The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3626945.stm
Sharon decides to hold on to territory that was to be given up to the Palestinians under the Roadmap.
Bush now backs him all the way.
Why?
Firstly, I'm not going to try to pick sides on the whole Israel/Palestine issue, except to say that I don't consider either 'side' to be without blame, but most of the real harm done by each side is more the responsibility of a few screwed up individuals than representative of either group as a whole.
But lets look at Sharon's change of heart objectively: He had formerly agreed in principle to handing over the whole of the Gaza and West Bank regions. Evidently he changed his mind. I consider it reasonable to infer from this that the original land transfer agreement was acceptable to Sharon, but he decided to 'play hardball' to cut a better deal.
This, in conjunction with the building of the infamous security wall along a route that 'stole' Palestinian land shows a general tactic by Sharon to claim as much land for Israel as possible before there is a solid defined border for the Palestinian state.
So why is Bush so quick to support this? Surely he can't genuinely believe it is just, from a neutral position, to aid Sharon in ensuring Israel get as much land as possible in the Roadmap to Peace.
So Why?
Big companies (especially oil and pharmacueticals) make big campaign contributions in the US. Initially the theory is that it supports the political party that best represents the company's interests, and in close election years can potentially decide whether the president is a republican or democrat.
Effectively the companies make political campaign contributions to 'buy' a favourable president.
As unplesant as this idea is, it quickly evolves into something worse.
The politicians realise the potentially crucial importance of these corporate contributions, and will make and alter their policies to encourage these companies to pay up.
In effect these companies are buying not only their president of choice, they're also buying political policy. They're buying a small slice of control of the country.
And that's how it works. There may not be express open egreements, nobody even likes to admit it happens, but it does.
How does this connect to Sharon?
Statistically, it is accepted that a (very) disproportionate number of controllers of media corporations in America are controlled by Jewish individuals. They also hold a great deal of economic power.
No criticism there, it's just how it is. Nothing wrong with that.
Also, it's inevitable that in general Jewish people will be more sympathetic to Israel's cause than Palestine's.
Similarly the average Arab will be more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israelis.
That's just human nature, nobody can really criticise it on either front as that kind of bias comes naturally to anyone, and is difficult to overcome.
Bush's popularity is slumping. I heard today that latest polls show 70% of the US disagree with his handling of Iraq.
The US are in an election year and Bush is not looking good for a second term.
So he sells himself for corporate support, and if the corporation is a media corp. then the policy-pimping counts double.
I'm sure you see where this is going by now.
So there you have it - Bush encourages Sharon to claim all the land he can before the handover, not because Bush agrees with any particular moral justification, but because it's an election year.
Do you feel that bitter aftertaste?
Sharon decides to hold on to territory that was to be given up to the Palestinians under the Roadmap.
Bush now backs him all the way.
Why?
Firstly, I'm not going to try to pick sides on the whole Israel/Palestine issue, except to say that I don't consider either 'side' to be without blame, but most of the real harm done by each side is more the responsibility of a few screwed up individuals than representative of either group as a whole.
But lets look at Sharon's change of heart objectively: He had formerly agreed in principle to handing over the whole of the Gaza and West Bank regions. Evidently he changed his mind. I consider it reasonable to infer from this that the original land transfer agreement was acceptable to Sharon, but he decided to 'play hardball' to cut a better deal.
This, in conjunction with the building of the infamous security wall along a route that 'stole' Palestinian land shows a general tactic by Sharon to claim as much land for Israel as possible before there is a solid defined border for the Palestinian state.
So why is Bush so quick to support this? Surely he can't genuinely believe it is just, from a neutral position, to aid Sharon in ensuring Israel get as much land as possible in the Roadmap to Peace.
So Why?
Big companies (especially oil and pharmacueticals) make big campaign contributions in the US. Initially the theory is that it supports the political party that best represents the company's interests, and in close election years can potentially decide whether the president is a republican or democrat.
Effectively the companies make political campaign contributions to 'buy' a favourable president.
As unplesant as this idea is, it quickly evolves into something worse.
The politicians realise the potentially crucial importance of these corporate contributions, and will make and alter their policies to encourage these companies to pay up.
In effect these companies are buying not only their president of choice, they're also buying political policy. They're buying a small slice of control of the country.
And that's how it works. There may not be express open egreements, nobody even likes to admit it happens, but it does.
How does this connect to Sharon?
Statistically, it is accepted that a (very) disproportionate number of controllers of media corporations in America are controlled by Jewish individuals. They also hold a great deal of economic power.
No criticism there, it's just how it is. Nothing wrong with that.
Also, it's inevitable that in general Jewish people will be more sympathetic to Israel's cause than Palestine's.
Similarly the average Arab will be more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israelis.
That's just human nature, nobody can really criticise it on either front as that kind of bias comes naturally to anyone, and is difficult to overcome.
Bush's popularity is slumping. I heard today that latest polls show 70% of the US disagree with his handling of Iraq.
