GamePlayer wrote:Sarcasm about our newest politically correct northern territory? I'll have None-of-it! Nunavut, I say!
Wah-Wah-Waaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Moderators: Omphalos, Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
You are not seeing nearly far enough ahead here. This would be a possible scenario.Omphalos wrote:
You think its a good idea to have an American State in a region that is absolutely sure to be attacked by one or more extremely hostile nations, at any time? What do you think Congress would do if the "51st state" were to be attacked by rockets, tanks and infantry from Syria? Or Lebanon? Or Egypt? Or all of them? Because that has happened in recent memory. I cant even believe I'm discussing this ridiculous idea. Making it a state will not foster peace in any way. As a matter of fact, it would probably make attacks more likely. The last thing anyone in the world wants is America with a blood vendetta to appease over the death of its citizens. I think we have already had that recently, and look where its gotten us.
And you propose this why? A nation that would be a security and resource hog and not give us the GDP even of Louisiana, would probably guarantee war with the rest of the entire region, that would certainly be an enormous fiscal drain to manage due to its distance, and in the end would probably get us into some conflict that would be more likely than anything else we have seen in the past to escalate into all out, declared war? Why is this a good idea again?
And I did not even go into the Israeli's reactions to this idea. I'm not sure that I could put into words the ridicule they would probably think it deserves.
This is true. All forms of non-existence are equivalent. Someone proved that logically, I think.HoosierDaddy wrote:Bush has already stated that the Islamic God and the Christian God are the same.
The US declares war on both!What other conditions could throw Israel and Palestine together, for once...?
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_homeHoosierDaddy wrote: Now for the economics. How much does the US (and the entire world) spend on the middle east crisis, the "war on terror", the "threat" of Iran, and foreign aid to Israel? This number can surely be calculated, and I would guess we are looking at tens to hundreds of billions from the US alone. What price tag do you put on world peace in the next 50 years?
The infidels shall die!omph wrote:And I did not even go into the Israeli's reactions to this idea. I'm not sure that I could put into words the ridicule they would probably think it deserves.
HD wrote:Palestine agrees to it
Let 'em come!SandChigger wrote:The US declares war on both!What other conditions could throw Israel and Palestine together, for once...?
You're such a delightfully evil bug.chig wrote:Yeah...SHOPPING MALLS!![]()
The only places where religious freedom goes hindrered are in Hamas-controlled Gaza (where Jews have been wiped out completely, and Christians are persecuted), and the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount (where Jews are not allowed to pray or even appear to be doing anything religious, so that Muslims do not get upset).Both Israel and Palestine vote on US statehood, and it passes by some miracle. Palestine agrees to it because it would promote economic growth, infrastructure, security, and a heck of a lot more than being at the butt end of Israel's occupation. The US promises religious freedom for all, under the constitution, and the US focuses on improving their standard of living.
Puhleeease. Hezbollah is much closer to being an actual army than it has ever been, but it is 100% protected by the international community who views attacks on it as crimes, thus making sure that it is never treated as an army. The only thing that stopped Israel from destroying it entirely was pressure from the UN and the US for them to cease.Israel votes for it because they are getting close to being Hisballah's bitch. Their last "encounter" proved that conventional warfare tactics and weaponry has caught up with them. Would the US abandon Israel to their own devices if they vote against statehood? Is Israel prepared for dropping a nuke as a last resort? Being a US state is little different than it is now. since Israel has to get Washington's approval for any military action. Being a 51st state would totally guarantee Israel's security.
They are already caught between a rock and a hard place. Syria has been beaten numerous times both in Syria, and in Lebanon. Iran has never yet ventured beyond attacking with a proxy, which has yielded nothing positive yet.Now for the politics. Iran/Syria would be caught between a rock and a hard place. Would they attack this 51st state, knowing that they go against the US directly, and against the popular vote of Palestine? The US would hold out a hand for world peace, and assure that the region would be free, and religiously neutral. Bush has already stated that the Islamic God and the Christian God are the same. What would happen if the US and Iran eventually agree to formulate world peace?
Whatever Israel receives from the US is not much more than what Egypt and Saudi Arabia each receive from the US. Those nations always tend to be omitted, however, for whatever reason. As far as I know the US has spent significant times more on the war in Iraq than 60 years with Israel.Now for the economics. How much does the US (and the entire world) spend on the middle east crisis, the "war on terror", the "threat" of Iran, and foreign aid to Israel? This number can surely be calculated, and I would guess we are looking at tens to hundreds of billions from the US alone. What price tag do you put on world peace in the next 50 years?
How about re-populating the Jewish communities of Iraq, Iran/Persia, Saudia Arabia (the Jews created Medina), Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morroco, Afghanistan, and so on and so on, and then creating joint Jewish/Arab states/governments where the billions Jews left behind in those nations they have populated for 3,000 years are given to them?The huge question here is could Israel and Palestine agree to a central government; i.e. statehood, or something similar. Statehood isn't the only answer. What other conditions could throw Israel and Palestine together, for once, to assure their mutual benefit and prosperity?
An interesting ultra-pro Israel viewpoint, but one that seems to indicate that the status quo in the middle east is acceptable. Yes, what I have wrote is probably fantasy, but at what point does the US and the rest of the world say something has truly got to change?Purge wrote:The only places where religious freedom goes hindrered are in Hamas-controlled Gaza (where Jews have been wiped out completely, and Christians are persecuted), and the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount (where Jews are not allowed to pray or even appear to be doing anything religious, so that Muslims do not get upset).Both Israel and Palestine vote on US statehood, and it passes by some miracle. Palestine agrees to it because it would promote economic growth, infrastructure, security, and a heck of a lot more than being at the butt end of Israel's occupation. The US promises religious freedom for all, under the constitution, and the US focuses on improving their standard of living.
It would never pass, because Israel is already a nation which stands on its own, while there is no Palestinian state or nation. Egypt and Jordan (another made up state) occupied Azza and Judea/Samaria for about twenty years and there was never a move or desire on the part of the Arabs of those areas to establish a seperate state or entity. They were Arabs living in Arab-controlled lands now made Jew-free, and thus it wasn't seen as an occupation.
Suddenly Israel is in control of those areas (and for the most part of the last 40 years Arabs could move freely between Gaza, Israel, and West Bank, and it was never a problem up until very recently was that changed) and it is an occupation.
Puhleeease. Hezbollah is much closer to being an actual army than it has ever been, but it is 100% protected by the international community who views attacks on it as crimes, thus making sure that it is never treated as an army. The only thing that stopped Israel from destroying it entirely was pressure from the UN and the US for them to cease.Israel votes for it because they are getting close to being Hisballah's bitch. Their last "encounter" proved that conventional warfare tactics and weaponry has caught up with them. Would the US abandon Israel to their own devices if they vote against statehood? Is Israel prepared for dropping a nuke as a last resort? Being a US state is little different than it is now. since Israel has to get Washington's approval for any military action. Being a 51st state would totally guarantee Israel's security.
Israel is the fourth largest arms dealer in the world amongst other developments and technologies which are sought the world over, so they aren't anybody's play-thing, and their existence does not depend on anybody else. They destroyed nearly every airforce - airforces supplied by the soviets - in the middle east in weeks if not days a few decades back, so they don't need anybody's phoney guarantee for something nobody but themselves can provide.
They are already caught between a rock and a hard place. Syria has been beaten numerous times both in Syria, and in Lebanon. Iran has never yet ventured beyond attacking with a proxy, which has yielded nothing positive yet.Now for the politics. Iran/Syria would be caught between a rock and a hard place. Would they attack this 51st state, knowing that they go against the US directly, and against the popular vote of Palestine? The US would hold out a hand for world peace, and assure that the region would be free, and religiously neutral. Bush has already stated that the Islamic God and the Christian God are the same. What would happen if the US and Iran eventually agree to formulate world peace?
What you are proposing would never happen in anything but a fantasy version of the middle east.
Whatever Israel receives from the US is not much more than what Egypt and Saudi Arabia each receive from the US. Those nations always tend to be omitted, however, for whatever reason. As far as I know the US has spent significant times more on the war in Iraq than 60 years with Israel.Now for the economics. How much does the US (and the entire world) spend on the middle east crisis, the "war on terror", the "threat" of Iran, and foreign aid to Israel? This number can surely be calculated, and I would guess we are looking at tens to hundreds of billions from the US alone. What price tag do you put on world peace in the next 50 years?
How about re-populating the Jewish communities of Iraq, Iran/Persia, Saudia Arabia (the Jews created Medina), Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morroco, Afghanistan, and so on and so on, and then creating joint Jewish/Arab states/governments where the billions Jews left behind in those nations they have populated for 3,000 years are given to them?The huge question here is could Israel and Palestine agree to a central government; i.e. statehood, or something similar. Statehood isn't the only answer. What other conditions could throw Israel and Palestine together, for once, to assure their mutual benefit and prosperity?
Because that is basically what you are proposing in the only Jewish state in the world. The Palestinians plain and simple are Arabs. And Arabs have enough states as it is - including 70-80% of the original mandate for the Jewish state, now called Jordan, largely populated with Palestinians - without carving out another one out of the 20% or so west of the Jordan.
This all probably isn't going to go over well here, as Dune sites tend to romanticize Arabs while correlating them to the Fremen, but what can I say? I am unapologetically supportive of a Jewish state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. If Arabs can't stomache living in it like Jews live in numerous other peoples' nations, so be it. That is a decision only they cane make. However, I see no reason for there to be a two state or even one-state solution with Arabs in control, over the lands west of the Jordan.
Aside from that one response of his (which I think he only moved to try and get the conversation over to T(A)U) I'd assume anything he deleted was because he felt he was a bit harsh. He just asked that the discussion be continued over there because this is supposed to be a primarily Dune related site and he thought Freak might appreciate the move. Omph may get a bit... "strong worded" sometimes but I don't think he was that bad (he's said worse to me). He's just saying that he thinks it's the worst idea he's heard in a long time (I've heard worse myself, but I may hang around crazier people than OmphHoosierDaddy wrote:Omph, resorting to personal insults in a hypothetical discussion, makes me think you should seriously reconsider being a mod here. Then deleting and moving posts to your site? I also see you edited out some comments you made earlier.
I'm done with this subject. Sorry Purge, I enjoyed your take on this, just when it was getting interesting.
It's a hot topic, people will get heated, whether they should or not, it's to be expected. I don't like people jumping ship on arguments because the conversation gets too heated, especially if they started the argument with a "colourful" post (and yes Hoosier, your idea was colourful, good or bad, it was certainly inflammatory). Whenever I've posted a bad idea people have kicked my ass all over the block, and the same would happen to anyone else here.Omphalos wrote:Really, Im sorry for the personal attacks here. I tend to run off at the mouth pretty easily. Ask anyone here. I do it all the time. So please dont think that I am calling you stupid, because I dont know you well enough to say at all yet.
Need a starbucks? A starbucks? Gods man, you need help.SandChigger wrote:Well, I don't know about that, in the Middle East or globally, at least, but we sure the hell need ONE in the city where I live.
I mean, shit, there are THREE in the bigger city a hour inland, and TWO down in the city where the uni is, and a whole slew of them scattered around parts in-between. I blame the crappy mudwater-serving Dotour chain. They're keeping Starbucks out.![]()
No, he means he's got a bladder problem.Mr. Teg wrote:Pissy? You mean pussy?SandChigger wrote:(This is one of those areas where Byron could be a big help, but I guess he's still being pissy.)
Oh, a itchy pussy!orald wrote:No, he means he's got a bladder problem.Mr. Teg wrote:Pissy? You mean pussy?SandChigger wrote:(This is one of those areas where Byron could be a big help, but I guess he's still being pissy.)
Carrier pigeons, specially trained to find the Hiking Hack in the woods.trang wrote:Do you think brian uses a Crank style phone or is that to advanced technology? or does he do the smoke signal thing?