New Mars Forums

Yeah, thats the definition of control of territory, sovereignty, or the right to govern it. The Jews were granted self determination over the lands were they had majority in resolution 181. The Arabs considered the mandate as a majority Arab state. They barely give their own people self determination, I guess its no surprise they violently resist giving it to the Jews.

And whats this about the Jews "failing to integrate"? Are centuries of European Christian bigotry and complete ignorance of their own religious doctrines about the fate of their Savior some how the Jews fault?

Oh I know Hamas used its legislative victories to launched a coup against Abas executive control in Gaza. What I'm asking is how has Gaza improved since Hamas toke over. Cause I suspect its still the same old excuses on how your life sucks because there a Jews within a thousand miles of Jerusalem, and unlike those Zionist collaborators Fatah, Hamas will increase rocket attacks on Jewish shopping malls by 33%.

Questions of the lands ability to support the population aside, theres still that pesky issue of the Arabs trying to deny the Jews self-determination with the sword. The Jews fought and won that right. Why would they give it up?

Israel still controls the strip's airspace, territorial water and offshore maritime access, as well as its side of the Gaza-Israeli border. And while I'm sure theres a swarm of UAVs overhead, and a Mossad agent on every other street corner, Israel does not have control over the strip itself. They even gave up control of the Philadelphi Route, which is a narrow strip adjacent to the Strip's border with Egypt to prevent the smuggling of weapons across the border. Thats going well.

So, no, all of Gazas ills are on firmly on the shoulders Hamas now. Which brings us back to the ongoing rocket attacks. Now, if we are suppose to believe that all the Palestinians want is a state to call their own based on the pre 67 borders, and that as far is the land is concerned, Hamas has complete control of the territory, they would have no reason in continue fighting from Gaza and they could go about creating the Arab Islamic utopia dreamed of ever since May 14th, 1948, at least as far they can with the resources in the territory. And you could probably make a legitimate case for making diplomatic efforts to ease the air and sea blockade to bring in additional imports, start trade ect. Hell, if it was the only shots fired in anger, you could justify the shooting down Israeli aircraft in Gazan airspace, and sinking Israeli craft in the Gazan waters. after all, it's what any self respecting sovereign state would do. Ground based attacks could continue against IDF positions and Israeli settlements in the West Bank, cause, afterall, all they want is a state of their own, one that "doesn't look like swiss cheese". Then they wouldn't have to endanger Gazan citizens by launching attacks from there, inviting Israeli counterstrikes.

But for some reason, they persist in indiscriminantly bombarding civilian targets in Israel. It's almost like they are satisfied with Gaza, and seem to show no interest in the West Bank. I wonder why that would be.

You've never heard of Jim Crow, have you?

In a country as politically diverse as Israel, I'm sure they have the same ambulance chasing legal industry we do. Any legal abuse would not stand.

There is viable analogy to be found there though. I'm sure there is an element of social stigma surrounding someone of an Arab backround, much like those surrounding blacks. As any subset of society certain stereotypes, even if undeserved, stick. Arab Israels die just like Israelis do when Israel is attack though. Radical Islam is by its very nature indiscriminate.

Actually, our problem, if you want to call it that, is that we are not narcissistic enough to assume we can talk our enemies out of their dangerous ideas. Our enemies are free to have them, and if they threaten us with them they face the full might of the US Armed forces, not a hand full of diplomats convinced to their last breath that the right ego stroking worlds would calm the savage beasts.

Bush made this point to the Knesset today. Obama (this thread was suppose to be about him wasn't it ) and other democrats were dumb enough to admit to the they resemble that remark.

Actually, had they lost anyone of their wars, they probably would have met a fate far worst that that of the Palestinians, or worst.

And why shouldn't we support them. They are a fellow democracy and very much a canary on the coal mine. The troubles they face are the struggles we face. The apocalyptic religious theories are overstated.   

Why exactly does it matter how Israel left Gaza? Do you really expect Israel to leave the keys under the doormat and mints under the pillows? It effectively removes all excuses from the Palestinian playbook, and lets them wallow in their filth for a while. There may have been a time after 67 when Israel thought of properly annexing the territories, but they didn't, using them instead as a buffer against further aggression. Without a permanent use for the land, it became a political bargaining chip.

As for Olmert, any dreams he may have had for continuing Sharons Kadima platform died in the hills of Southern Lebanon in 2006. On of the nasty side effects of the parliamentary system is that you have to make deals with minorities that really shouldn't be in power. I'm sure he's had to shelve Kadima, if not go against it just to stay in power and hope that after a few years he can try again.

The problem with it that those who gain power in vacuum that disengagement leaves are far harder to kick out, but at least they show their true true colors.

Common sense should tell them to stop, or at least shift to the West Bank were voilence can at least be slightly more justified.

But Islamic facistists never were the logical type.

