BF2S Forums Palestinian PM offers to resign

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Do you mean Cuba gets no aid from any other country in the world??? not being a smart ass Cam it is a real question.

Of course they do. But they have learned not to rely on the likes of the US. Hamas could learn a lesson in self-reliance, self-sufficiency and 'personal responsibility' from the likes of the Cubans who have learned to cope with their closest neighbour, the most powerful nation on earth, completely shunning them. If Cuba survived 'El Periodo Especial' - the period after the collapse of the USSR - then Hamas should be able to as well.

Ok so they don't rely on the likes of the US, but they DO need to rely on someone.

You were there so  I am in no position to argue with you on the following question: 

From your observations, the people of Cuba oppressed,  or are they free to live to their potential?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-11 05:24:19)

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Do you mean Cuba gets no aid from any other country in the world??? not being a smart ass Cam it is a real question.

Of course they do. But they have learned not to rely on the likes of the US. Hamas could learn a lesson in self-reliance, self-sufficiency and 'personal responsibility' from the likes of the Cubans who have learned to cope with their closest neighbour, the most powerful nation on earth, completely shunning them. If Cuba survived 'El Periodo Especial' - the period after the collapse of the USSR - then Hamas should be able to as well.

Ok so they don't rely on the likes of the US, but they DO need to rely on someone.

You were there so  I am in no position to argue with you on the following question: 

From your observations, the people of Cuba oppressed,  or are they free to live to their potential?

I guess another question would be, were you allowed free access to Cuba, or were you allowed to see only what Castro allowed you to see?..Again bot being a smart ass or shitty am really wondering.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok so they don't rely on the likes of the US, but they DO need to rely on someone.

You were there so  I am in no position to argue with you on the following question: 

From your observations, the people of Cuba oppressed,  or are they free to live to their potential?

They are subject to various forms of oppression yes but the whole ethos of life is different there and not directly comparable to that of the west or to capitalist regimes in general. There is certainly a ceiling on personal potential. I certainly would certainly find it difficult to live there but that is because I am not used to their way of life, having been a fully paid up member of the western way of life since birth.

hey Cam, I edited my post for part 2 of my question? Thx.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

They are subject to various forms of oppression yes but the whole ethos of life is different there and not directly comparable to that of the west or to capitalist regimes in general. There is certainly a ceiling on personal potential. I certainly would certainly find it difficult to live there but that is because I am not used to their way of life, having been a fully paid up member of the western way of life since birth.

hey Cam, I edited my post for part 2 of my question? Thx.

To be honest within Cuba I was allowed free reign to go wherever I wanted and only stayed in state hotels for the first three days. I stayed with Cuban families for the bulk of the holiday. I had full access to the internet too. Cubans would as well, except it's prohibitively expensive for them.

CameronPoe wrote:

What's the point? He should learn to go without 'western aid'. Take a leaf out of Cuba's book. He's delusional if he thinks him resigning will change things too.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:
What's the point? He should learn to go without 'western aid'. Take a leaf out of Cuba's book. He's delusional if he thinks him resigning will change things too.
 

I ask because I am trying to support a knee jerk opinion that Cuba's proud defiance of western ideals is at the expense of the people there. The quality of life on such a beautful island could be so much better if not for the tyranny of Castro. Saying that the Palistinians should "take a leaf out of Cubas book" seems more like following Cuba over a cliff.

Cuban 'quality of life' is fine when viewed through the prism of their life ethos. Nobody wants for food, clothes, education, healthcare, dentistry, transport, etc. The cost to them is that certain civil liberties (freedom of speech, etc.) have been curbed to preserve the status quo and to ensure no-one does better than another - all equal as it were. They also have to go without luxury items we are used to in the west - mp3 players, etc. - non-necessary items but items that are desirable to have. Cubans have a different way of life and enjoy life, valuing different things to those that we value. Pro-regime Cubans have a completely different way of thinking, one that you Lowing would have particular problems understanding. It's difficult to understand for the likes of us westerners in general. Community becomes very important. Of course those that don't like it or don't fit in are free to cobble together a raft and brave the Florida straits.

For Hamas to go down that path may not be wise but given the circumstances may be necessary.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:
What's the point? He should learn to go without 'western aid'. Take a leaf out of Cuba's book. He's delusional if he thinks him resigning will change things too.
 

I ask because I am trying to support a knee jerk opinion that Cuba's proud defiance of western ideals is at the expense of the people there. The quality of life on such a beautful island could be so much better if not for the tyranny of Castro. Saying that the Palistinians should "take a leaf out of Cubas book" seems more like following Cuba over a cliff.

Cuban 'quality of life' is fine when viewed through the prism of their life ethos. Nobody wants for food, clothes, education, healthcare, dentistry, transport, etc. The cost to them is that certain civil liberties (freedom of speech, etc.) have been curbed to preserve the status quo and to ensure no-one does better than another - all equal as it were. They also have to go without luxury items we are used to in the west - mp3 players, etc. - non-necessary items but items that are desirable to have. Cubans have a different way of life and enjoy life, valuing different things to those that we value. Pro-regime Cubans have a completely different way of thinking, one that you Lowing would have particular problems understanding. It's difficult to understand for the likes of us westerners in general. Community becomes very important. Of course those that don't like it or don't fit in are free to cobble together a raft and brave the Florida straits.

For Hamas to go down that path may not be wise but given the circumstances may be necessary.

Last edited by CC-Marley (2006-11-11 08:47:04)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Hmmmmmmmm, over 2 hours and a once active thread falls silent. A ton of "views" but no one wants to actually answer the question?? wonder why.

