How to salvage the Iraq debacle?

[yehudi]

The war is unfolding in a ugly manner, as expected by nearly everyone in the world... at it is far from over.

In this thread I would like to talk about ways to repairing the damages that have already been done and minimize future damages as well.

Knowing how to end a war well was one of the things that were pretty well done by the US at the end of WWII. I'm thinking about the Marshall plan, the Nuremberg trial or the administration of Japan.

Will the US be able to do the same thing now ? It seems much more difficult since the "ideological battle" seems all but lost in the world opinion... And my personnal opinion is that the battle against terrorism is above all, waged through ideology, not force. Use of force create more terrorism.


(If it is at all possible please avoid personal insults on this thread).


To start the thread, I bring to your attention an editorial from Yahoo: "Postwar Suggestions for George W. Bush" (next post)

extract :
____________________
NEW YORK--The invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) has deeply divided Americans. It has alienated our allies. It is already providing volatile new ammunition for Islamist terrorist groups searching for impressionable young men willing to blow themselves up just so they can take a few of us along with them. It's a grim situation, but it isn't too late for the Bush Administration to minimize the damage created by its reckless and illegal war, now that we're committed to it.

[yehudi]

source : http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=/ucru/20030327/cm_ucru/how_to_salvage_the_iraq_debacle

NEW YORK--The invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) has deeply divided Americans. It has alienated our allies. It is already providing volatile new ammunition for Islamist terrorist groups searching for impressionable young men willing to blow themselves up just so they can take a few of us along with them. It's a grim situation, but it isn't too late for the Bush Administration to minimize the damage created by its reckless and illegal war, now that we're committed to it.


A year and a half after invading Afghanistan (news - web sites), the United States is about to seize control of another volatile, strategically-vital patch of Muslim real estate riven by ethnic and tribal fault lines. As it did before its war against the Taliban, administration officials are issuing grandiose assurances about noble intentions.


"We will deliver the food and medicine you need," Bush promised Iraqis. "We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free...The day of your liberation is near."


Only a few hard-right Republicans really believe in Bush's newfound interest in liberating the oppressed peoples of the world. Antiwar Americans, most international leaders and the overwhelming majority of the world's population still hold that the war is motivated solely by lust for Iraq's vast oil reserves. One U.N. Security Council diplomat explains his colleagues' reasons for voting "no": "No one wants to alienate the United States but you can't ignore polls showing 80 percent opposition to the war," he said.


Opinions of America are even worse among Arabs, who note that the only countries that Bush has invaded--Afghanistan and Iraq--and is thinking of attacking--Iran and Syria--are Muslim. Arabs conclude that Bush--a self-described "born again" Christian fundamentalist--is waging a 21st century Crusade against Islam. Only six percent of the Egyptian public holds a favorable view of the U.S. This in a country where scholars at the Islamic Research Academy declared that "if the enemy steps on Muslims' land, jihad becomes a duty on every male and female." Bush's clash-of-civilizations rhetoric, sprinkled liberally with Old Testament imagery, hardly reduces tensions.


Nonetheless, both America's image abroad and Bush's popularity here could improve dramatically if the former Governor of Texas takes the following steps to make the war look more like liberation and less like exploitation:


Promise to Lay Off the Oil. Aggressive elements in the administration suggest that a new post-Saddam government of Iraq--a toothless American puppet, similar to Afghanistan's Karzai--should rip up its oil contracts with France's TotalFinaElf and Russia's Lukoil in order to get even for the UN vote. Houston-based Halliburton Co., where Dick Cheney (news - web sites) served as CEO, is reported to have already secured a $4 billion deal to put out well fires and rehabilitate sanctions-ravaged refineries. And Bush is already scheming to raid $40 billion in the now-defunct UN oil-for-food program to finance postwar reconstruction.


"How do we protect the oil facilities and bring in companies and material to sustain and improve those facilities without being criticized for taking over oil or giving the appearance of somehow taking the oil?" asks Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy adviser at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.


Simple: Bush should pledge to honor all existing contracts, even--especially--with companies from countries that didn't support the war. More importantly for a leader whose top officials are nearly all former execs of big oil, Bush ought to prohibit sweetheart deals of any kind. Competitive bidding, not a cozy relationship with the White House, ought to determine which outfits get new contracts. And the people of Iraq, not the oil companies, ought to receive most of the proceeds in the form of direct payments.

(cont. in the next message)

[yehudi]

Guarantee Iraq's Territorial Integrity. On March 21 Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul warned that Turkish forces plan to invade the Kurdish zone of northern Iraq to eradicate "terrorist activity." If unchecked, a Turkish incursion could lead to a new war with the Kurds, and the beginning of the end for a unified Iraqi state. Bush must issue two declarations, one guaranteeing full autonomy for Iraqi Kurdistan and the other an intention of respecting and defending Iraq's present-day borders.