Well Israel has a few options. Annex the territories, and grant citizenship to the Palestinians, and commit Harry Carry, annex and kick everyone out, and wait for the next attack, leave completely, and wait while the terrorists assemble forces to push on the attack, or continue the dance they are in until international nation building force is brought to bear and a proper state is established.

In the mean time they have the land to use as a domestic political football. 

Define peaceably?

Cause if it would involve anything the Arabs do to each other when they have self rule, I wouldn't want any part of it either.

What would annexation accomplish? They would have to either kick everyone out, which wouldn't solve the greater conflict cause it would disablize surrounding states who have no love for Palestinians, or grant citizenship and commit demographical suicide.

Still no bolonium. 

So... We just need to hope that the Politburo never decides to commit economic suicide.

Actually we just need to use our technology to mass produce everything cheaper than the Chinese can.

Of course they are going to leave. But we are talking about a war for control of territory. If you lose, you don't get control of the territory.

Yeah, how's that working out for them?

According to UN numbers, about 770,000 people fled what would become pre-1967 Israel, a population that has now grown to 4 million. Now even if you are going to take the foolish step of giving back land gained in a war of Arab aggression, your not going to give land everything to pop out of a uterus ever since. 

How many settlements does Israel have in Gaza now?
Were do the rockets come from?

Really, cause the only legal difference is the Arabs are not required to serve in the IDF.

Unless you consider merely being less numerous to be discrimination.

So tell me, what domestic governmental function do the Israelis deny either the Fatah or Hamas governments to perform?

So I suppose he'll be sitting down with Osama next. Youknow, just to get his side of the story.

Some very nice images there akwx. What did you use to make those?

I'm sorry, I have to get this out of the way...

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, but should get changed in the basement. 

I particularly like the donut shaped one. Have you considered using modular, removable housing units, arrayed in a spoke pattern? How bout using the hole area as a multi level open area, using a series of mirrors to direct light to each level, and using the open area for recreation, agriculture, or grazing?

No, private companies are not going to build roads directly, that would violate the purpose of their existence. It would tolerated just as well, if not worse than wasteful spending by the government.

Never the less, companies do contribute, just like private citizens, to public coffers by paying taxes. There is two ways go about it, either heavy on the outset, like a 50% tax on gas, which stifles growth and limits the capital available to companies to grow their business. The other is lower at the beginning, but by leaving people more of their own money, they invest  it and do more business overall, actually contributing more in taxes, while also making more money. Thus, more money in the public coffers for infrastructure.

As for individual countries use of car, the US does have a different relationship. The small, crowded streets of Europe and Asia are more conducive to the "golf carts" that are inevitably more fuel efficient. These however, would not work well on American roads, were the space and speeds would make them death traps. We like to do things and go places that simply do not exist any other place on Earth. You can cross the largest country in Europe in a train in a day. The same trip would take a week in the US.

The overall expense of useful automobiles actually contributes greatly to what we buy. We buy one car that can do anything we can see ourselves doing, then we drive it everyday cause we can't afford another. So if we ever want to tow anything, or carry more than 4 people comfortably, they buy an SUV. This wears the thing out within 5-7 years, then we start over. 30 years ago, we could service our own cars, thats much more difficult now, the manufacturers do this on purpose and thats how they make their money.  A much better formula is several older automobiles, a sleek 30+mph sedan for long distance highway driving, a sturdy light SUV for local hauling and recreational off roading, a full size truck for heavy hauling, and finally, a motorcycle for everyday, 3 season commuting.

The trouble with that analogy is were not running out of oil anytime soon. Were not even allowed to explore thanks to the democrats. The Brazilians just found one of the largest reserves ever off their Atlantic coasts. We have Alaska, California, both Florida coasts, Colorado oil shale, Alberta oil sands, god knows were else. It's not an unending supply, and the effort required to get it will increase. That is reason enough to shift to renewable home grown sources.

Whats worst is various states set up their own emissions standards, requiring different formulas, and creating artificial shortages.

Now theres going to be natural variations, natural disasters that destroy infrastructure, wars that disrupt supply, growing demand, all that will make the price go up. The speculators make money that way. But the government doesn't need to contribute by both limiting supply and then making windfall tax profits by their own shortages.   

Well, I suppose those "suffering" from Stockholm really don't "suffer" in the conventional sense.

In a free country people have the uninfringed right to live and work were ever they want. Believe it or not there isn't employment for every conceivable field on every street corner.

What do the Germans have to do with it?

The majority of expressed freedoms to come out of the Revolutionary period were direct responses to injustices, real and imagined, committed by the British crown.

I see some are still justified.

As I mentioned, culture and other forces tend to push people towards a car that is a jack of all trades, master of none. Theres nothing wrong with a do it all auto, but we don't need it all the time. Absurd insurance (a tax in and of itself) costs, registration, inspection, and new and complicated maintenance make the alternetive difficult. People will eventually find a way.

