it? It seems to me that those things were wrong and it is wrong that Israelis did what they did (and continues to do). Or those things were OK so it is OK that Israel did what it did?

No. It's not okay; it's just the way it is. Find a way to fix or stop harping on it.

So are you justifying ethnic cleansing?

Don't be an asshat.

So under your doctrine of: "if you win, you can take other peoples land" it would have been OK for Russia to hold Hungary and Romania to this day, and still not allowing the native populations to vote? Or if they wanted, they could have expelled the native populations of Romania and Hungary and replaced them with ethnic Russians?

I don't have your over-weening sense of self-importance. I don't announce doctrines.

What do you mean? Under your doctrine we don't have to move the troops out at all, ever. The Israelis never moved their troops out. We can just expel the Arabs in Baghdad and leave our troops there. And then fill the empty land with Texans. If the Arabs we just expelled start giving us trouble, we just conquer the land they moved to (maybe Syria), and then militarily occupy the land they have been pushed into so they don't give us anymore trouble about wanting their original homes and land back. How is that different from what the Israelis did?

My point here is very simple. We need so many troops over there that there's no room for resettlement even if that was our goal. But of course it isn't, and you know it isn't, so stop being an asshole.

Isn't that ethnic cleansing and aren't you just giving excuses for ethnic cleansing? It seems to fit the definition to me: expelling the native population because of their race (and religion), and replacing the population with people from somewhere else who are of another religion and race. When the Serbians tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo couldn't they have made the same argument you made? The Albanians can't be trusted and they couldn’t police them? And besides the Serbians could have argued that the Albanians they were expelling could go live in Albania or the rest of Europe.

Again, it was wrong in Kosovo. So what. How is that helping find a solution to the Israel problem. Until you have a solution that might actually be workable and politically acceptable, you can keep jerking off intellectually. I think your argument is sophistry and your arrogance seriously unwarranted. I'm not playing anymore.

The power of your intellect is truly dazzling. That sort of logic is very persuasive.

I wasn't trying to persuade. You haven't shown me that you can be persuaded of anything by reason or logic. You don't have the equipment and I have neither the interest nor the time.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
link to citicorp please

Here you go. Apparently he was upset because he felt he had been cheated over his invention, a toilet for use by truckers, that he had sought help in patenting by one of the victims.

[Spanky]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
link to citicorp please

One of those toilet IP situations.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I am tired of theory and circular argument, Spanky. In theory, it was wrong for Israel to expel Arabs from Israel. Big fucking deal. It was wrong for the Baylonians, the Romans, and the Muslims to expel the Israelites from Israel.

And it was wrong for Jordan and Egypt not to let them back in.

And its wrong for Arabs to be clamoring about the "evil" Jews when in their own countries, women can't read or leave the house without their heads covered, lest the "police" throw acid in their face.

And its wrong for Carter, Baker, et al (and the other men who have outlived their usefulness) to even suggest we "talk" to Iran, when right at this very moment they are hosting an international conference to determine whether the Holocaust "really occurred".

To this day, Arabs have more rights in the "Zionist Entity" then jews are allowed in any other Arab state.

To rephrase an old saw - "If the Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace in the Middle East. If the Jews lay down their arms, all the Jews will be dead."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I am tired of theory and circular argument, Spanky. In theory, it was wrong for Israel to expel Arabs from Israel. Big fucking deal. It was wrong for the Baylonians, the Romans, and the Muslims to expel the Israelites from Israel.

You don't think admitting that what happened was wrong would be a giant step in the "peace negotiations", and I giant step for Israel and the United States for developing a realistic middle east policy?

Originally posted by taxwonk So what. I agree it was wrong. You keep casting for an argument so you can be a snarky self-satisfied putz by arguing in cirlces until whoever you've set your sights on gets tired and walks away. I'm not playing.