Arabs will rightly blame the U.S. if one of their richest nations disintegrates into civil war. Any invader, whether it's Iran or Turkey, must be driven out by American forces. And we can't allow warlords and tribal chieftains to create fiefdoms within Iraq, as has occurred in Afghanistan.


Let the Iraqis Choose Their Own Government. Bush claims that he wants to establish democracy in Iraq. Now he has to make good on that vow. That means creating the conditions that would allow free elections--peace and economic stability, reconstruction, a free press, open electioneering, recognition of political parties from across the political spectrum, including Saddam's Ba'ath Party--to occur. Bush shouldn't be tempted to repeat the Florida 2000-style backstage antics that manipulated the results of Afghanistan's loya jirga--after decades of strong central rule, Iraq needs a popularly-elected president, not a puppet. Nothing would earn the U.S. more respect around the world than rebuilding Iraq, allowing an anti-American president to be elected, and then withdrawing our occupation troops.


Rebuild Iraq. Few Americans understand how badly we botched our occupation of Afghanistan. Hardly any know that U.S.-occupied Afghanistan has been reduced to pre-Taliban-style warlordism, that rape gangs rule the nights, that the stonings of adulterers continue, that not one house has been rebuilt with international assistance--not even in Kabul, the one city ruled by the central government. But the rest of the world knows--and that's why they'll be watching us in Iraq. We have a second chance to get things right--but it's going to take billions of dollars and several hundred thousand troops at least a decade to get Iraq back on its feet. But that's the least we can do after subjecting the country to 12 years of brutal economic sanctions.


Get Out. If we're really going to be taken seriously as liberators and proponents of democracy, we'll allow the popularly-elected leaders of Iraq to lead their country into the post-Saddam era, whether or not we care for their politics. And we won't tell them what to do or how to do it.

[Johnny Yuma]

So.... Yehudi..... when do you put the spin on all this that it's only the UN under the tutelage of the French that can successfully straighten out the mess that Americans have supposedly made of the area? :rolleyes:

[elke]

Yehudi, where are you getting the notion that "The war is unfolding in a ugly manner,..."? :confused:

[yehudi]

Originally posted by elke
Yehudi, where are you getting the notion that "The war is unfolding in a ugly manner,..."?
Ok let's just skip that.

I think war is an ugly thing and this one is too. But this thread is not about opinion on how nice this war is, but about "what can be built/rebuilt after and how".

[wellofvow]

I am very strongly reminded of my youngest kid when he was small and we were in the car on the way to wherever for summer vacation. Every 10 minutes he would ask "Are we there yet?"

How can anyone, let alone the world as a whole (if that's what you want to call the UN - I have another description for this body), even debate what will be, should be, must be, whateverbe after - what?

What's going to happen if Saddam is not killed, but goes into hiding, or takes refuge in a neighboring Arab state? What will happen if this happens, and he continues "running" Iraq through an "elected" proxie? What will happen if something happens like what good ole Arafat is trying to get away with - the PA new "Prime Minister" was selected by Arafat, approved by Arafat, and if he chooses a minister whom Arafat does not approve, the minister is out.

Westerners have no conception of Middle East subtleties. And this rush to decide things before anything at all is known totally escapes me.

[elke]

Originally posted by yehudi
Ok let's just skip that.

I think war is an ugly thing and this one is too. But this thread is not about opinion on how nice this war is, but about "what can be built/rebuilt after and how".

Well, the other question is "after what"? What you are implying, - or at least, what that article is implying, - is that the Coalition should pick up and leave right now. I am sorry, but that's completely asinine!

The question of what to do next is a very troubling and complex one, and should be handled accordingly. However, first things first: get rid of blasted Saddam and his cronies!

[NewsGuy]

First thing's first: The name of this thread is ridiculous at this point.

As a dose of reality, in about a single week of the war, the coalition forces are within 50 miles of the enemy's capital, and control 90% of the entire country's airspace -- all without even one solid counter offensive from the enemy, and with fewer than 50 coalition casualties.

You would think based on what you see from "yehudi," that the Iraqi army is 50 miles away from our capital and that Iraq controls 80% of our airspace.

I would suggest that we see how things unfold once the war is over. At that point, I would be interested in how the Arab world and its European colony of France will start to repair the damage caused to their relationship with the United States, as a result of their own war debacle.

[LionOfLoyalty]

I agree on all points NewsGuy. It perplexes me to hear that this war is going badly when in fact the only problems are minor and are soon to be corrected. The war is going better than many had hoped and will be over within the month.

