Al Gore win Nobel Peace Prize

[RashanGary]

All I'm saying is both sides could afford some chilling the hell out. The Jews are so damn stubborn about the land that they think god gave them that they are willing to go through this silly ongoing fight. The palestinians just got their land stolen 50 years ago, so they might still be a little bitter about it. It wasn't exactly a peacefull overtaking.


Do you really think the evil, empire building, colonizing, oppressing world has gone on for this long and now we're the great gods of goodness in the new world? I think you forget how we got this place. We're not gods of goodness. We're looking out for our interests the same way they are looking out for theirs. I'm OK with it. I'd rather it be us than them controlling the world and enjoying the riches. Be honest with yourself though. We're not the chosen people doing gods work over here. That would be human nature to assume that. I'm sure the Muslims think they are doing the same thing. Who's right? The winner will determine that untill the next uprising.

Let's hope it's us because I don't want to be praying to ala while I pick cotton for Osama Bin Laden. I'd rather see them struggle in poverty while 8% of our population revels in millionaire status and the rest have a good shot at getting it. Worst case here, you live a comfortable life with enough food, internet and TV to keep you busy with no real worries. I'm not ready to give what we have up. I'm sure they're ready to take it and spread their version of goodness (which probably greatly favors their people)

The world of tranferring powers will continue on forever. Let's try to keep it in our hands so our kids can enjoy the good life the way we have. Us having everything and everyone else having nothing isn't some act of kindness. It's an act of self serving motives, just like it's always been and always will be. Enjoy it, we're on top for the time being.

Ultimately, that's why I'll vote conservative. They are worried about the good of us. Libs are too concerned with other people. It's easy to be all good and kind when you think it can never be taken away. If those pussy's have control for too long, we'll lose control and I gaurantee Osama wouldn't be so fucking concerned for the poor American citizens. IT's a dog eat dog world. Bush has that much figured out.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, I don't get why you are being so argumentive.

Any honest person recognizes that the Palestineans took it up the butt in the 1940's. What do you suppose the right of return issue is about? That was certainly a war, even if saying the Jews (and that term is perfectly descriptive) declared war on the Arabs is inaccurate. The Arabs would see the formation of Israel as an act of war.

I don't think I'm being argumentative.

The term Palestinians is pretty misleading. They weren't a real entity back in the 1800s when the first aliyah started. You are acting like there were no jews there. There were plenty. They had been resettling the area from the spanish inquistion on. Whole communities of northern euro jewry relocated to palestine. By the end of ww2 palestine is 1/3 third jew.

Second, the idea of a jewish state started around ww1. The proposal was for 2 states.

Third, the arabs or whatever you want to call them didn't have a country..it wasnt' theirs. So, nothing was taken from them.

War: then let them declare it on the british or the league of nations or the UN. They are the culprits.

Finally, while their are certainly atrocities on both sides...lets get serious. Starting with the riots in 1920, the Jaffa riots which despite the idea of arabs/jews living together in the Soviet Union of Palestine somehow led to murder of jews, the arab revolt of 39 which led the british to cap jewish immigration, etc.

The U.N. declared two countries with jerusalem being an international city. 5 arab countries then attacked. I make no mention of palestinians because they weren't a country..just a bunch of loosely affiliated arabs.

Some arabs left, others stayed. But, there was no direct policy by the gov't of kicking out arabs or attacking those living in Israel.

[RashanGary]

There is a big world pie. My goal of selecting governemnt is voting for the group of people who will give us the biggest piece possible whatever it takes. Vote conservative if you want more. Vote lib if you want to be kind and sweet to the world only to find out they aren't so kind and sweet when they get on top.

[RashanGary]

You are right that it was British controlled, and then Britain so admirable backed out (out of kindness and gods work of course) (they controlled it in the name of god too, we whiteys are the worlds good doers of course and all of it is in the name of the generous Jesus. We can do no wrong)

When they backed out, Jews were coming off some pretty attrocious shit. Makes sense to give them the better end of the deal. If I was getting the raw end, it wouldn't make me feel any better about it though.