I think that is what they call in the psychological world as projecting. You just agreed it was wrong. (and people on this board claim that no one is ever persuaded to change their minds). The only snarky thing here is you showing zero class when shown the fallacy of your arguments. Instead of responding, "you have a good point there" you respond to my posts by admitting the point I was trying to make and then calling me names and going off on irrational rants because you feel bad about having to admit you were wrong.

Originally posted by taxwonk Propose a solution or let it go.

(Kind of like what we should do in Iraq? Instead of focusing on how "Bush Lied", or what mistakes were made, we should try and find the optimal solution to the problem? Realize that maybe failure is unacceptable, and we need to do whatever it takes to succeed because failure would result in such a catastrophe for our interests? But I digress)

As I have said on this board many times, the solution is either they complete the ethnic cleansing job they started and create a strategically defendable nation or throw in the towel.

In other words, expel the Arabs from the Gaza strip and the West Bank or give up. Israel, without the West Bank is just not defensible militarily. It is also not feasible to occupy a people indefinitely. People seem to see this in Iraq but don't see it in Israel.

The reason why it is important that people realize the Palestinians have been totally screwed here is that it would stop the denial that leads to absurd policies and hopes. The Palestinians are never going to agree that what happened is OK or going to accept the nation of Israel. As long as people are in denial about what happened to the Palestinians, they will keep expecting the Palestinians to see the light, and accept Israel, and become happy neighbors that will want to work with the Israelis.

There is this delusion among the Israelis that somehow the Arabs will somehow see the light that the ethnic cleansing of their land was really just and moral. This ludicrous thinking is shown in the fact that no one is even allowed to talk about a "right of return". These people don't have a moral or legal right to return to their homes? The Israelis and many Americans think that if the Palestinians just understand the subject well enough, or see the logic, and see through the propaganda they have been feed, the Palestinians will understand that the ethnic cleansing was OK? And Woodward says Bush is in Denial.

The only way to prevent Jewish Holocaust part Two is for Israel to expel the Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, put up a huge wall around Israel, prevent border crossings and develop an effective missile defense system. Otherwise Israel is doomed.

Originally posted by taxwonk
No. It's not okay; it's just the way it is. Find a way to fix or stop harping on it.'

I only "harp" on it because you were tyring to defend what Israel did on moral grounds. And of course what you call "harp" is me pointing out the flaw in your logic. I showed the error of you reasoning, and now you agree with me. Why all the complaining?

Originally posted by taxwonk
Don't be an asshat.

Because I made you admit the truth?

Originally posted by taxwonk

I don't have your over-weening sense of self-importance. I don't announce doctrines.

I would say that your response to my post shows the opposite. The fact that you threw such a tantrum before admitting that what happened to the Palestinians was morally questionable, shows quite a lot of arrogance. It’s an over-weaning sense of self-importance, and some weird insecure sense, that prevents you from admitting when you are wrong.

Originally posted by taxwonk
My point here is very simple. We need so many troops over there that there's no room for resettlement even if that was our goal. But of course it isn't, and you know it isn't, so stop being an asshole.

What is with you and name calling? You say that I realize what you are arguing but pretend I don't. That might make some sense if you made an argument that made any sense at all. What does this mean: "We need so many troops over there that there's no room for resettlement even if that was our goal". Uh?

Originally posted by taxwonk
Again, it was wrong in Kosovo. So what. How is that helping find a solution to the Israel problem. Until you have a solution that might actually be workable and politically acceptable, you can keep jerking off intellectually. I think your argument is sophistry and your arrogance seriously unwarranted. I'm not playing anymore.

What arrogance? I am on posting on the politics board, making a point and backing it logically. If making a cogent argument is arrogant, well then you caught me. I don't get you, I make a cogent argument, you make inconsistent arguments, contradict yourself, make illogical statements like F-em and calling me an a-hole, snarky and arrogant and yet I am the one with a problem? Do you and NCS find common ground a lot?

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't trying to persuade. You haven't shown me that you can be persuaded of anything by reason or logic. You don't have the equipment and I have neither the interest nor the time.

You are using reason and logic. F-em, is reason and logic? Please.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And it was wrong for Jordan and Egypt not to let them back in.

What do you mean here?

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore And its wrong for Arabs to be clamoring about the "evil" Jews when in their own countries, women can't read or leave the house without their heads covered, lest the "police" throw acid in their face.

Come on Slave. So the US can't complain about the lack of democracy in Iran because we have ghettos? You can still make judgments about other people's immorality if you are not perfect.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore And its wrong for Carter, Baker, et al (and the other men who have outlived their usefulness) to even suggest we "talk" to Iran, when right at this very moment they are hosting an international conference to determine whether the Holocaust "really occurred".

I think it is wrong that they suggest that we talk to Iran because 1) it is clear Iran wants us to fail so the talks would accomplish nothing, and 2) if we go to them hat in hand it will make it harder for us to intimidate them into giving up their nuclear program. A program, which if successful, will eventually lead to a radioactive wasteland where Tel Aviv used to be.

The irony is that Iraq and Israel are largely unrelated. A peace treaty with the Israelis is not going to change the Iraq situation. The only way the two are related, is that if we have to make concessions to the Iranians to elicit their support, we endanger Israel’s existence.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore To this day, Arabs have more rights in the "Zionist Entity" then jews are allowed in any other Arab state.

This is true. But they still are forced to live in a "Jewish state", a state defined by ethnicity and religion, when they are neither religiously or ethnically Jewish, and they are living in an area their family has occupied for many centuries.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore To rephrase an old saw - "If the Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace in the Middle East. If the Jews lay down their arms, all the Jews will be dead."

This is true. But if you were a Palestinian would you want peace? Sometimes, if the price of peace is accepting the status quo, then peace is not worth it. Don't you agree that that was the status with Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

If you were living in a refugee camp because your family had been ethnically cleansed out of its ancestral homeland that they had occupied for hundreds of years because of their race and religion, and some immigrants of another race and religion were now occupying your homeland, would you want peace if it meant preserving the status quo? Or if you and your neighbors were being occupied by a foreign power would you want peace if it meant keeping the status quo? If you were in either of these situations, and you had absolutely no hope of improving your situation, wouldn't you be tempted to strap on some bombs and attack the people who took your homes or were occupying your land?

To expect the Arabs to want or choose peace (that can be trusted) is beyond naive.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And its wrong for Carter, Baker, et al (and the other men who have outlived their usefulness) to even suggest we "talk" to Iran, when right at this very moment they are hosting an international conference to determine whether the Holocaust "really occurred".

Wrong. You need to talk to your enemies as much or more than your friends. That doesn't mean you let the need to talk force you into inappropriate concessions, and it doesn't mean you ever necessarily agree on much, but if you don't talk you won't resolve much short of war.

To do otherwise is a fourth-grade approach to diplomacy and foreign policy which has been one of this Administration's great weaknesses. Think about it? Should Reagan have refused to talk to the Soviets? And we talked to worse (if that is possible) under both RR's administration and his successors.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
[Spanky]

Ok, Hank -- I see it now.

Spanky really is arguing just to argue.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Spanky really is arguing just to argue.

Are you saying that because my positions don't fit into one of your neat and preconceived ideological boxes?

Are you saying that because instead of most people on this board, I actually don't agree with the same people all the time?

Are you saying that because my posts are often contrary to the conventional wisdom?

Are you saying that because I take positions that I know will offend people?

Are you saying that because I take positions that will almost certainly get me accused (unfairly in my opinion) of being racist, sexist or uncaring of the poor and disadvantaged?

Are you saying that because you don't think I don't explain the reasoning behind my positions?

What position am I taking or line of reasoning am I positing that you think I couldn't possibly really subscribe to?

[Gattigap]

I'm not familiar with this David Rothkopf guy, but he's written an op-ed in today's WaPo on Iraq, the Middle East and US foreign policy in the region (past and present) that is long, insightful, depressing, and sounds about right. I recommend it.

It advocates neither cutting and running nor bombing Tehran into glass, though, so YMMV.

Gattigap