| Author |
Message |
| Antrax |
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:53 am Post subject: 1 |
|
| Probably not that hard, we did it easily the next time they tried the "running the blockade" stunt. |
|
 |
| Nsof |
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:44 pm Post subject: 0 |
|
Once the take over started I dont judge the force used as excessive.
What was excessive is the amount of military preparations VS the results. I'd expect the IDF to pull this with no casualties on both sides.
How hard can it be to stop a ship without killing someone? Maybe it should be a real life VSP. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:24 pm Post subject: -1 |
|
| See, Israel didn't sink the ships attempting the run a military blockade, and kill everyone on them. That's simply the level you'd expect for anyone dumb enough to try to run a blockade. So how can what they did be "excessive"? |
|
 |
| Nsof |
Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:06 pm Post subject: -2 |
|
UN's Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident
AKA - Palmer Report
The report. Another location. The summary is about three pages long.
NY Times article (hope its not pay-walled. i had no problems]
I think a very short summary would be: Israel’s blockade was justified but that it used excessive force in maintaining it.
As for next steps:
| Rapprochement section wrote: |
1. An appropriate statement of regret should be made by Israel in respect of the incident in light of its consequences.
2. Israel should offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families, to be administered by the two governments through a joint trust fund of a sufficient amount to be decided by them.
3. Turkey and Israel should resume full diplomatic relations, repairing their relationship in the interests of stability in the Middle East and international peace and security. The establishment of a political roundtable as a forum for exchanging views could assist to this end. |
The third part is not going to happen soon since Turkey published that its sending the Israeli ambassador home. (Their own ambassador to Israel was called back a few months ago and has not been replaced since.)
The second would also be difficult until relationship warms up again(if at all).
I hope Israel expresses the regrets due and puts some money for the trust funds in order to get things started in the right direction. |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 3:59 am Post subject: -4 |
|
| I think both are likely. The local opinion is that weapons and terrorists were already coming in through the tunnels, so all this does is collapse the tunnels as an investment concept and offer the Gazan people a chance to find a decent job. |
|
 |
| wordcross |
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 3:52 am Post subject: -5 |
|
| or at least that the former will happen sooner than the latter. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 1:55 am Post subject: -6 |
|
| It depends. If it really does create an influx of weapons and mercenaries, then you are. If, as some of the pro-Palestinian pundits have claimed, that the improved economy that it allows improves things in Gaza enough that people become less interested in perpetuating the fighting, then you'll be the bad guys. However, IMHO, smart money is on the former happening a lot more than the latter. |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 6:01 pm Post subject: -7 |
|
| So guess what, Egypt opened its border and the Palestinians are no longer under siege. Are we the good guys yet? |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:52 pm Post subject: -8 |
|
| That was indeed shocking. A mall full of people and I didn't see any obesity. |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:59 pm Post subject: -10 |
|
| Like I said numerous times, they share a border with Egypt. They tunnel under it and smuggle weapons and everything else they want (at great profit to the tunnel owners). It just makes smuggling harder (there's risk, as exposed tunnels are destroyed by the IDF), as evident by the greatly reduced number of rocket attacks. |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: -11 |
|
My image of what Gaza looks like was essentially this or similar. Basically war torn and miserable. That's all we see on TV or in the news. Ever. The link above paints a rather different picture.
Also, it was either jack or someone saying that since building supplies were blockaded, they couldn't rebuild. It kinda looks like they can. |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:27 pm Post subject: -12 |
|
| This may be a cultural thing, but I don't really understand Jack Ian's post. It seems unrelated to the rest of the thread, as well as to Samadhi's post. However, it's clearly very relevant because it elicited more responses than my own attempts at discourse. So, if anyone can explain to me slowly what that post means, I'd be much obliged. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject: -13 |
|
Touche!  |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:49 pm Post subject: -14 |
|
It doesn't surprise me that some people have gotten very rich during this period.
Every problem is also an opportunity.
(Fill in just about anything from human history)
So many destroyed lives and nothing achieved.
The corrupt have gotten richer and the normal folks have to pay the price. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:48 pm Post subject: -15 |
|
It doesn't surprise me that some people have gotten very rich during this period.
Every problem is also an opportunity.
(Fill in just about anything the U.S. government does)
So many destroyed lives and nothing achieved.
The corrupt have gotten richer and the normal folks have to pay the price. |
|
 |
| Jack_Ian |
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:05 am Post subject: -16 |
|
It doesn't surprise me that some people have gotten very rich during this period.
Every problem is also an opportunity.
I'm sure the smugglers and government officials that had access to aid have pockets full of money to spend in such a Mall.
It appears that the blockade really is lifted now, otherwise nobody would have invested the money needed to open this Mall.
I'm sure Hamas considers this a victory but I find it all rather sad.
So many destroyed lives and nothing achieved.
The corrupt have gotten richer and the normal folks have to pay the price. |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:19 pm Post subject: -17 |
|
A new mall opens in Gaza. I thought building materials were banned?
Very informative link. My image of Gaza has always been akin to what some people seem to have described here. IE a wasteland after fighting Israel. It certainly doesn't seem that bad. |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: -18 |
|
| Quote: |
| For instance, bread was deliberately chosen because there was no restriction on carbohydrates, only proteins. |
How do you know that? I haven't been able to find any sources with a complete list of what was disallowed, and the ones I found were very specific, not with product categories.
| Quote: |
| The barrier undoubtedly helps with security and would not be so controversial if the route taken had actually went along the border. |
First of all, I am almost certain that it would've been opposed to even had it run exactly along the border - because that border isn't agreed on, remember? You said it yourself. Secondly, there are some engineering considerations when building a big-ass wall, and I expect those trumped the need for it to exactly reflect the border drawn on the map.
| Quote: |
The blockade would also have been supported if it had not gone that extra yard and been used as a weapon to punish.
|
So, do you agree with it today, when arbitrary restrictions were lifted?
| Quote: |
| Frankly it makes people wonder whether security is the real reason for the action at all. |
And what do you think? I tried to show that assuming bad faith for these actions doesn't hold water, because anything we could try and accomplish by dirty tricks we could also accomplish directly at no greater cost. |
|
 |
| Jack_Ian |
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:46 pm Post subject: -19 |
|
The statistics in the link you posted are not telling the whole truth. For instance, bread was deliberately chosen because there was no restriction on carbohydrates, only proteins. I found it rather cynical.
It's not that the international community regards Israel as evil, rather that we expect them to be the good guys.
We support Israel's right to defend itself but then see this right being used as a ploy to hide other agendas.
The barrier undoubtedly helps with security and would not be so controversial if the route taken had actually went along the border.
The blockade would also have been supported if it had not gone that extra yard and been used as a weapon to punish.
It's this extra yard that causes so many problems, making it more difficult for the international community to fully support Israel's actions. Frankly it makes people wonder whether security is the real reason for the action at all. |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:29 am Post subject: -20 |
|
That was disappointing, mostly because I don't think people have given serious thought to their opinions. I have no doubt the next time Israel makes the headlines, people will again knee-jerk with arguments that have been raised here, and I'll again say the same thing, and the next discussion won't progress beyond what this one has.
But, to bring a sense of closure, I think it's late enough we can see the aftermath. It's surprisingly positive. The world did not condemn Israel, most likely because we really were okay this time around. Internally, it seems the biggest mistake was not preparing contingency plan and blindly relying on the peace activists really being peaceful. The deliberate provocation to violence was not considered. Probably won't happen again.
Also, the blockade has been eased, and is now less of a bureaucratic form of torture and more of a self defense measure, so I'm again happy with it. Moreover, a survey on the Palestinian side shows 67% oppose firing rockets on Israel - which I'm not really sure what to make of. So, all's well that ends well except for 9 dead and worse diplomatic relations with Turkey. |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:38 am Post subject: -21 |
|
+1  |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:37 am Post subject: -22 |
|
Very well. Here are some numbers for you to dissert: http://www.israel-palestine-conflict.com/
(the underlying claim is basically what I've been saying, that I don't really see any consistent moral principle being applied that condemns Israel. Instead people knee-jerk about what they hear about for the 2.8 minutes it stays in the headlines) |
|
 |
| Samadhi |
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject: -23 |
|
| Pablo: Quit discussing Stone Cutter bizness in public. You have been warned. |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:08 pm Post subject: -24 |
|
| I hadn't meant to divert the thread like that. I'm still interested if people saw any merit in what I was saying, or if I'm completely off-base due to biases or whatnot. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:37 am Post subject: -25 |
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Nevertheless, there are principles worth fighting for, and sometimes they are fought for. |
No argument here (for once). However, it is my contention that in the last 50 years we have seen a transition and none of the wars the US has been involved in were for principle. All were for profit.
WWII was before my time and I will concede without knowing a lot about it that it was for principle and necessity. Korea, I'm not so sure. Viet Nam and after.....all bizness.
PS - For the last several wars we have been engaged in, including two currently, our U.S. soldier has not been able to identify his "enemy". That's because he hasn't had an identifiable enemy. Was is such good business that we do it even in the absence of a real enemy. We just make one up...."terror"....."WMD"....doesn't matter, as long as the money flows.