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
all without even one solid counter offensive from the enemy, and with fewer than 50 coalition casualties.
Well, above is the answer why US achieved it. They didnt met any conventional battlefield resistance, so obviously they could spend more time treading the gaspedals instead. Is was a deliberate strategy by the Iraqis, since they knew they could only fight sucessfully by using unconventional gerilla-tactics in cities and against the supply-lines. Havent you followed the news lately?

I would suggest that we see how things unfold once the war is over.
In the worst case scenario, it could end in a pressure-boil kind of "peace", similar that of the Israel/Palestine-conflict. Lots of troops tied down in police-duties for years and years. Not fullscale war anymore, but not peace either. A second cause of escalating hatred. Great!

At that point, I would be interested in how the Arab world and its European colony of France will start to repair the damage caused to their relationship with the United States, as a result of their own war debacle.
It was not the UN memberstates that terminated the diplomacy with US. It was the other way around, remember.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Well, above is the answer why US achieved it. They didnt met any conventional battlefield resistance, so obviously they could spend more time treading the gaspedals instead. Is was a deliberate strategy by the Iraqis, since they knew they could only fight sucessfully by using unconventional gerilla-tactics in cities and against the supply-lines. Havent you followed the news lately?

Did it ever occur to you that the Iraqis were expecting an air war, first, and that's why their forces weren't spread out, thinking they would be cluster bombed like they were in '91? Better yet, why don't you tell us what the Iraqi and American war plans are and how you came to know them, since no one below command level, and especially the media outlets from either side does? You must be one important person....


In the worst case scenario, it could end in a pressure-boil kind of "peace", similar that of the Israel/Palestine-conflict. Lots of troops tied down in police-duties for years and years. Not fullscale war anymore, but not peace either. A second cause of escalating hatred. Great!

No. Isn't the worst-case scenario that America is successful in removing Saddam and helping Iraq rebuild into a representative democracy?


It was not the UN memberstates that terminated the diplomacy with US. It was the other way around, remember.

No. It was the other way around. Diplomacy was terminated by France, when it coerced many Eastern European countries with threats of being barred from admittance to the European Union, and swore to veto any measure containing a threat of force, well in advance of a new measure being introduced, remember?

[yehudi]

NewsGuy, elke, Lion, wellofvow

I understand you do not like this thread and I wouldn't like it either if I were you (that's what we would call "aller à Canossa").




I could take a merrier, positive, "winner" view "what is to be won? lalala", but the problem remains exactly the same.

Sooner or later mending all the damage must be discussed. I hope it is sooner and that this thread can take a positive, constructive tone in the end.



It's true I'm clearly taking the wrong, provocative starting point "How to salvage", "ugly war". It's true there is a 'work of mourning' ("travail de deuil"), not only for the victims, but also of the clean, short, "Godspeed" war to be done and it might be too early.




As for the "wait and see the war just started" argument by wellofvow and most of you, I will try to answer the best way I can, ASAP.

.

[yehudi]

I read Johnny Yuma's answer "bypassing the ignore".

Please this thread should not be about arguing over "who did what", "who's fault it is", otherwise we'll simply never get anywhere.


.

[Jerry]

Originally posted by yehudi
The war is unfolding in a ugly manner, as expected by nearly everyone in the world... at it is far from over.

ALL WAR IS UGLY, DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF BUSH'S STOOGE MEDIA TO SANITIZE IT.

In this thread I would like to talk about ways to repairing the damages that have already been done and minimize future damages as well.

THERE ARE TWO APPROACHES, SPECIFIC AND GENERAL, IMMEDIATE AND FAR-REACHING:

THE IMMEDIATE IMPERATIVE IS TO DEFEAT AND REMOVE THE MADMAN. THERE IS SIMPLY NO ALTERNMATIOVE IF THE CARNAGE IS TO CEASE. HE MUST BE BROUIGHT TO JUSTICE, BEFORE THE WORLD COURT!

THE LONG TERM PROBLEM IS MORE DIFFICULT. WE THOUGHT WE HAD SOLVED THE STRUCTURAL ISSUE ON MAY 15, 1945, WITH THE FORMATION OF THE WORLD COURT AND THE NUREMBURG TRIALS. BUT ALAS, THE NAZIS HAVE EMERGED AGAIN, IN A MORE VIRULENT FORM, THREATENING THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MANKIND. WE MUST FIND SOME STRUCTURAL MEANS TO PREVENT SUCH A THREAT IN THE FUTURE. PERHAPS WE CAN STRENGTHEN THE WORLD COURT, TURN ALL WMD'S OVER TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND ELIMINATE ALL VETOS ON THE COUNCIL.

