Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

Graeme
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromGraeme
Date2002-04-16 22:01 (2002-04-16 22:01)
Message-ID<20020416160157.22895.00003646@mb-mc.aol.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsDavid Flood
Take away the aggressive policies of Zionism which are radicalizing young

Arab people to go out and do such horrible things, and you'll be on the home run to solving the problem.

With all due respect - exactly which part of this do you find difficult to grasp?

I think the problem is that you're confusing what's on the table with what's up for discussion. Kind of like the prosecutor in a trial saying "What's so hard to understand here? Murder is a serious crime, deserving of either long imprisonment or death," at which point the judge has to pull him aside and say "We already know that part. The point that's up for discussion is whether or not the defendant actually did it."

Those hypocrites! They're only mad at the Taliban for murdering a couple of

thousand people! How cheesy can you get??

Ask GW Shrub for answers.

I don't need to. It seems perfectly obvious to me why someone would be upset at something like that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You don't appear to be

responding to anything I've stated in that post.

Well, to make it clearer then, you're describing the foreign policy of the last... I dunno, 50 years. At least as far back as our working with the Soviets in the 40's. It may be a distasteful policy, possibly even a wrongheaded one, but it's nothing new. I thought that was the implication. That we're suddenly doing something new and outrageous that we've never done before.

The Palestinians have a genuine grievance. Any Arab regimes trying to hitch

their wagons to the 'cause' don't alter that singular reality.

Maybe so. Heck, I think Germany had some legitimate grievances about the Treaty of Versailles, for that matter. I just don't think that the ends justify the means. I hope that that's not what we're arguing about here.

The best practice is to start from scratch again, probably with Jon Beck's

sensible suggestions.

I haven't seen his suggestions (or if I have, I've forgotten them), but the problem in ending a war that way, is that there are often those who think they can do even better for themselves by continuing the war.

*That* case is too clear-cut to apply here.

Granted, Arafat isn't as evil as Hitler is. At least he's never given orders to deliberately destroy his own nation, as Hitler did at the very end (which would have succeeded had Speer not finally disobeyed him). But the principle does seem the same. Sometimes a people can undeservingly get screwed over by the actions of their own leaders. The problem really can't be solved as long as those leaders are still leading.

You could stop supporting oppressive regimes (and trying to topple

democracies like Venezuela and Chile), for an *excellent* start.

I can go along with that, but Arafat is not exactly elected himself. If we're going to support democracies over oppressive regimes, we've already taken sides before we've begun.