This is a Jew / Muslim thing though. If you don't associate Israel with Jew then you are naive.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

All I'm saying is both sides could afford some chilling the hell out. The Jews are so damn stubborn about the land that they think god gave them that they are willing to go through this silly ongoing fight. The palestinians just got their land stolen 50 years ago, so they might still be a little bitter about it. It wasn't exactly a peacefull overtaking.


Do you really think the evil, empire building, colonizing, oppressing world has gone on for this long and now we're the great gods of goodness in the new world? I think you forget how we got this place. We're not gods of goodness. We're looking out for our interests the same way they are looking out for theirs. I'm OK with it. I'd rather it be us than them controlling the world and enjoying the riches. Be honest with yourself though. We're not the chosen people doing gods work over here. That would be human nature to assume that. I'm sure the Muslims think they are doing the same thing. Who's right? The winner will determine that untill the next uprising.

Let's hope it's us because I don't want to be praying to ala while I pick cotton for Osama Bin Laden. I'd rather see them struggle in poverty while 8% of our population revels in millionaire status and the rest have a good shot at getting it. Worst case here, you live a comfortable life with enough food, internet and TV to keep you busy with no real worries. I'm not ready to give what we have up. I'm sure they're ready to take it and spread their version of goodness (which probably greatly favors their people)

The world of tranferring powers will continue on forever. Let's try to keep it in our hands so our kids can enjoy the good life the way we have. Us having everything and everyone else having nothing isn't some act of kindness. It's an act of self serving motives, just like it's always been and always will be. Enjoy it, we're on top for the time being.

Ultimately, that's why I'll vote conservative. They are worried about the good of us. Libs are too concerned with other people. It's easy to be all good and kind when you think it can never be taken away. If those pussy's have control for too long, we'll lose control and I gaurantee Osama wouldn't be so fucking concerned for the poor American citizens. IT's a dog eat dog world. Bush has that much figured out.

Dude, very few jews are basing anything on the bible. That is just ridiculous. Only orthodox jews would say anything like that.

That would be akin to talking about america and manifest destiny today. Sure a few right wing loons who believe in british-israelism might believe it, but pretty much every sane judeo/christian doesn't.

Palestinians: There were no such people until after the declaration of Israel. That is a joke. A bunch of disparate tribes aren't a people. That would be like calling all the native americans indians and thinking that they all want to live together. Palestinian identity has never been an exclusive one..with Arabism, religion, and local loyalties all playing a part.

Granted, the idea of a palestinian people started in the 20s, but it really the term came to signify not only a place of origin but shared past and future after the 48 exudus and 67 exudus.

The term palestinian was coined by the brits and used for anyone regardless of race,creed or color who lived in that area. So, any christian or jew living there is a palestinian.

Ask yourself what exactly is a palestinian. They ask themselves that and can't come to an agreement.

Of course it wasn't peaceful. The arabs attacked. The Israelis defended themselves. Note that i say arab, not palestinian.

goodness: of course not. That is why i can't even fathom why you would vote for bush/conservative. You are just about ensuring that we would have more strife.

It is in our best interests to promote fairness and equality for everyone. We get to sell them products, etc. Keeping ourselves rich ensures poverty and destitution for others..which only breeds contempt for us and terrorism.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are right that it was British controlled, and then Britain so admirable backed out (out of kindness and gods work of course) (they controlled it in the name of god too, we whiteys are the worlds good doers of course and all of it is in the name of the generous Jesus. We can do no wrong)

When they backed out, Jews were coming off some pretty attrocious shit. Makes sense to give them the better end of the deal. If I was getting the raw end, it wouldn't make me feel any better about it though.

This is a Jew / Muslim thing though. If you don't associate Israel with Jew then you are naive.

God: Give it a rest. The british empire was hardly conquering in the name of the lord. This isn't spain in the new world. I understand your point, but it isn't applicable here.

Deal: The U.N. constructed 2 states..no one got a better deal. The mandate to create a jewish homeland started way before "attrocious" shit happened.

