"Tough choices, end occupation of Arab Land"

Ohhh you just hurt his feelings he might have to resort to crying or name calling now. What have you done.

 

Beyond the fact that you said "experts," and as the only two people discussing the Irish conflict were Bogart and myself it was natural to presume you were including me in your perjorative. Whether you were or weren't, there isn't any call for the sarcasm, in my opinion.

Now, again, I didn't understand your point - limiting it to Northern Ireland, how does this limit the example of two hostile groups laying down arms?

Guru, guru. You really have a fixation. Just curious if any of us will ever get to see a single substantive post? Absent that, guess I'll just have to use the following as a macro.

 

Yes there is. Its exactly what sarchasm was invented for. If this is now against DP rules, I will happily retract it.

Back to my point - It was stated that the Irish and Northern Irish populations are both declining - my point, is that the Republic of Ireland are not one of the waring parties, and so this fact is irrelevant. That is all. And if such a basic mistake can be made, and left uncorrected, what else does it say about the supposed facts being presented here?

I think i'll leave the arguments to you guys - sorry for intruding

 

I do understand your point, but I guess I give Bogart the benefit of the doubt - I was discussing "centuries of conflict," and "nearly a century of armed conflict," so a discussion of Ireland as a whole, as well as Northern Ireland, seems germane to me.

Sarcasm's fine, when it's warranted. I bounce it back to guru's cipher-like crap, as you can see. I just felt it was dismissive of a good faith post that had merit, but I'm sorry if I was unduly churlish to you.

Anyway, don't go away - I'm personally interested to hear your point of view.

 

Nonsense. He offered them NOTHING.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9181.shtml

Enjoy the read.

 

The facts on the ground have changed dramatically since 1947. In 1947 there were approx. 1 million Israelis and 1 million palestinian Arabs. Today there are 1 million Palestinian Arabs within Israel alone. Gaza has grown form 300,000 to 1.5 million in the last 60 years for a 5x population growth.

Two issues make peace difficult 1) The small amount of land area 2) The Right of Return

The "right of return" is the next issue. There are as many as 5 million Palestinians throughout the Middle East in countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc that clain the right of return into Israel.

What is being overlooked is that the Palestinians already have a state. Israel and the West Bank/Gaza comprise only 22% of the former TransJordan Palestine Mandate. Palestinians comprise 70% of the population of Jordan.

The solution is to join the West Bank/Gaza to Jordan and rename it to Plalestine TranJordan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png

 

The Republic of Ireland was one of the warring parties until 1922.

I believe that besides religion one of the issues is the immigration of the Scotch Irish during the time of Cromwell.

In any case Ireland population is a lot less than before the great Irish Migration to the America.

 

Probably a lot less than before the Potato Famine that spawned the migration to begin with, as well...

 

Be careful agreeing with pizzaman on this subject - he has repeatedly called everyone who disbelieves that hamas or any particular group wants peace as being one who does not want peace.

Basically he has called me and a number of others war-mongers because we have doubts that someone will allow for peace.

So, be careful not to get sucked in to were people will see you doing the same by proxy. It is hard to have a conversation with pizzaman because of this constant attack of "you are not for peace" garbage he throws at everyone.

(More of a warning since I know you would probably recognise it yourself once it happened again.)

 

So, you're not a war-monger eh? I see...

Why do we keep hearing the same lies "Israel wants peace" and "Hamas wants war"

If Israel really wanted peace, then the peace plan would be fair and just. Now don't tell me Palestinians are demons and they just won't agree to your "peace plans". Without Equality and Justice, there won't be peace even in a 100 years.

I'm not sure if you know the truth of your peace plans. I have them here. If you have honour and integrity you will take the side of truth.
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=646641

 

Debunked, respectfully, I don't agree on "subjects," but on posts made, thoughts put forward. Pizzaman said:

And I said, I absolutely agree, because this post accurately reflects my thoughts too. You'll note that when he said, in his next post,

I said,

In other words, I didn't agree with his next post, because I don't feel this administration has put much thought into this problem until now.