Knowing how to end a war well was one of the things that were pretty well done by the US at the end of WWII. I'm thinking about the Marshall plan, the Nuremberg trial or the administration of Japan.

THYE MARSHALL PLAN WAS A BRILLIANT PIECE OF WORK, AND ITS UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF NOT JUST REPAIRING WAR DAMAGE BUT OF ASSISTANCE TO OUR HUMAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS, SHOULD BE ENSHRINED IN STRONG FORMAL METHODS AND STRUCTURES.

AS I SAID ABOVE, THE NUREMBURG TRIBUNAL NEEDS TO EVAOLVE INTO THE INTERNATIONAL COUYRT OF JUSTICE AND THE WAR CRIMES TRIUBUNAL, WITH NO ONE EXEMPT FROM ITS JURISDICTION. IF BUSH DOESN'T LIKE IT, HE CAN GO TO HELL!

THE CREDIT FOR THE POST WAR ADMINISTRATION OF JAPAN GOES TO GENERAL MACARTHUR, WHO WAS BRILLIANT AS "THE AMERICAN CEASAR"

Will the US be able to do the same thing now ?

NO

It seems much more difficult since the "ideological battle" seems all but lost in the world opinion...

IT IS LOST. BUSH HAS GAINED THE ENMITY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.

And my personnal opinion is that the battle against terrorism is above all, waged through ideology, not force. Use of force create more terrorism.

ONE MAN'S "TERRORIST" IS ANOTHER MAN'S "FREEDOM FIGHTER"

(If it is at all possible please avoid personal insults on this thread).

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. BUSH IS AN INSULT TO ALL MANKIND!


To start the thread, I bring to your attention an editorial from Yahoo: "Postwar Suggestions for George W. Bush" (next post)

extract :
____________________
NEW YORK--The invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) has deeply divided Americans. It has alienated our allies. It is already providing volatile new ammunition for Islamist terrorist groups searching for impressionable young men willing to blow themselves up just so they can take a few of us along with them. It's a grim situation, but it isn't too late for the Bush Administration to minimize the damage created by its reckless and illegal war, now that we're committed to it.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Ralph63
Is was a deliberate strategy by the Iraqis, since they knew they could only fight sucessfully by using unconventional gerilla-tactics in cities and against the supply-lines. Havent you followed the news lately?

I sure have followed the news carefully, and I should ask you the same.

Iraqi forces have, in fact, engaged coalition forces in conventional military formations, like the clashes in Basra and like the Republican Guard's deployment around Baghdad. You happen to mention that the Iraqis also, in addition to their conventional strategy, are also employing Palestinian and al Qaeda-style terrorism tactics, but we know that those are more of a nuisance than a strategic challenge to the coalition.

You may refer to Iraq's launching missiles at their own civilians, who support the coalition in Basra as a "non-conventional strategy." But keep in mind that while this may serve as a temporary deterrent to the Iraqi people from rebelling against Saddam, it is nothing but mass murder, and not even something worthy of being called a military operation.

In the worst case scenario, it could end in a pressure-boil kind of "peace", similar that of the Israel/Palestine-conflict. Lots of troops tied down in police-duties for years and years. Not fullscale war anymore, but not peace either. A second cause of escalating hatred. Great!
We heard Leftists use these kinds of scare tactics with regard to Afghanistan, too, but these alarmist scenarios never came true.

The main cause of Arab hatred against the U.S. and its allies is the basic problem in coexistence between radical Islam and Western ideals.

It was not the UN memberstates that terminated the diplomacy with US. It was the other way around, remember.

Wrong. It would have been one thing for the French to vote against the U.S., but quite another matter to have the French foreign minister go on a worldwide campaign to actively lobby other members of the UN to undermine the U.S. and disregard 1441. They, together with the Arabs, Germans and Russians will be called to task soon enough and they'd better start concocting some kind of strategy to repair the damage they have doen with their Iraq war debacle.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
I read Johnny Yuma's answer "bypassing the ignore".


I'm flattered... :o Those without the ignore function on "can" read what I am writing. Maybe you'd like to get your head out of.......... the sand? :rolleyes:

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by yehudi
NewsGuy, elke, Lion, wellofvow
I understand you do not like this thread and I wouldn't like it either if I were you (that's what we would call "aller à Canossa").


No, it's not a question of liking the thread or not, it's a matter that the entire premise of the thread is patently false.

But the aspect that I really don't like is that you call yourself "Yehudi," ("Jew" in Hebrew) while your views are exactly the opposite of the prevailing views of most Jews.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by wellofvow
I am very strongly reminded of my youngest kid when he was small and we were in the car on the way to wherever for summer vacation. Every 10 minutes he would ask "Are we there yet?"