It is hardly a jew/muslim thing. I know more muslims and jews than you. Jews and muslims are cousins. That is a convenient excuse that right wing muslims and jews use. Moreso muslims. The great majority of arabs just want to live in peace today. The palestinian/israel issue is hardly one of religion. It may be something Syria, etc. use to whip up their people into a frenzy, but Arafat, etc. never couched their conflict as being religious.

The arabs..not palestinians woulda objected just as hard to a christian state.

Israel is of course a jewish country...though, more or equal amounts of arabs than jews currently. But, to say jews did this or that is erroneous. Call them Israeli jews, isreali, etc.

Or i guess since america is a christian country it would be fair to say that christians declared war on Iraq?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think I'm being argumentative.

The term Palestinians is pretty misleading. They weren't a real entity back in the 1800s when the first aliyah started. You are acting like there were no jews there.

you are defending the right of Isreal to exist when nobody has challenged this. I know Zionism goes back to 1800's, that really doesn't change anything.

but that's ok, get it off your chest.

Some arabs left, others stayed. But, there was no direct policy by the gov't of kicking out arabs or attacking those living in Israel.

I suppose this is true in the same sense that American Indians were free to hang around and integrate peacebly with white settlers.

The Palestineans were encouraged to flee, no doubt about this. Not through official government policy, perhaps.

By the same token, the lingering Palestineans have been treated well within Israel.

I admire the Israelis, they have the most dynamic democracy in the world. And I like to argue so much, I feel like an honorary Jew.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't think I'm being argumentative.

The term Palestinians is pretty misleading. They weren't a real entity back in the 1800s when the first aliyah started. You are acting like there were no jews there.

you are defending the right of Isreal to exist when nobody has challenged this. I know Zionism goes back to 1800's, that really doesn't change anything.

but that's ok, get it off your chest.

Some arabs left, others stayed. But, there was no direct policy by the gov't of kicking out arabs or attacking those living in Israel.

I suppose this is true in the same sense that American Indians were free to hang around and integrate peacebly with white settlers.

The Palestineans were encouraged to flee, no doubt about this. Not through official government policy, perhaps.

By the same token, the lingering Palestineans have been treated well within Israel.

I admire the Israelis, they have the most dynamic democracy in the world. And I like to argue so much, I feel like an honorary Jew.

No, i'm not justifying an existence. I'm talking about a people. The idea that there was this homogenous, unified people called palestinians is ridiculous. Just as pan-arabism proposed by Nasser was ridiculous.

Do you remember Pan arabism. LOL Or do you remember when pan arabism was a solid foundation of the palestinian movement.

Flee: Not really. Of course their are gonna be bad seeds on both sides. But, only 3/4 of a mill left. Most stayed and were treated decently.

Poor analogy with indians. It would be better to have used french or spanish.

In theory they have full citizenship rights. In practice they suffer extensive discrimination, ranging from denial of land use, diminished job opportunities and lesser social benefits. But, that is no different than any minority in any country. We could be talking about turks in germany.

Honary Jew: Excellent. Will you be growing horns and killing christian babies to make your matzoh you hooked nose jew bastard.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The idea that there was this homogenous, unified people called palestinians is ridiculous.

no, not ridiculous. they're A-rabs with some regional distinctions. Traditionally the best educated people in the Arab world. They have as much claim to nationality as Lybians, or Yemenis, or Shitte Iraqis.

Just as pan-arabism proposed by Nasser was ridiculous .

You just got done saying "You seen one A-rab, you seen um all" and now you are mocking the notion that Arabs might see themselves as one people.
Maybe ridiculous in that it didn't pan-out, no pun in intended. But no more ridiculous than any other fucking nation. Why, I feel a song coming on:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Flee: Not really. Of course their are gonna be bad seeds on both sides. But, only 3/4 of a mill left. Most stayed and were treated decently.

Great! Then Israel should have no problem allowing full right of return to all displaced Palestineans.

Poor analogy with indians. It would be better to have used french or spanish.

Well, whatever it was, I think it's more productive to recognize the bitter sense of injustice on the part of the Palestineans than to deny it. You are obviously reading out of a history book that is very generous to the Israelis. There are very different interpretations that reasonable, honest people have made.