As I said the impoverished of the world haven't adapted to the natural extremes of their current climate, a new one is not going to be different. Fishing is just as fun on a boat as in a shanty, if not more so.

And I don't know were you get your news from, but Katrina, by the time it hit, was not an abnormally bad storm. It just happened to hit in just the right weak spot that was known about since the 1960's when it was flooded by Camillie. For some reason NO likes to play russian roulette with their levees.

Ah, an Arab-Israeli conflict discussion. Like competing in the special Olympics...

A couple points about war and civilians. It's wonderful and idealistic to proclaim civilians off limits in war. It should be followed whenever the situation permits. Trillions of dollars have been spent to make war so swift and accurate that an armed conflict is settled before they can become involved.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Wars simply do not happen without civilians. Whether its the millions of weapons factory workers keeping the war going, or citizen soldiers dropping a couple of grenades on passing soldiers. We can draw a sharp contrast between what happens when the war is taken to the enemies homeland, and when it isn't. The technology was not yet mature in the first world war, and we had millions of lives wasted for no gain on a frontline that didn't move for years. By the time WW2 came along, we were able to disassemble the German war machine by air, and they were short of everything near the end. As for moral targets, all I can say is it is very effective when employed by militias in Iraq on the local populations. A few gunman can terrorize an area, and it takes a long time to root them out and restore the confidence of the population. And if you say a particular area is off limits, the enemy will take up position there. Don't try yourself up like that. Whether it works with air bombardment, probably not so much. In any event, theres no good in war, the only good can come when the victor gets to carry out its goals, and then only when the goals are good. Its easy to say the ends don't justify the means until you come face to face with the enemies ends.

As for Israel v. Arabs, its really simple. I don't believe for a minute that Hamas has anything but the destruction Israel in mind. Fatah may have seen enough fighting to just sit back and protect their own butts.

But I do know that no party claiming to represent the Arab population on the former British mandate of Palestine, or the pre 67 territories of Egypt and Jordan give a rats hind quarters about the people they claim to represent. Given all the money the Arabs states have given over the years those people should all be living in guided estates on half the land the Israels have given. They still live in impoverished slums, short of everything but ammo and rockets. Those people are pawns to be paraded in front of a sympathetic Western Media.

I say pack them all up and move them into the Sinai, under Western protection, technology and development policies they could live kings within a decade.

Otherwise known as "down".

Private companies are in business to make money, they make roads to places they they want you to go on their property. They are not charities, and are not going to make roads everywhere.

The point remains that private companies, supported by private investment and sales revenue, are the engine that drives the economy, and your only shotting yourself in the foot if you take them for granted with the kind of abusive taxes and wasteful spending on social engineering. 

Just because your population bends over and lubes up doesn't make it right. If it were unprofitable for people to try to drive in downtown London, they wouldn't do it without the help of the tax collector.

So they shouldn't make it illegal, just impossible. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. 

We have the freedom of movement in this country, due in no small part to the actions of yours. I suggest you look into it.

Let me ask you something. What on Earth makes you think that any other species is going to take steps detrimental to their survival for our sake? Do you believe in evolution? The survival of the fittest? I find this is the case up until the point that the less fit can vote. Furthermore, since humanity has found ways to thrive in nearly every climate on Earth, what makes you think we wouldn't continue to do so? Yes, those barely able to survive currently will have trouble with shifting climates, just as they do with adverse weather today. That really doesn't represent much of a change, now does it?

To answer your question, I believe in global climate change. It has happened before, and will happen again with or without our help. Carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases play an important role in this, and humans are far from the only source of them. This paranoia and power grab is resorting to punishing humans for the natural functions of animals, and it has to stop.

The answer to this is not to infringe on the freedoms of people and tinkering with the markets to enslave people to dependance on more government. The answer is technology and market forces that are naturally going to lead people to the cleanest and cheapest source of fuel possible, and ultimately independence. Denying the free market the ability to explore and exploit, supporting the use of food as fuel, and blocking the construction of the cleanest and most efficient power source known to man as my country has done is part of the problem. Artificially inflating the purchase price of fuel and taxing its use on top of that in effort to control the population as your country has done is part of the problem.

The solution is the maturity of key technologies that insulates at least, frees at best, the private individual from the natural variables in markets that thrive on the uneven distribution of energy that the current generation of technology requires. On the structural energy front, solar and wind power can power most homes, using surplus to create hydrogen for later use in fuel cells during shortage conditions. Fission, and then fusion can then power the grid. On the mobile front, home grown algae based biofuels can power all current classes of automobiles electrically, collecting the CO2 released for reuse in the algae bioreactors, plus the growth of home grown produce. These same generators can produce hydrogen as well.

In short, I believe in a carbon neutral economy. And I believe it can here soon. And I believe that it will be here sooner if the politicos stay out of it.

Stockholders. Everyday. Following the strictest definition of your demand.

If you want a specific example of private investment and personal purchases that support what has become vital to modern life, take a look at the cell phone networks.