I have not seen a statement that sums up all the moronic second guessing among the media that comes near this one.

[Jerry]

Originally posted by MichaelC
I have not seen a statement that sums up all the moronic second guessing among the media that comes near near this one.

:D Thanks for bringing back a memory. I remember when my kids were little and we went on a trip. I think every parent brelates to this:
"Yaaahhh, he hit me!"
"She did it first!"
"I gotta go!"
"I'm hungry!"
and finally the immortal
"are we there yet ?"
that was by little Mikey, the youngest.
:p

[ibrodsky]

The media, thanks to its deep hatred of President Bush, has tried hard to depict this war as a debacle. Well, surprise: US forces are now within 19 miles of Baghdad.

There has been no debacle, nor is the US bogged down as many hoped and misreported. More accurately, the US plan is working very well and the Iraqi regime is on the verge of collapse.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Jerry
THE IMMEDIATE IMPERATIVE IS TO DEFEAT AND REMOVE THE MADMAN. THERE IS SIMPLY NO ALTERNMATIOVE IF THE CARNAGE IS TO CEASE. HE MUST BE BROUIGHT TO JUSTICE, BEFORE THE WORLD COURT!

THE LONG TERM PROBLEM IS MORE DIFFICULT. WE THOUGHT WE HAD SOLVED THE STRUCTURAL ISSUE ON MAY 15, 1945, WITH THE FORMATION OF THE WORLD COURT AND THE NUREMBURG TRIALS. BUT ALAS, THE NAZIS HAVE EMERGED AGAIN, IN A MORE VIRULENT FORM, THREATENING THE FUTURE EXISTENCE OF MANKIND. This called a troll and an excellent occasion to use this fine 'ignore' function the forum provides... very handy.

And you can clean up your ignore list next month and come back check wether Jerry has become someone more worth listening to.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by yehudi
This called a troll and an excellent occasion to use this fine 'ignore' function the forum provides... very handy.

And you can clean up your ignore list next month and come back check wether Jerry has become someone more worth listening to.

I think you're the only one that uses that feature, the rest of us, read a post like Takeo's or yours, laugh and move on. But completely ignoring something is pretty hypocritical for someone who said, "I understand you do not like this thread and I wouldn't like it either if I were you (that's what we would call "aller à Canossa"). "

Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

But the aspect that I really don't like is that you call yourself "Yehudi," ("Jew" in Hebrew) while your views are exactly the opposite of the prevailing views of most Jews.

Yeah, I've called him out on this at least 5 times, and he refuses to answer, so IMO he's defiantely not a Jew, and uses that username as a coniving trick to fool the casual observer to think that some Jew out there thinks we're all to blame for the world's problems.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
But completely ignoring No I'm never completely ignoring, I prioritize.

And I reset my "ignorel list" from time to time to reconsider.
(I even put you back on back on my 'listen list' it's a real effort for me ;) )

I think it's better doing it frankly.



Maybe Yasser Arafat is on your own "ignore list", just breath a while and then reconsider him from time to time. (I'm just trying a provocative metaphor OK).
Give peace a chance! :p

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by yehudi
No I'm never completely ignoring, I prioritize.

And I reset my "ignorel list" from time to time to reconsider.
(I even put you back on back on my 'listen list' it's a real effort for me ;) )

I think it's better doing it frankly.



Maybe Yasser Arafat is on your own "ignore list", just breath a while and then reconsider him from time to time. (I'm just trying a provocative metaphor OK).
Give peace a chance! :p

Guy, it takes 2 to Tango. I love Peace. Arafat wants my Jewish azz dead. I don't make friends with people who want me dead.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Yeah, I've called him out on this at least 5 times, and he refuses to answer, so IMO he's defiantely not a Jew, and uses that username as a coniving trick to fool the casual observer to think that some Jew out there thinks we're all to blame for the world's problems. Turns out I'm really enjoying this ambiguity... in your dichotomous world humanity is divided by a gap.

You cannot stand not 'identifying the ennemy'. I'm definately the ennemy but am I "self hating" or not??



I don't care much about your race, minus, but I do about your opinion and actions.


As the song says:

On choisit pas ses parents, on choisit pas sa famille.
On choisit pas non plus les trottoirs de Manille,
De Paris ou d'Alger
Pour apprendre à marcher.

Etre né quelque part.
Etre né quelque part,
Pour celui qui est né, c'est toujours un hasard.


(you do not choose your parents
you do not choose your family
you do not choose the sidewalks of Manilla
Paris or Algier
When you learn to walk

Being born somewhere
is always a chance)

Maxime LEFORESTIER - Né quelque part
Great song against racism.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by yehudi
Turns out I'm really enjoying this ambiguity... in your dichotomous world humanity is divided by a gap.

You cannot stand not 'identifying the ennemy'. I'm definately the ennemy but am I "self hating" or not??



I don't care much about your race, minus, but I do about your opinion and actions.


As the song says:

On choisit pas ses parents, on choisit pas sa famille.
On choisit pas non plus les trottoirs de Manille,
De Paris ou d'Alger
Pour apprendre à marcher.

Etre né quelque part.
Etre né quelque part,
Pour celui qui est né, c'est toujours un hasard.


(you do not choose your parents
you do not choose your family
you do not choose the sidewalks
of Paris or Algier
To learn to walk

Being born somewhere
is always a chance)

Maxime LEFORESTIER - Né quelque part
Great song against racism.

More like a great song for the "cog in the chain" benefits of socialism!

And before you get off on your moral, objctive prowess, I'll remind you a seventh toime that your title says JEW, not objective observer. You should change it to something a little more ambiguous, don't you think, because otherwise, you are implying something rather than staying ambiguous. Are you clearly that shady?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
I'll remind you a seventh toime that your title says JEW, not objective observer. ouch If I were in front of a policeman, I would have got a bullet in the head already... and maybe too in car with my kids in iraq there wouldn't be many of them alive.

mm shoot first, ask questions later uh... try questionning ... did you bother asking me how I came to be called yehudi?

Originally posted by minusthejihad
You should change it For some reason, I feel it's a fine name for me, although I didn't intend at all to take this name... you want the whole story? If you mind asking I might answer. As simple as that.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by yehudi
ouch If I were in front of a policeman, I would have got a bullet in the head already... and maybe too in car with my kids in iraq there wouldn't be many of them alive.

mm shoot first, ask questions later uh... try questionning ... did you bother asking me how I came to be called yehudi?

For some reason, I feel it's a fine name for me, although I didn't intend at all to take this name... you want the whole story? If you mind asking I might answer. As simple as that.

I'll bite. Please tell us how you got the name Yehudi?

[LionOfLoyalty]

I second that question. I'm sorry Yehudi, but this deliberate ambiguity on this matter is quite offensive to me as well. By all means, elaborate.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
I'll bite. Please tell us how you got the name Yehudi?
Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
I second that question. My second success on this forum comes at the cost of my anonymity ... very small cost actually.

This thread about "salvaging the situation" is not the best place to reveal the story however.

Since I have proposed to dedicate a thread to get to know each other better, and since I am also interested in knowing you two as persons I beg you to contribute do my thread about implementing the project (a simple "yes" or "no" will do, more will make me happy).
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2739

Should the "no" prevail, I shall send you the whole story by private message and you can judge - OK ?

.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by yehudi
My second success on this forum comes at the cost of my anonymity ... very small cost actually.

This thread about "salvaging the situation" is not the best place to reveal the story however.

Since I have proposed to dedicate a thread to get to know each other better, and since I am also interested in knowing you two as persons I beg you to contribute do my thread about implementing the project (a simple "yes" or "no" will do, more will make me happy).
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2739

Should the "no" prevail, I shall send you the whole story by private message and you can judge - OK ?

.
GRADE SCHOOL INTRIQUE. This little game of yours is juvenile.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by MichaelC
GRADE SCHOOL INTRIQUE. This little game of yours is juvenile. If it was not no grave we could say exactly the same of Gulf war II. Only a juvenile mind can believe that it will stop terrorism and WMD.

.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by yehudi
If it was not no grave we could say exactly the same of Gulf war II. Only a juvenile mind can believe that it will stop terrorism and WMD.
Cowards always sit out the danger and take advantage of the gains. Thus has your country always been. Jealous of its betters and ashamed at how often your weak people needed rescue.

You'll be getting your chance soon to go it on your own. We'll see then how you'll do. Don't bother with your empty bravado about how much better things will be. france is a weak country that has no place that has not been given her by her betters.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Cowards always sit out the danger and take advantage of the gains. Thus has your country always been. Wer're going nowhere with that kind of reasonning. Let's assume we are reasonable, moral people seeking a way to build the new world order for the next century... a bit exagerated, but always better than insults.

Insulting people really lead nowhere, Michael. Please
.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by yehudi
Wer're going nowhere with that kind of reasonning. Let's assume we are reasonable, moral people seeking a way to build the new world order for the next century... a bit exagerated, but always better than insults.

Insulting people really lead nowhere, Michael. Please
.
I only repeated a truth being spoken by many these days. france offers nothing but empty words to the world. Former glory, if there ever was any, is your only solace.

Ineffective, jealous, sinking into a morass of vain imaginings about her place in the scheme of things, nothing to offer the world that cannot be found elsewhere, soon to totally controlled by the immigrants she is now held in thrall by.