In theory they have full citizenship rights. In practice they suffer extensive discrimination, ranging from denial of land use, diminished job opportunities and lesser social benefits. But, that is no different than any minority in any country. We could be talking about turks in germany.

I don't know exactly what it is like to be an Arab in Israel. But I know they are doing well economically relative to other countries. And the Israeli courts seem very independent and fair, I often read about rulings favoring Arabs.
The Arab political parties are informally discriminated against. Israeli governments will never include Arab parties unless they already have a Jewish parlimentary majority. It's an unwritten rule that keeps the Arabs from ever having important influence. But I expect that will change some day, after all the percentage of Arabs in Israel keeps rising.

[RashanGary]

This is another subject, but I love how people appologize and justify the European colonization of most of the world, but get their panties in a bunch when Muslims want to do the same thing.

I'm all about stopping those overreligious bastards from taking over the world, but they aren't some EVIL hate group like nothing the world has ever seen. They fit pretty nicely into the pattern that has been going on as long as history has been recorded. We only see how good and rightious we are and the only reason we are good and rightious is because we have nothing to gain by fighting to take something. We have everything we want and need right now. It's very easy to play the "we're morally superior to you" card when we have everything and they have nothing.

I'm not proposing giving anything to anyone. In fact, I like my life and if we have to oppress a few Arabs to keep it, I don't mind. I know they'd do it to us if they had the chance. I have an issue with those who talk about these war groups like they are the devil and we are doing gods work over here. Puh-leez, them trying to take over the world is no more evil than what has been going on since the beginning of recorded history. It's great that we are fighting to keep what we have, all the great empires held it as long as they could. However, those taking over the empires are rarely looked at as evil. They are usually looked at as playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

[mraynrand]

goodness: of course not. That is why i can't even fathom why you would vote for bush/conservative. You are just about ensuring that we would have more strife.

It is in our best interests to promote fairness and equality for everyone. We get to sell them products, etc. Keeping ourselves rich ensures poverty and destitution for others..which only breeds contempt for us and terrorism.

At least Ty knowns his Mideast history. I don't agree with your assessment about conservatives and strife, at least in relation to the future of the Mideast. If you look at what's gone on at State under Rice, she's really driven out the uber-conservatives, in particular the so called 'neo-cons.' The State department is going to push for a two state solution, and I don't think that will change at all with either HillBilly or Giuliani in the White House.

But I completely disagree on the 'keep us rich' ensuring poverty and destitution for others, etc. The ideological battle is not over wealth and exploitation - many of the terrorists that have attacked the U.S., U.S. interests, and the west in general have been very well-educated, well-off or even extremely wealthy people. Sure, they will rile the poor as a mechanism to create or expand unrest, but really, it's an idealogical battle, not an issue of poverty and destitution. The creation of hatred for the west comes from a concerted propaganda machine that works like a self-propagating loop relying on isolation and insulation - so it can work even in the heart of France, England the Netherlands, etc. where Islamic cultures become walled off from the surrounding culture. In some examples, it's not even propaganda - Islamic leaders just point to the extremes of western culture (pornography in particular) and their followers instinctively know that the west is corrupt. Isolation prevents them from seeing any mitigating evidence. In cases where they interact with the best of the west (such as our military in Iraq), they probably get a completely different idea about Americans and the west. But those encounters are too few.

With respect to business, I think a lot of what looks like exploitation to us, looks like opportunity to other countries and the people in those countries. The problem is that business has no ethics, and so isn't necessarily linked with the best American values. A lot of these big, multinational companies would effectively sell their grandmothers if they thought they could get a better deal. Still, free markets are better than the alternative, but we still have to make sure that Free Markets are as Fair as possible. But I think it's a mistake to argue that U.S. companies trying to make a cheap buck results in destitution. Even though some exploitation occurs, the overall result is a 'rising waters lifts all boats' effect. We just have to do a better job of preventing exploitation without crippling the markets.

[RashanGary]

The nutty leaders may have some crazy ideas drummed up by some literal interperatation of "insert Holy Book", but the mass following that usually accompanies war is poverty driven.