I still wonder what the priciple was here other than creating billionaires at Halliburton. |
|
 |
| extropalopakettle |
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:23 am Post subject: -26 |
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| This is why I say that war is not about ideology, security, or freedom. It is a business and is about money. It's not about right v wrong or good v bad. That is misdirection. |
I'll agree that at least 90% of all wars (and what constitutes a war is subject to definitions, but probably under any definition) ... yes, at least 90% of them, are primarily about that. And for wars that are not primarily about that, there are certainly businesses that profit from it. Nevertheless, there are principles worth fighting for, and sometimes they are fought for. |
|
 |
| Thok |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: -27 |
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| This is why I say that war is not about ideology, security, or freedom. It is a business and is about money. It's not about right v wrong or good v bad. That is misdirection. |
I'm not sure why the purchase of Russian helicopters, for a group that needs helicopters to develop security infrastructure and who are better trained to use Russian helicopters than other brands, qualifies as being about business and money.
The army may have made a poor decision, but it likely wasn't in order to funnel money to the Russians.
(Unless you are reacting to some Congressional leaders reactions to the purchase, as shown in the article. If so, then I can see where you are coming from.) |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:53 pm Post subject: -28 |
|
This is why I say that war is not about ideology, security, or freedom. It is a business and is about money. It's not about right v wrong or good v bad. That is misdirection.
By the way, would anyone like to pick up that old argument about war being good for our economy? |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:42 pm Post subject: -29 |
|
| It's not about where he'll end up, it's about how easily he can get in. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:31 pm Post subject: -30 |
|
| I bet he can habla espanol pretty bueno. Around here he'll need to speak Canadian and Norvegian, fer sher. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:44 pm Post subject: -31 |
|
Well, if you're planning on coming here, I have just one question.
How well do you speak Spanish? |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: -32 |
|
| I've seriously considered emigrating to the states. I'm currently opposed because all of my friends are here. If things turn really bad here, it's possible we'll all just get up and migrate together somewhere. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:07 pm Post subject: -33 |
|
| Antrax wrote: |
So yeah, sign me up for the transfer  |
Nothing stopping you. You're welcome to stay at my house for a while while you're getting settled. You can even ask Groza about the accommodations. The only obligation is that you'll have to help me with the NY Times puzzle like he did. |
|
 |
| LordKinbote |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: -34 |
|
| Antrax wrote: |
And you're about twice my age. In 10 years, it'll be about 45% tax for me, assuming the socialists don't increase taxes again during that period and that I don't go up in a radioactive mushroom cloud. Also, the average sushi place in NYC is as good as the best ones in Tel Aviv, you guys never have to wait months for new movies to reach you and it's not 95 degrees out in the middle of June unless you're in Nevada, and then you have Las Vegas to comfort yourselves with. So yeah, sign me up for the transfer  |
Okay, but you have to live in North Dakota, where Pablo lives. You might have trouble finding a sushi place, you might have to travel a hundred miles to get to a movie theater, and it's -50 degrees in the winter. You might be singing a different tune.
Oh, and it can get to 95 degrees in June in most places in the US, I'd imagine. I'm in Nebraska (certainly not what I would call the southern US), and it was 93 today. |
|
 |
| mith |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:57 am Post subject: -35 |
|
[totally and unashamedly off topic]I don't recommend Texas if those are your standards. Not quite Nevada, but there's no gambling nearby unless you count the lotto or driving.
I did have good sushi last weekend, so that's something.[/tauot] |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:45 am Post subject: -36 |
|
And you're about twice my age. In 10 years, it'll be about 45% tax for me, assuming the socialists don't increase taxes again during that period and that I don't go up in a radioactive mushroom cloud. Also, the average sushi place in NYC is as good as the best ones in Tel Aviv, you guys never have to wait months for new movies to reach you and it's not 95 degrees out in the middle of June unless you're in Nevada, and then you have Las Vegas to comfort yourselves with. So yeah, sign me up for the transfer  |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:17 am Post subject: -37 |
|
| Antrax wrote: |
Do you really pay over 33% of your total income in taxes? I don't mean the top level of taxation, I mean the gross taxes from the gross income. |
I just checked my records and I was surprised to learn that in 2009 I paid 30.7% of my income in income (federal and state), social security, medicare, property, and sales taxes. Looks like we're pretty even. I thought it was higher.
For the period 1/12008-5/31/2010 it turns out to be 32.5%.
I keep all my records in Quicken, so I can pull these numbers quickly and accurately. |
|
 |
| Antrax |
Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: -38 |
|
The answer isn't really that complex: I don't mind the welfare because I see as a mutual benefit situation and not as welfare, because I don't think it's endless (even if Israel doesn't voluntarily give it up, there's no reason to assume in the future discontinuing it will cause the same result as it would today) and because I think it's consistent with policies you already have in place. So, it's not like it's some special huge favour because we're so cool, we're one of many countries that get money from you, that money promotes peace, did not exist in the past and possibly won't exist in the future. No biggie.
Do you really pay over 33% of your total income in taxes? I don't mean the top level of taxation, I mean the gross taxes from the gross income. |
|
 |