The US are in an election year and Bush is not looking good for a second term.
So he sells himself for corporate support, and if the corporation is a media corp. then the policy-pimping counts double.
I'm sure you see where this is going by now.
So there you have it - Bush encourages Sharon to claim all the land he can before the handover, not because Bush agrees with any particular moral justification, but because it's an election year.
Do you feel that bitter aftertaste?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3626945.stm
Sharon decides to hold on to territory that was to be given up to the Palestinians under the Roadmap.
Bush now backs him all the way.
Why?
Firstly, I'm not going to try to pick sides on the whole Israel/Palestine issue, except to say that I don't consider either 'side' to be without blame, but most of the real harm done by each side is more the responsibility of a few screwed up individuals than representative of either group as a whole.
But lets look at Sharon's change of heart objectively: He had formerly agreed in principle to handing over the whole of the Gaza and West Bank regions. Evidently he changed his mind. I consider it reasonable to infer from this that the original land transfer agreement was acceptable to Sharon, but he decided to 'play hardball' to cut a better deal.
This, in conjunction with the building of the infamous security wall along a route that 'stole' Palestinian land shows a general tactic by Sharon to claim as much land for Israel as possible before there is a solid defined border for the Palestinian state.
So why is Bush so quick to support this? Surely he can't genuinely believe it is just, from a neutral position, to aid Sharon in ensuring Israel get as much land as possible in the Roadmap to Peace.
So Why?
Big companies (especially oil and pharmacueticals) make big campaign contributions in the US. Initially the theory is that it supports the political party that best represents the company's interests, and in close election years can potentially decide whether the president is a republican or democrat.
Effectively the companies make political campaign contributions to 'buy' a favourable president.
As unplesant as this idea is, it quickly evolves into something worse.
The politicians realise the potentially crucial importance of these corporate contributions, and will make and alter their policies to encourage these companies to pay up.
In effect these companies are buying not only their president of choice, they're also buying political policy. They're buying a small slice of control of the country.
And that's how it works. There may not be express open egreements, nobody even likes to admit it happens, but it does.
How does this connect to Sharon?
Statistically, it is accepted that a (very) disproportionate number of controllers of media corporations in America are controlled by Jewish individuals. They also hold a great deal of economic power.
No criticism there, it's just how it is. Nothing wrong with that.
Also, it's inevitable that in general Jewish people will be more sympathetic to Israel's cause than Palestine's.
Similarly the average Arab will be more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israelis.
That's just human nature, nobody can really criticise it on either front as that kind of bias comes naturally to anyone, and is difficult to overcome.
Bush's popularity is slumping. I heard today that latest polls show 70% of the US disagree with his handling of Iraq.
The US are in an election year and Bush is not looking good for a second term.
So he sells himself for corporate support, and if the corporation is a media corp. then the policy-pimping counts double.
I'm sure you see where this is going by now.
So there you have it - Bush encourages Sharon to claim all the land he can before the handover, not because Bush agrees with any particular moral justification, but because it's an election year.
Do you feel that bitter aftertaste?
Sharon decides to hold on to territory that was to be given up to the Palestinians under the Roadmap.
Bush now backs him all the way.
Why?
Firstly, I'm not going to try to pick sides on the whole Israel/Palestine issue, except to say that I don't consider either 'side' to be without blame, but most of the real harm done by each side is more the responsibility of a few screwed up individuals than representative of either group as a whole.
But lets look at Sharon's change of heart objectively: He had formerly agreed in principle to handing over the whole of the Gaza and West Bank regions. Evidently he changed his mind. I consider it reasonable to infer from this that the original land transfer agreement was acceptable to Sharon, but he decided to 'play hardball' to cut a better deal.
This, in conjunction with the building of the infamous security wall along a route that 'stole' Palestinian land shows a general tactic by Sharon to claim as much land for Israel as possible before there is a solid defined border for the Palestinian state.
So why is Bush so quick to support this? Surely he can't genuinely believe it is just, from a neutral position, to aid Sharon in ensuring Israel get as much land as possible in the Roadmap to Peace.
So Why?
Big companies (especially oil and pharmacueticals) make big campaign contributions in the US. Initially the theory is that it supports the political party that best represents the company's interests, and in close election years can potentially decide whether the president is a republican or democrat.
Effectively the companies make political campaign contributions to 'buy' a favourable president.
As unplesant as this idea is, it quickly evolves into something worse.
The politicians realise the potentially crucial importance of these corporate contributions, and will make and alter their policies to encourage these companies to pay up.
In effect these companies are buying not only their president of choice, they're also buying political policy. They're buying a small slice of control of the country.
And that's how it works. There may not be express open egreements, nobody even likes to admit it happens, but it does.
How does this connect to Sharon?
Statistically, it is accepted that a (very) disproportionate number of controllers of media corporations in America are controlled by Jewish individuals. They also hold a great deal of economic power.
No criticism there, it's just how it is. Nothing wrong with that.