Just to clear up any misconception. Maybe now's a good time to say it generally, as a statement of principle for how I hope I behave, more or less, in the forum, and what I hope I would receive in return (Cue Trumpets, Please):

1. I don't take "sides." I think the notion of "sides," "alliances," whatever you want to call it, is pretty ridiculous for a community of grownups to be playing in an online forum.

2. I try to live by intellectual honesty. If I have made an error, or am found out to have committed one, I try to have the guts to admit it and move on. I'm not always successful. Especially when I know I'm right.

3. I loathe intellectual dishonesty. Obviously, as my rants over the last several days have said.

2a & 3a: I try not to think in terms of "winning" an argument, but to "winning" the open revelation of truth, to the extent "truth" is objectively knowable.

4. I agree or disagree with thoughts, as they are expressed on the page, and not "members." No matter what my "feelings" for a poster are, I try to evaluate a given post on the merits. It's why, for instance, I'll often find myself saying "I agree," or "thanks for the info," etc., to members with whom I don't usually agree, or with whom I'd probably not want to invite over for dinner. (PLEASE: I am not speaking of anyone in particular, here. I have generally found most of us have something worthwhile to say, at least at some point in time, and do not look to the "member," but to the posted thought, in order to have something to talk about).

4a. I don't get "sucked in" to a damn thing. I'm too smart.

NOW. I am no angel, and do not claim to be. The above is only what I shoot for, because to be honest behaving in a milieu where an alternate course is followed - by myself and others - just doesn't do anything but bring on more grey hair than I already have. I am sincerely curious about all kinds of views, and cannot otherwise be enriched.

Thus endeth the rant, preaching, soapbox.

 

At the risk of making it sound, based on my post above, that you're a "guy I wouldn't want over for dinner,"

Thanks. You've got me piqued.

 

Like I said, just a warning. The forum page must not have loaded completely, because when I hit reply your post was the last on my screen with no others to go to. After I finished I saw that I was now on the 3rd page, but I felt I would leave it up, again, only as a warning to you that pizzaman likes to call anyone who brings up valid points as the ones who don't want peace.

Like always, good post, it would be nice if others thought that way too.

 

Can I say it this way? I am not trying to be smug, debunked, though it's hard to avoid coming off like that online. But here goes.

I don't need a warning, and I would have preferred you simply debated Pizzaman, with specific points, about his specific points.

 

there are some people like you that are not supporting even the peace process and i just call you on it.
why has peace become a dirty word in your vocabulary any way
it seems that you feel my yearning for peace as a negative thing and it bothers you, and that is what a warmongering person usually feels when confronted by people.

 

Here is exactly what I was referring to.

It is like pizzaman wants a war with everyone he talks with. Something tells me he is actually doesn't want peace with this kind of attitude.

I find no peace in your attacks with me or others. In fact you stir up the opposite in me - anger. But I will cool in a few seconds after thinking about how stupid it is to get angry with an ignorant child. Since I have 6 kids, I have experience with children and know I can't get angry with them just because they were ignorant about something.

Cooled down already, lol, now where were we? Oh, ya....

 

i do not know what he would debate with me.
i think that both sides need to try to make peace with each other, and he don't.

as far as me bringing up those names, i was trying to create two columns.
one the people that oppose the bush plan for peace and the other one for bush and Dr Rice and other people that support the peace process.

 

it is true that i oppose any one that opposes the peace process that is going on now.

if it bothers you or any other person that opposes it then tough s--t.
if you really get angry try hitting the wall maybe you loose some of the aggresion that you feel.
i do not see any diffrence between a palestanian opposing peace or an Israeli or an American or Iranian or whatever.
i see all the same as they are looking for the continuation of war and killing and all the other stuff that is going on now.
if you are against peace you are against me.

 

Glad my "Principles of Peace" thing worked out so well.

 

But being as stupid as you are being, you keep labeling people like me as one who is against peace. In doing that you create discord.

Looks like you are the one against peace as seen in many of your posts.

You might as well start saying "peace or I will kill you" which would probably show your true colors.