You must be so proud.

[LionOfLoyalty]

Her betters Michael? I would have thought that you would not descend to such racist remarks. I who do not agree with France's policies, nor do not like it's actions across much of it's century would not stoop to such a racist phrase as implying that Americans or Israelis are, as a people, genetically superior to Frenchmen other than in the fact that both are fortunately blessed by having a government that takes less foolish actions. Attacking an entire nationality and all of it's members is an implicitly racist statement. That I know for sure, regardless of who I am.

Originally posted by MichaelC
Cowards always sit out the danger and take advantage of the gains. Thus has your country always been. Jealous of its betters and ashamed at how often your weak people needed rescue.

You'll be getting your chance soon to go it on your own. We'll see then how you'll do. Don't bother with your empty bravado about how much better things will be. france is a weak country that has no place that has not been given her by her betters.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC
I only repeated a truth being spoken by many these days. france offers nothing but empty words to the world. Former glory, if there ever was any, is your only solace.

Ineffective, jealous, sinking into a morass of vain imaginings about her place in the scheme of things, nothing to offer the world that cannot be found elsewhere, soon to totally controlled by the immigrants she is now held in thrall by.

You must be so proud.


This was beauty, MichaelC. Definitive, quintessential France. The poetic justice is, they can't see that the light at the end of the tunnel is not France's glory; it's a train screaming towards them.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by LionOfLoyalty
Her betters Michael? I would have thought that you would not descend to such racist remarks. I who do not agree with France's policies, nor do not like it's actions across much of it's century would not stoop to such a racist phrase as implying that Americans or Israelis are, as a people, genetically superior to Frenchmen other than in the fact that both are fortunately blessed by having a government that takes less foolish actions. Attacking an entire nationality and all of it's members is an implicitly racist statement. That I know for sure, regardless of who I am. Your age and lack of experience are beginning to show. How you manage to draw genetics and racism into this discussion is just bizarre. What the hell are they teaching you kids in school these days?

We, America, are france's betters and if you have another opionion, that's fine. Go ahead and state that opinion, but forget your shallow analysis concerning your views of what is or is not racist. You're off base.

[djnvcm]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yehudi
Yes Yes you are totally right
But which way to stop a war ?
World opinion and democracies were not able to stop it before it starts.
We don't want the US and british and iraki civilians be hurt too much. So we want that the war is won as fast as possible by the invaders......but in such case the iraki resistance will still create trouble, terrorism. (French resistance was considered as terrorist by the nazis)
No the best way is to be find in USA.
The opinion of the US citizens is the one which can oust the current administration and immediatly stop the war and ultimately reduce damages and repair crimes of war.
No doubt that in such case, the world opinion and states will jump to support the initiative and USA will be again considered as state of freedom
Bush is a mistake we wanted Al Gore

[djnvcm]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NewsGuy


But the aspect that I really don't like is that you call yourself "Yehudi," ("Jew" in Hebrew) while your views are exactly the opposite of the prevailing views of most Jews.

Well you speak about which Jews. Fortunately not all jews have the same opinion on this invasion of irak (not all jews are americans ask the French ones)

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by djnvcm
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NewsGuy


But the aspect that I really don't like is that you call yourself "Yehudi," ("Jew" in Hebrew) while your views are exactly the opposite of the prevailing views of most Jews.

Well you speak about which Jews. Fortunately not all jews have the same opinion on this invasion of irak (not all jews are americans ask the French ones)
Yes, American Jews also differ on support for the war, in the same proportion as the rest of American society.

But when it comes to the subject of Israel, most Jews worldwide support the right of the Jewish people to live securely in the Jewish homeland, with their basic human rights respected and free from Arab terrorism.

Most Jews agree that the land dispute with the Arabs should be resolved by political means, but that the Arabs must stop their massacres of innocent Jews civilians to have real peace.

Still, I do have pity for French Jews, who live in an Arab-ruled country, where anti-Semitism is widespread and considered acceptable.

I am also sorry for my Jewish brothers who are not strong enough or successful enough to influence their own destiny in France, since the Middle Ages, all the way up to the Dreyfuss witch hunt trial and till today, when nothing much has really changed.

And I am sorry to say that some French Jews are now under the mistaken impression that they are better off supporting anti-Israel positions, hoping to escape anti-Semitic persecution. It will not work, and never has.

Maybe Yehudi represents those Jews, I don't really know. But he certainly does not represent the views of most American or Israeli Jews I know.

[yehudi]

I created a thread on which I think you should contribute. Either as moderators or as prominent forum members. Feel free to invite others as nedded.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Yes, American Jews also differ on support for the war, in the same proportion as the rest of American society.
American jews support the war slightly less than the rest of American society, as shown by the Pew Research Center. Probably because they have more understanding of foreign affairs.

