We all know what's going to happen.  At least, what will happen if some
catastrophe or bizarre situational adjustment doesn't occur first: Racial war.
It's the Jews against the Arabs in Wrestlemanie 2002.  Loud demonstrations
in favor of both sides (and, obviously, against the other side) have broken
out in hundreds of communities across the globe.  We are on the brink of the
great pay-per-view, the soccer riot gone wrong, the matchup even Mike Tyson
won't accept.  OJ Simpson trial be damned, this will be the television event
of the Millenium.

Wait, different Millenia!  We have peaceful coexistance.  Yeah, sort of. 
Anyway, since racial war seems to be the destination that we're heading
toward, what should the less violent, more enlightened civilizations of the
world do about it?  There are two problems:  The war in the middle east, and
potential confrontations in our own streets.  What are now (relatively)
peaceful demonstrations can quickly become brawls and full-scale riots if
things get *really* heated, even in supposedly uninvolved cities like New
York, Detroit, and Toronto.  Clearly, we cannot allow actual physical conflict
to occur, but what is the best strategy to prevent it?  Simply load up on
police?  Break up the demonstrations "as they become unruly?"  It will be a
challenge to avoid the inevitable questions of bias and suppression of free
speech, and I don't know whether there's a way to dodge that question or not.

Then there's the inevitable bloodshed in the actual Middle East, which can't
avoid being a global problem.  At this moment, I don't believe that there is
any way an outside military force can possibly do any good without completely
subjugating both sides, and I thus think it's probably better if the powers
that be remain militarily uninvolved with the area.  Diving in is a recipe
for a SERIOUS international incident.  What happens if the US sends troops
to the West Bank, and Russia and China strongly object?  There's no turning
back from that, and I don't want to give either side the satisfaction of
knowing that their petty real estate squabble has put the stability of the
*civilized* world in jeopardy.  

My opinion is just that:  My opinion.  It is also expressed with the tongue
firmly glued to the cheek in this item, by the way.  This item has a special
stipulation:  It is not to be sued for the discussion of whom is correct and
which side is more victimized and more justified.  That is not relevant to
the subject matter of the item, and the first person to use this item as a
forum to express opinions for justification loses.  Additionally, it doesn't
look too bright--how rational can one be if one cannot even follow simple
instructions when one's "honor" is not even being challenged?  No opinions
concerning the justification of either side are expressed in this #0, and the
only potential piece of offensive material is the "petty real estate squabble"
clause.  Frankly, if you cant' read that and keep your fingers shut, you need
to grow up. :)

31 responses total.

It's been demonstrated time and again that the only side that would need to
be completely subjugated is the Palestinian side - unlike them, the Israelis
actually adhere to cease-fire agreements more often than not.

I thik that Israelis tis a great THUGS of Palestines, he kill Palestines with
HITLER kill they in the PAST, the diference that the PAlestines reaction cause
more deads...It's so GOOD...blood's ISRAELIs, hey i'm BRASILIAN.

The rules of your item remind me of the "Don't think about elehants"
thingie.  What is okay to post without breaking your rules?

re2


awesomes that wuz!

eyE hAM yo0peR!

Wait till lk sees this item. He'll have a solution, I am sure. Gas all the
arabs and the world  will be at peace. Or pieces. Like I said before, if you
want peace, work for nuclear holocaust. Murder is in our genes. 

The problem is you usually can't *create* peace by treaty.  You can only
enforce a peace that already exists.  So until one side wins, or they
fight to a standoff, there probably isn't going to be an agreement that
will stick.

The disturbing thing is that Israel's neighbors are starting to get
involved again.  Lebanon has been shooting rockets over the border, for
example.  This could turn into a wider conflict.  What happens then? 
Israel is also a nuclear power -- how will the world react if they
launch a nuclear strike against one of their enemies?

Respond in kind of course. Usama bin laden is probably in pakistan and they are
a nuclear power. Their kind has lots of sympathy there so is not unlikely that
the coinflict could become wider by far.

i would like to take thi opportunity to applaud colin powell for his speedy
and highly effective visit to the middle east in an effort for peace. if the
US wasn't the ones in charge of peace negotiations over there, i dont know
WHAT would happen!

IT WAS A HUGE SUCCESS GEORGE BUSH WAS TOTALLY 100% RIGHT!


8D

<waves her mini US flag on a stick>

/WAVES A RED WHITE & BLUE CORNDOG ON A STIICK

kinky!

i didn't put it up my bum or nothin.

sheesh!

you didn't cornhole your corndog?

@! i just *saw* you pulling back the skin part so's you could get to the
WEINER!!

OK, this is getting kinda M-Nut.

But I did laugh.

So watch it next time, willya?

Cause I don't want to have to rough you up or anything.

        Oh bugger, now we're going to get a lecture on what happens after you
eat the corndog.

It's a chance for them to demonstrate their superior rationality and
intellect, mary.  

Bzzt, Mvpel loses, nobody is surprised.

*stage whisper* But THAT's not the corndog! *THIS* is!

high vill sent yoor corndogz to zuh russian front.

}{
--

To fix the middle east without having to figure out who is right or 
wrong:  stop buying oil.

No, that would only make the US lose interest, not stop the war.

In one of Sherri Tepper's recent book "Fresco", she just has aliens 
teleport the whole city of Jerusalem to another dimension, leaving the 
people behind.  They can have the city back when they start behaving 
better.  That might work.  Well, it did in the book.

Ok, that's the second recommendation for "Fresco" in the last week.  I'm 
gonna have to try it.

I don't think that'd work.  They'd fight over the hole where it used to 
be.

I've found Tepper so irritating in the past that it'll take more than a couple
recommendations to get me to pick one of her books up again.

  I share gull's skepticism..  I think if such a thing were to actually
  happen, the two sides would just use it as another reason to hate one
  another -- "If you hadn't been so stubborn we wouldn't have lost Jerusalem,"
  or "God allowed Jerusalem to be removed rather than let it exist under your
  control.."

I enjoyed "The Family Tree," and since it is my only Tepper read so 
far...
</drift>

I'll agree to that.  None of the current conflict is actually based on fact
or real issues (we have plenty of evidence for that on this board) and those
issues would simply transfer to something else if we happen to nuke certain
contested areas.  

Perhaps we should erect large fences and let them solve it for themselves.

I am not sure what the United States *can* do in this situation. We 
could stop sending money over there but we would have to consider if 
that would do more harm than good. We can put some real diplomatic 
pressure onto both sides and that might help. 

(Actually, that wasn't a recommendation for "Fresco".  I think it is one 
of her weakest recent works.  Tepper is in her 70's, and wrote her first 
adult SF book in her 50's.  I'm not sure, but I have the impression that 
she spent much of her life working in the social service trenches.  Her 
politics probably started liberal but got battered by years of dealing 
with irresponsible idiots.  The result is probably not too pleasing to 
conservatives, but is also uncomfortable for liberals.  I think it may be 
impossible to enjoy her writing without realizing that it is a crotchety 
old lady talking.  "Fresco" is one of her more political novels - one of 
those where the author arranges the forces of the universe so that their 
political theories work.  It's a disreputable genre, containing mostly 
horrible books, with the notable exception of Ann Rand (whose political 
philosophy is silly, but who wrote some thumping good novels 
(Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged)).  "Fresco" has good points, but 
plausibility isn't one of them.  For all her faults, I never miss a 
Tepper book, though I'm careful never to expect anything except a Tepper 
book.)

Oops.  Ayn Rand.  Sorry.  Don't shoot me.

Oh, yeah.  I also read her "After Long Silence," which I also really 
liked, but forgot that she had written.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss