Korean Job Discussion Forums

[deadman]

[cbclark4]

[cbclark4]

Sorry for the tangent.

Now back to the insignificance of Ron Paul.

cbc

[TML1976]

All countries have some form and adhere to some degree of racism, in fact it is quite natural (although unnecessary) to be like that. Think about, we are all currently residing in one of the most biased nations in the world, Korea. Thankfully their racims is not intertwined with hatretism and its limited to pity things such as equal rights to all irregradless of race or gender. So those of us who work here, although annoyed by this sometimes we are in no imminent danger that would convince us to leave.

I do know my history, as I am a student of history and I have both my undergraduate and graduate degrees in modern western and middle eastern history respectively. So I do know what I'm talking about.

First of all, the Iranians are a highly misunderstood people and country. They are not Arab, they are Persian and they are quick to point that out to you whenever they get a chance. They are a nation that dates back 2500 years and a people that date back to over 5000 years. They are extremely proud and deepely ashamed of their arabization by the west.
The revolution was in no way meant to instill a theocracy instead of an absolute monarchy. What they wanted initially was a republic. in fact its something that they have struggled for over a century, first in 1905 with the adoption of a constitutional monarchy (forgone due to the soviet and British invasion of the country during world war II), then with their popular revolution in 1950 which exiled the King and handed power to a prime minister and a parliament (overthrown by a coup d'etat byt he British and Americans in an operation called AJAX) and then by their 1979 popular revolution (hijacked by the Islamist which brought with them the Islamic republic.

In my opinion, and my theory is this, that the best thign that could have happened was the islamic rev. because and despite the fact it brought a bunch facist mullahs to power, it has essential killed the image of fundemental islam in the eyes of most iranian. Now you're wondering that if that is the case then why haven't they revolted. Well, the answer is easy, they have just recently (historically speaking) went through a revolution and they saw waht happens in one, therefore they have lost all taste for one. They would much rather do an evolution, which in my opinion is inevitable.

In fact, the natural ally of the Americans and Israel are the Iranians, cause their hate and distrust of the Arabs are the same.

Now, as for Israel, the truth is that Israel did take the land of the palestinians illigeally at first and illigeally now. However, they are simply acting and then reacting to the situation that they are faced with. Its easy to sit here behind our computers and criticize or support them, but the truth is any other people or nation would do the same. Are their tactics ruthless? Yes! are their methods counter-productive? Yes! Are their policies racist? Yes! But the same questions can be asked and the answers obtained if you apply them to the palestinians. Sure they (the palestinians) are being manhandled and sure that in every negotiation they assume the role of a defeated peoples who before the negotiations start are already at a huge disadvantage. But anyone who as an understanding of history should know that this is howd efeated nations are treated. Look at Germany in 1919 (Paris Peace Conference and then again in 1945)

Now you ask what America should do. Simple, again from the view behind my computer, the Americans should try to be impartial to the peace process, this means that they should expect us much from Israel as they do from Palestine. This means no military aid to Israel, this means no moral support and a significant attempt to understand both sides, and this means they should abide by the resolutions of the UN security council with regard to the Israeli-Palestian conflict, specially UN resolution number 242.

I think that this would go a long way in appeasing the moderate forces in the ME. and would seriously undermine the different fundemental groups such as Al-quaeda, Hamas, Khomeinist and the now useless and defunct PLO.


Sorry for the long speech, but I would love to hear your views on this.

Cheers

[cbclark4]

[deadman]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

242 calls for land for peace. Not unilateral withdrawal for nothing.

It is not fair to call for one side to end a war and not call for the other side to do the same.

[TML1976]

Thanks guys, happy to share my thoughts.

UN resolution 242's basic point is that Israel must withdraw, unconditionally, to its 1967 borders (the war of Yum Kipur). This means that all of the currently existing and illegal (in the eyes of the UN security council and the US) settlements must be dismantled and removed and that all occupying forces (Israel) must be withdrawn. In fact, that was the primary objetive of Yasser Arafat during the Olso Peace Accord, but through some serious fumbles and overall lack of intellectual and negotiation skills ended giving more away to Israel.