I would answer the question but a) there's no definitive answer only opinions/theories & b) I'm on my parents computer in rural Ireland with only a 56k connection (which they also need for the phone). Thorough replies from me will have to wait until Sunday night or Monday.

If you want to have some foresight on what I might post about then I suggest you wiki the Northern Ireland peace process and the peace that so very very nearly came to pass between Yasser Arafat and the then incumbent Israeli PM (pre-2000).

PS Strictly speaking your question is slightly off-topic and has been discussed before.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I would answer the question but a) there's no definitive answer only opinions/theories & b) I'm on my parents computer in rural Ireland with only a 56k connection (which they also need for the phone). Thorough replies from me will have to wait until Sunday night or Monday.

If you want to have some foresight on what I might post about then I suggest you wiki the Northern Ireland peace process and the peace that so very very nearly came to pass between Yasser Arafat and the then incumbent Israeli PM (pre-2000).

PS Strictly speaking your question is slightly off-topic and has been discussed before.

I don't think so.

If you think Israel is responsible for all of the terrorism and war in the ME then your answer should be simple. Wipe out Israel and restore peace and order in the ME.

But even after all your anti-Israel posts. I doubt you seriously believe that wiping out Israel will bring peace to anyone in the ME.

I have said countless times that I believe in a two-state solution. Something that was very very nearly achieved at the Camp David talks held by Clinton. The sticking point was ridiculous: Clinton came up with the idea that the Palestinians could have the Dome of the Rock above a certain elevation and the Israelis could have the wailing wall - below the Dome of the Rock. That was the ONLY sticking point. And Yasser the idiot, who had agreed to everything else, said no because of pride. Mahmoud Abbas would have said yes in a flash. If we can get to that stage again then we might have peace. Unfortunately Sharon then incited the Palestinians to violence by visiting the Temple Mount knowing the response would make him more electable in the upcoming general election. It has been downhill ever since. The Republicans took power in the US and allowed Israel to act more brazenly than ever, even stating that some illegal settlements would have to stay. Hardly a recipe for peace and possibly what drove Palestinians to democratically elect Hamas.

Last edited by lowing (2006-11-11 09:49:06)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

A two state solution was offered in 1947: from WIKI........" The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.

Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, David Ben-Gurion tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. The Arab Higher Committee immediately ordered a violent three-day strike on Jewish civilians, attacking buildings, shops, and neighborhoods, and prompting counter-attacks organized by underground Jewish militias like the Lehi and Irgun. These attacks soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews, this civil war being the first "phase" of the 1948 War of Independence.[14]"

1947 <> 2007

We have very different realities on the ground now. 1947 is nothing like today. Then, Palestine as it was known, consisted of an intermingled society of jews and arabs with no distinct barriers between the two communities. The arabs consituted 67% of the population (successive waves of previously non-resident European jews having bolstered jewish numbers through immigration). So 67% of the population were to receive 45% of the land they currently inhabited based on decisions taken in New York by people who cared little for the impact it would have on them. All their neighbours incidentally voted against the plan. What on earth did New Zealanad have to do with Palestine? They are one of the countries that voted yes. Britain abstained. I thought you disagreed with awarding terrorism Lowing? Read up on Haganah, Lehi and Irgun. There were terrorists on both sides.

Today we have a state of Israel that has been effectively ethnically cleansed to such an extent that the jewish majority will never be threatened. The state of Israel is a reality. It must be accepted. Arabs may not have accepted an Israeli state then but they must now.

Lowing wrote:

It appears the problem started when the Arabs vehemently refuse to agree to allow the Jews live in the land where they have a right to exist. Kinda makes ya wonder who really is the problem.

Yet you maintain Israel are the agressors. I simply do not understand the blinders you insist on wearing on this issue.

Fundamental difference between me and you: I never believed that the immigrant jews had a right to live there. It's an irreconcilable difference of opinion. The brits owed it to the Palestinians to safeguard their interests. By allowing immigration of jews they weren't. Don't try and tell me that the Palestinians are better off now that the jews are there than they were before!!!

PS This could go on forever.

Last edited by lowing (2006-11-11 10:20:08)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I agree it sure could.........so let me ask this one last bottom line question.

Will the elimination of Israel bring peace to the ME??

I say no. They will simply turn their aggression even more toward the west.

IF you agree, then Israel clearly isn't the problem or the aggressors, merely the excuse for islamic radicalism.

I must state first off that I personally IN NO WAY desire, advocate or agree with the destruction of the state of Israel. The destruction of Israel or even just the peaceful resolution of the conflict between the Isrealites and the Palestinians would seriously diminish the further recruitment power of radical islam. However, Israel is but one excuse radical islam uses to further their cause. If their Israel 'problem' was 'solved', their recruiting power would diminish, but I would see them turning their attention to the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, states which they regard as being occupied or being propped up by the west. They would ratchet up their rhetoric and indoctrinate against these states. I personally can't see how they can effectively mount any kind of serious threat to western civilisation, hundreds or in the case of USA thousands of miles away. Not to play down 9/11 but that was not a threat to western civilisation itself - that was a single gory act of terror. I stand by my thoughts that they will only ever be able to metaphorically bite at the heels of the west without threatening some giant geo-political shift.

PS The Israel-Palestine conflict is not a radical islam based conflict - it just gets hijacked by those in the rest of the middle east because the Dome of the Rock is situated there. They don't give a shit about the actual Palestinians or Palestinian statehood.