Poverty = Misery = "WHY US" = Lean on God = suseptable to doing anything in gods name = about half of all wars

Take away desperation and poverty and you get a bunch of good doers. Add in desperation and severe poverty and people start acting a little different. NOt to say the leaders aren't just crazy to begin with, but the mass following is usually driven by poverty, making the crazy leader seem less crazy to all.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The idea that there was this homogenous, unified people called palestinians is ridiculous.

no, not ridiculous. they're A-rabs with some regional distinctions. Traditionally the best educated people in the Arab world. They have as much claim to nationality as Lybians, or Yemenis, or Shitte Iraqis.

Just as pan-arabism proposed by Nasser was ridiculous .

You just got done saying "You seen one A-rab, you seen um all" and now you are mocking the notion that Arabs might see themselves as one people.
Maybe ridiculous in that it didn't pan-out, no pun in intended. But no more ridiculous than any other fucking nation. Why, I feel a song coming on:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Flee: Not really. Of course their are gonna be bad seeds on both sides. But, only 3/4 of a mill left. Most stayed and were treated decently.

Great! Then Israel should have no problem allowing full right of return to all displaced Palestineans.

Poor analogy with indians. It would be better to have used french or spanish.

Well, whatever it was, I think it's more productive to recognize the bitter sense of injustice on the part of the Palestineans than to deny it. You are obviously reading out of a history book that is very generous to the Israelis. There are very different interpretations that reasonable, honest people have made.

In theory they have full citizenship rights. In practice they suffer extensive discrimination, ranging from denial of land use, diminished job opportunities and lesser social benefits. But, that is no different than any minority in any country. We could be talking about turks in germany.

I don't know exactly what it is like to be an Arab in Israel. But I know they are doing well economically relative to other countries. And the Israeli courts seem very independent and fair, I often read about rulings favoring Arabs.
The Arab political parties are informally discriminated against. Israeli governments will never include Arab parties unless they already have a Jewish parlimentary majority. It's an unwritten rule that keeps the Arabs from ever having important influence. But I expect that will change some day, after all the percentage of Arabs in Israel keeps rising.

1. Sorry, but palenstians aren't a group. They don't have much a common history, etc. They didn't share common beliefs, religion etc.

Saying they are all arabs means nothing. That is like saying germans and french should unite as they are all (pick one) white, christian, euro, etc.

You say they are all arabs, yet that is my point. All arabs aren't the same. If so, why do they need their own country.

2. Somehow you missed my point and got it all wrong. I'm saying the exact opposite. All the arabs are different. My point would be that palestinians should be allowed to come back to israel, but if you think they shoud get a country based on their shared heritage, etc then that is wacky. If you want to give them a country..no problem with that here. But, to tell me it is because the are a displaced "people" not a chance. If you were to tell me that you were creating several small countries for each sub pali group i'd be with that as well.

Calling all these arabs who lived in palestine (an arbitrary country at best...like most of that world that the euro's created) as one cohesive group is like saying that all the people who lived in Iraq a cohesive group.

3. Well, nice of you to not address the point and use it to further a different agenda. I don't think you'd find many israeli's opposed to any palestinian living in israel as peaceful citizen.

4. Injustice. There have been abuses on both sides. However, there is no way that you can spin it that the jews living on that soil since the 1600s started the violence.

There were those who were united against the british/turks and viewed palestinians as their ally.

There were those that started terrorist organizations as a reaction to violence against themselves.

As I have written, most of the violence perpetrated against the jews in pali/israel weren't palestinians.

I have no problem addressing the wrongs of the past. But, to place them strictly on israel is ridiculous. It wasn't israel that forced Balfour document, etc.

And, if it wasn't for ridiculous leaders on both sides it would have been solved long ago. Course, the palistinian leadership has been worse than the israeli. And, you have other arab leaders who purposely sabotage the process.

As said many times, the palestinians have never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

goodness: of course not. That is why i can't even fathom why you would vote for bush/conservative. You are just about ensuring that we would have more strife.

It is in our best interests to promote fairness and equality for everyone. We get to sell them products, etc. Keeping ourselves rich ensures poverty and destitution for others..which only breeds contempt for us and terrorism.

