Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

GamePlayer wrote:Sarcasm about our newest politically correct northern territory? I'll have None-of-it! Nunavut, I say!

Wah-Wah-Waaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

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.

You are not seeing nearly far enough ahead here. This would be a possible scenario.

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

HoosierDaddy wrote:Bush has already stated that the Islamic God and the Christian God are the same.

This is true. All forms of non-existence are equivalent. Someone proved that logically, I think.

What other conditions could throw Israel and Palestine together, for once...?

The US declares war on both!

HoosierDaddy 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?

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

$540 billion on the Iraq war alone. I protested against the war in 2002/2003. Imagine what the world could have done with that money.

Yeah...SHOPPING MALLS!

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.

The infidels shall die!

Actually, it's been wished for, half seriously, by quite alot of people, especially the ones who would anyway be immigrating to the USA for a couple of years/rest of their lives.

HD wrote:Palestine agrees to it

"Some miracle" indeed!

SandChigger wrote:

What other conditions could throw Israel and Palestine together, for once...?

The US declares war on both!

Let 'em come!

chig wrote:Yeah...SHOPPING MALLS!

You're such a delightfully evil bug.

orald wrote:You're such a delightfully evil bug.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Except in trouble.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

What you are proposing would never happen in anything but a fantasy version of the middle east.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

Im sure Freak does not want this here, so I propose we move it to here:

http://bb.solahpmo.com/viewtopic.php?p=7602#7602

Feel free to copy over anything you like, Hoosierdaddy.

Purge wrote:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

What you are proposing would never happen in anything but a fantasy version of the middle east.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

It seems to me that any middle east solution has to start with basic economics. The Palestinians living as cast-outs, begging the Islamic world for day to day assistance, has to be a focal point for improvement. Telling Palestinians they can leave, but can't come back, clearly isn't going to work either. Both sides of the Israel/Palestine situation are stuck in a gordian knot.

And concerning Hizballah, your comments about the Israel army being able to wipe them out could be true now (although I personally doubt it), what will happen the next time? Fighting a ground war against divisions of armed troops isn't the same as bombing Hizballah neighborhoods in downtown Beruit.

Don't get me wrong, I am not taking sides against Israel. I'm looking for a solution to the Palestinian problem because it is the root to all of the US foreign problems. There would be no more "war on terror", and no more Iranian "axis of evil" if Palestinians and Israelis could ever learn to live together in one confined area of this world.

Why didnt you move this like I asked?

The discussion seems to have been going on here for at least a few days, though now that I see this is a General Dune discussion I agree it is out of place. Would the general discussion on this site be appropriate to continue this? I am not signed up for that other board.

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.

HoosierDaddy 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.

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 Omph ) - he explicitly said he wasn't calling you stupid.

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.

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.

SandChigger wrote:Yeah...SHOPPING MALLS!

But...but...i thought we needed more Starbucks

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.

ANYWAY, back on topic:

Who thinks Brian's hair is a curly-do, and how often does he have it redone?

(This is one of those areas where Byron could be a big help, but I guess he's still being pissy.)

Hmm...

Nah, he'd have to pay for it with a cash register. Spooky computers. Can't have them evil machines.

It's probably real.

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.

Need a starbucks? A starbucks? Gods man, you need help.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Gods man, you need help.

So true...

SandChigger wrote:(This is one of those areas where Byron could be a big help, but I guess he's still being pissy.)

Pissy? You mean pussy?

Mr. Teg wrote:

SandChigger wrote:(This is one of those areas where Byron could be a big help, but I guess he's still being pissy.)

Pissy? You mean pussy?

No, he means he's got a bladder problem.

orald wrote:

Mr. Teg wrote:

SandChigger wrote:(This is one of those areas where Byron could be a big help, but I guess he's still being pissy.)

Pissy? You mean pussy?

No, he means he's got a bladder problem.

Oh, a itchy pussy!

No wonder he's always seems agitated and deleting posts right and left.

picked up dreamer of dune this past weekend so gonna give it a read for HLP info as well as FH history.

Do you think brian uses a Crank style phone or is that to advanced technology? or does he do the smoke signal thing?

Not sure about his hair, might be a permanent, but those are pricey.

I have tried to go the the Myspace dune sight but its all misaligned and images all over the place, really cant garner to much from it.

Curious to the Hierarchy of the HLP, and what other crazy projects they have to dilute the masterworks.

More info the better I guess, still researching them on the web, found a few articles from 1996 and 1997, interviews with p&b, talked about the concordance thingy again, be interesting to see.

Later,
Trang

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?

Carrier pigeons, specially trained to find the Hiking Hack in the woods.

ZING!