Now I have a very personal and provocative question to you NewsGuy. Why does this site always reflect the views of extreme-right jews?

To be true I'm challenging you all moderators here. e.g. let's invite some of the different shades of opinion here to look together at the Israel FAQ you yourself wrote http://www.israelforum.com/board/forumdisplay.php3?s=&forumid=24

And see whose opinion they represent.



Let's be serious.

When I first went on this forum, I looked everywhere to answer simple question: What does this forum stand for? I mean what do the forum animators stand for? The only thing I found is: Pro-israeli. this is not enough

I accuse you of falsely representing what you call Pro-Israeli people. Not abiding by what you say you are.



Among other things, we have the right to know:
- who created this forum? When, what was his (or her) objective.
- who gave the money for this?
- how did this forum evolve, what is the policy statement now? (The closest thing to this was recently done by sharonbn).
- who is funding the site now? May we access your certified accounting documents.
- who is in the forum staff? What is their opinion? Are they Mossad agents or what?

While it is discutable that each of us should introduce themselves (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2739). It is not discutable that forum moderators should explain who they are and how they act.


We have the right to know and it is your duty to answer in the clearest manner to all who come here. Israel takes pride in respecting western standard of transparency.
Let's put it in practice here, shall we?

.

[Mediocrates]

yehudi the leader of this board, Newsguy said publically here that s/he does not in fact completely support the war, personally and then went on to list the reasons.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by yehudi

American jews support the war slightly less than the rest of American society, as shown by the Pew Research Center. Probably because they have more understanding of foreign affairs.

. [/B]



Actually, most American Jews are on the Left. And the Left in America, for the most part, is against the war.

Many Leftists in America put political ideology before American interests. Not all, but a large proportion.... What bothers the Left the most is that the UN did not bless the war. Their version of nirvana is a one-world, UN controlled, socialist paradise. Nice to think about, but not very practical in the real world.

Especially when there are bad guys in the world like Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Hitler and, oh yes, Sadaam.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
yehudi the leader of this board, Newsguy said publically here that s/he does not in fact completely support the war, personally and then went on to list the reasons. I'm glad to discover who is the leader. I'm glad to discover there is a leader.


But I would like to know much more. And this forum/website should establish clear rules and post them.
Sorry I'm continuing the conversation on a proper thread in the General Forum.


.

[Mediocrates]

which rules would you like to know?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Jerry
YOIU DON'T KNOW MUCH OF ANYTHING ABOUT AMERICA. IF A JEW LIVES IN NEW YORK, HE IS REPRESENTED BY A NEW YORK CONGRESSAMAN. IF HE LIVES IN SQUEEDUNK, THEN HE IS REPRESENTED BY A CONGRESSMAN FROM SQUEEDUNK. THAT'S HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS, ADOLPH! :p



Maybe you'd be happier at CSPAN or Utne reader where pretty much every post is very close to your general sentiment.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
which rules would you like to know? I want to know Every Rule, Mediocrates. What your damm nickname means and how you intend to stand on "middleground", what the age of your uncle is, where you put your toothbrush at night, .. you name it... and btw I want to know your swiss bank account number too.


MOUHAHAHA :D

now serious : http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2771

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Alfred
Actually, most American Jews are on the Left. And the Left in America, for the most part, is against the war.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think that most Jews are Leftists, and I have known many of them. :)

True, most Jews have historically been Democrats, but apart from the ultra-liberal baby boomers, Jews are mostly Centrist or Right-of-Center on most economic and social issues these days, so far as I know.

On the other hand, there certainly exist Jews that are indeed Leftists, as is there a large Leftist element in the rest of American (and global) society. It's good to have a diversity of opinion.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by yehudi
I want to know Every Rule, Mediocrates. What your damm nickname means and how you intend to stand on "middleground", what the age of your uncle is, where you put your toothbrush at night, .. you name it... and btw I want to know your swiss bank account number too.


MOUHAHAHA :D

now serious : http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2771


Every rule is in the Talmud
My nickname is a pun
I don't pretend to stand on middle ground for as Maggie Thatcher said "Consensus is a failure of leadership"
I do not have any uncles, only two aunts
I use an electric toothbrush it's in the basket with my S.O.'s cremes and lotions; I also have a water pik
I don't have any Swiss bank accounts; US only

[Mediocrates]

I would ask then, who the hell are you? :rolleyes:

[Alfred]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
I respectfully disagree. I don't think that most Jews are Leftists, and I have known many of them. :)



Point taken: you are probably right. I sometimes look at all Democrats as Red Diaper babies...... :)

(especially after watching the Cable News networks)