At least Ty knowns his Mideast history. I don't agree with your assessment about conservatives and strife, at least in relation to the future of the Mideast. If you look at what's gone on at State under Rice, she's really driven out the uber-conservatives, in particular the so called 'neo-cons.' The State department is going to push for a two state solution, and I don't think that will change at all with either HillBilly or Giuliani in the White House.

But I completely disagree on the 'keep us rich' ensuring poverty and destitution for others, etc. The ideological battle is not over wealth and exploitation - many of the terrorists that have attacked the U.S., U.S. interests, and the west in general have been very well-educated, well-off or even extremely wealthy people. Sure, they will rile the poor as a mechanism to create or expand unrest, but really, it's an idealogical battle, not an issue of poverty and destitution. The creation of hatred for the west comes from a concerted propaganda machine that works like a self-propagating loop relying on isolation and insulation - so it can work even in the heart of France, England the Netherlands, etc. where Islamic cultures become walled off from the surrounding culture. In some examples, it's not even propaganda - Islamic leaders just point to the extremes of western culture (pornography in particular) and their followers instinctively know that the west is corrupt. Isolation prevents them from seeing any mitigating evidence. In cases where they interact with the best of the west (such as our military in Iraq), they probably get a completely different idea about Americans and the west. But those encounters are too few.

With respect to business, I think a lot of what looks like exploitation to us, looks like opportunity to other countries and the people in those countries. The problem is that business has no ethics, and so isn't necessarily linked with the best American values. A lot of these big, multinational companies would effectively sell their grandmothers if they thought they could get a better deal. Still, free markets are better than the alternative, but we still have to make sure that Free Markets are as Fair as possible. But I think it's a mistake to argue that U.S. companies trying to make a cheap buck results in destitution. Even though some exploitation occurs, the overall result is a 'rising waters lifts all boats' effect. We just have to do a better job of preventing exploitation without crippling the markets.

Rand,

I wrote quickly and therefore didn't really say what i meant to say.

By no means am i advocating that we can't stay rich and happy. But, a policy designed to keep us rich while keeping others poor is tragic.

While i agree that there is a propaganda machine, you are missing the key point. People that are well off (fat and happy) are way less susceptible to that kind of proganda. Furthermore I wasn't targeting that section of the world. It doesn't matter where you are. If there are poor destitute people they are a target for: communism, terrorism...basically any "negative" ism you choose.

Look, in our country we have the KKK. While there are plenty of upper middle class white folks who aren't to keen on minorities very few join that org our fall sway to other radical white supremacy orgs. Why? Education, but also because they are doing well. You can't preach about how minorities are taking your job, ruining this country when your base is happy, wealthy and driving a kick ass car. While you may get some, you don't build a base on these people.

The people who fall sway to this are those whose lives suck.

Exploitation: well, you and i are basically on the same page. I'm just a bit more cynical/realistic than you. I do think they exploit, and i'm not sure about the rising waters. i don't see much progress for the average person in oil producing countries. The progress comes from a benevolent leader...but, that is just vested self interest.

The problem, and i do blame this on the repubs..starting with Reagan...has been a very hands off policy towards biz, especially in regards to litigation. There are almost no monopoly cases anymore..and there are companies that should be taken to task over this. There are no real penalties for bad/borderline behavior (shell companies, not paying taxes, etc.).

Looking at this current admin...not one company has been taken to court over Iraq...missing money, overcharging, fraudelent charging, etc. That is a travesty. We as taxpayers are lining the pockets of somebody.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The nutty leaders may have some crazy ideas drummed up by some literal interperatation of "insert Holy Book", but the mass following that usually accompanies war is poverty driven.


Poverty = Misery = "WHY US" = Lean on God = suseptable to doing anything in gods name = about half of all wars

Take away desperation and poverty and you get a bunch of good doers. Add in desperation and severe poverty and people start acting a little different. NOt to say the leaders aren't just crazy to begin with, but the mass following is usually driven by poverty, making the crazy leader seem less crazy to all.

Yes, exactly.