Also, it's inevitable that in general Jewish people will be more sympathetic to Israel's cause than Palestine's.
Similarly the average Arab will be more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israelis.
That's just human nature, nobody can really criticise it on either front as that kind of bias comes naturally to anyone, and is difficult to overcome.
Bush's popularity is slumping. I heard today that latest polls show 70% of the US disagree with his handling of Iraq.
The US are in an election year and Bush is not looking good for a second term.
So he sells himself for corporate support, and if the corporation is a media corp. then the policy-pimping counts double.
I'm sure you see where this is going by now.
So there you have it - Bush encourages Sharon to claim all the land he can before the handover, not because Bush agrees with any particular moral justification, but because it's an election year.
Do you feel that bitter aftertaste?
Because the Lord promised the land to the Jews and it is the Jewish people's land rightfully.
Bush backed him because of the huge jewish community living in america.
And the pro-Jewish Christian community too.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Because the Lord promised the land to the Jews and it is the Jewish
> people's land rightfully.
Sais who? The Bible?
Cripes, with doctorines like that, it must be real easy for you to justify just about anything.
> Because the Lord promised the land to the Jews and it is the Jewish
> people's land rightfully.
Sais who? The Bible?
Cripes, with doctorines like that, it must be real easy for you to justify just about anything.
Skarra wrote:
> Cripes, with doctorines like that, it must be real easy for you to
> justify just about anything.
Have you read much of this forum latel? :^D
Watching Channel 4 news tonight, they were stressing the potential importance of the 'Jewish vote' in the forthcoming elections, but I still figure it makes sense that my original reasoning in the thread stands.
It was estimated that 2% of the US is Jewish, they make up 4% of the *voting* population, but in some states that may rise to 6-8%. The Jewish demographic are traditionally strong Democrat supporters.
However, with the Democrats not condemning Bush/Sharon (also with an eye on the election no doubt), Bush's gains in the Jewish vote must be limited.
Plus he must lose some voters who see him as a cowardly spin-merchant acting without interest in the morality of his stance, and perhaps some Jewish voters who see through his shameless brown-nosing, and won't vote for someone they can't respect.
Well, I hope so anyway :^D
> Cripes, with doctorines like that, it must be real easy for you to
> justify just about anything.
Have you read much of this forum latel? :^D
Watching Channel 4 news tonight, they were stressing the potential importance of the 'Jewish vote' in the forthcoming elections, but I still figure it makes sense that my original reasoning in the thread stands.
It was estimated that 2% of the US is Jewish, they make up 4% of the *voting* population, but in some states that may rise to 6-8%. The Jewish demographic are traditionally strong Democrat supporters.
However, with the Democrats not condemning Bush/Sharon (also with an eye on the election no doubt), Bush's gains in the Jewish vote must be limited.
Plus he must lose some voters who see him as a cowardly spin-merchant acting without interest in the morality of his stance, and perhaps some Jewish voters who see through his shameless brown-nosing, and won't vote for someone they can't respect.
Well, I hope so anyway :^D
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> Cripes, with doctorines like that, it must be real easy for you to
> justify just about anything.
>
> Have you read much of this forum latel? :^D
I'm sorry, but i don't understand.
I was just pointing out that Forest Fan was using the bible to justify the occupation of Palistinian land, and that with doctorines such as this one, it is easy to ignore the wrong in the situation. Thats all.
> Skarra wrote:
> Cripes, with doctorines like that, it must be real easy for you to
> justify just about anything.
>
> Have you read much of this forum latel? :^D
I'm sorry, but i don't understand.
I was just pointing out that Forest Fan was using the bible to justify the occupation of Palistinian land, and that with doctorines such as this one, it is easy to ignore the wrong in the situation. Thats all.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Because the Lord promised the land to the Jews and it is the Jewish
> people's land rightfully.
HAHAHAHA! Hilarious.
> Because the Lord promised the land to the Jews and it is the Jewish
> people's land rightfully.
HAHAHAHA! Hilarious.
Skarra wrote:
> I'm sorry, but i don't understand.
>
> I was just pointing out that Forest Fan was using the bible to
> justify the occupation of Palistinian land, and that with doctorines
> such as this one, it is easy to ignore the wrong in the situation.
> Thats all.
Hehe. :-D
You were surprised at Forest Fan's approach to the situation.
Ofcourse, if you'd kept up with just some of the religious threads on this board then you'd be used to him.
Dr Duck was sort of saying "Where have you been all this time!" sort of thing...
But yeah, you were right. :-)
> I'm sorry, but i don't understand.
>
> I was just pointing out that Forest Fan was using the bible to
> justify the occupation of Palistinian land, and that with doctorines
> such as this one, it is easy to ignore the wrong in the situation.
> Thats all.
Hehe. :-D
You were surprised at Forest Fan's approach to the situation.
Ofcourse, if you'd kept up with just some of the religious threads on this board then you'd be used to him.
Dr Duck was sort of saying "Where have you been all this time!" sort of thing...
But yeah, you were right. :-)