So in truth the current situation of the palestinians can be directly blamed on Yasser Arafat. His biggest mistake was that he went behind the Arab League, which was negotiating a comprehensive peace with Israel, and decided to have direct talks with Israel. Now you can imagine a ragtag group of terrorist/freedom fighters who are excellent at blowing things up and killing people, but horrible at negotiating and being politicians, negotiating with some of the most powerful, intelligent and experienced politicians, lawyers and intellectuals from Israel and Jews from America.

Who do you think will win?

I will try to share my thoughts on these things more, the problem is I don't wanna get sucked into having some nonesensical and ignorant tit for tat argument with a guy or gal who is nothing more than a mouth piece for either side.

In my opinion, the neo-conservatives in America, the Zionists in Israel, Al qaeda, Hamas, the Mullahs in Iran, Chaves in venezuela and many others are ultimately the same thing. They are fundamentalist who believe that they are right, according to their religious book, and all others are evil and must be dealt with accordingly. They are Facist (note the capital F) and no different from another. All those who spouse their views and promote them do so for two reasons, they are ignorant and incapable of original thought or synthesis of two opposing views or have something to gain from doing so.

Cheers

[EFLtrainer]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[quote="TML1976"]

[EFLtrainer]

[TML1976]

[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]

If you have any thing that says otherwise please inform me.
Sorry if I don't know as well as you.


A very good book that I found on that subject and many others is "The Great War for Civilsation" by Robert Fisk. I find it very informative and he is not biased because he carefully takes into consideration all sides in all of the conflicts he discusses. Its also a great read.

And you are absolutely correct, and I apoligize if I was not clear on this, but the whole purpose of 242 was land for peace (the land that was conquered after 1967 and not unconditional withdrawl from all the lands or the elimination of the state of israel) and the land discussed is the current land that Israel is building settlements on. That's the primary reason why there have been several intifadas since 1967 and particularly since the Oslo Accord.

The whole resolution however, was about a comprehensive peace between Arab nations and Israel (which Arafat undermined), the palestinian question was one part of it. It also took into consideration the Golan section of Syria that Israel had occupied, the borders between Israel and Jordan, and the problems between Lebanon and Israel (please keep in mind that Egypt had already signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979). In addition, it mentioned eventual normalization of affairs between the Arabs anf Israel and in particular the establishment of economic ties between them as well. Israel is still very much pushing for the economic clause since it can begin exporting to those countries and make some very good money.

I Think that by 1967 the Arabs had realized that Israel was there to stay and had to deal with it and now they were just trying to save face. From what I gather from the literature, Israel was more than willing to withdraw, however then came lebanon war followed by the first intifada and the death of a large number of Israelis. After that Israel decided that it was necessary to maintain control of those lands to ensure its security.




"Just curious anyone on the that side acknowledge any suffering on the other side?"

Once again I refer you to that book. There are many others and if you are interested I would be very happy to send you a good bibliography.

"By the way what does Bill Clinton say on the subject of peace between Israel and the Palestinians?"

I have not read that book but It has come to my attention and I will eventually read it. I have a set budget for books each year and I have a wish list that has already taken my budget for the next two years.

cbclark4 wrote:

Agreed. But also not exactly a secret. Most of the central points made above have been made before on these forums. (I am not taking away from the post.)

Agreed, however, I have not read all of the posts and I'm only replying to what is being discussed here. I apologize if my posts are redundent.

With regard to your comment. It was initially a secret that came out during the Madrid conference in the late 80's. Once it came out it evolved into the Oslo Accord. Initially, the peace process took into consideration all of the Arab countries that were in conflict with Israel, and that's how the Arab league wanted to keep it. They believed that like that they could get more out of Israel, which I believe they could of. Arafat however, was eager to prove to the palestinians, the israelis and the Americans that he could be a person they could deal with and not just a terrorist. However, the only thing it proved is that this guy was nothing more than a revolutionary, a very good one, but that's it. Moreover, he was getting really old and increasingly sinile. So the Isrealis saw this as an apportunity to divide and conquer, which they did a very good job.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[cbclark4]

[gdimension]

...back to Ron Paul.

A story on the front page of the WaPo: