US bulldozer firm in Mid-East row

[Scurrilous]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3805677.stm

<snip>

A leading UN official has warned US manufacturer Caterpillar that it may be complicit in human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza.

"The company supplies armoured bulldozers to the Israeli army that are used to demolish Palestinian homes.
Human rights official Jean Ziegler expressed "deep concern" over the sales, in a letter to Caterpillar."

<snip>

"In a statement on its website, Caterpillar says it "shares the world's concern over unrest in the Middle East and certainly have compassion for all those affected by political strife".

Nevertheless, it has "neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use of its equipment," the statement says.

Campaigners have claimed that this is a direct contravention of the company's own corporate responsibility policy.
The policy states: "Caterpillar is committed to enabling positive and responsible growth around the world, and we believe in the value of social and environmental responsibility."

[Jim Sagle]

1. The UN hits bottom, digs.

[CaliforniaLady]

2. Caterpillar makes ARMORED bulldozers?

This is news to me. But I don't see how Caterpillar should be held responsible when it is Israel that is using the equipment to plow down Palestinians.

I hope my Senator, Barbara Boxer understands the destruction that is going on to Palestinians while she is accepting 10's of thousands of dollars from the political groups "Pro-Israel" and "Women for Israel".

[Jim Sagle]

3. If you don't like her, vote Republican.

[Classical_Liberal]

5. There are also the primaries

and stategic votes for third parties. Either way, this stranglehold by the pro-Sharon minority has got to give. The only issue the differentiates the dems from repigs is abortion.

[bemildred]

13. Nah, if you don't like her, vote Green or Libertarian. nt

[opihimoimoi]

4. Is the UN trying to hurt America??? Reduce our jobs?

I wonder why?

[punpirate]

6. Come on, now, Opi...

... you're being facetious, aren't you? :P

Catepillar is quite capable of doing that on its own without help from the UN.... :evilgrin:

[opihimoimoi]

7. Yes, the Cat guys are capable of self injury

but its not the point I was trying to hint at.

I was trying ti hint the UN HATES AMERICA because of BUUUSHHHHH.lol

[punpirate]

8. Well, then...

... they have to stop inviting him there, and letting him cause so much damage, don't they?

This argey-bargey about bulldozers, that's not getting to the nut of it. They ought to just say, as so many Americans have done, "George, you're just an outright asshole, and we're not talking to you, any longer. Bulldozers be damned, George. We want your hide stretched out for everyone to see, baking in the sun, tanning nicely. Wolfowitz's and Cheney's pelts would be nice to see, also. It would set a good example for the rest of the neo-cons, too."

But, alas, the UN has more manners than I. They will want diplomacy, instead ("well, can we have Bolton's, instead, as a conciliatory gesture?").

Cheers.

[opihimoimoi]

9. Yup, make all them Neocon fellas walk the "Plank" after an

hour or 2 of keel hauling. Now thats my kind of "Torture" not them nekkid thingys.

[geek tragedy]

10. Have they sent a letter

to the oil companies doing business in the Sudan? My guess is that the answer is a big, fat "no."

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Guess what

My country gives no foriegn aid to Sudan. My country is not implicated in the crimes of the Sudan. It is implicated in Israeli apartheid.

[geek tragedy]

12. China does aid and abet the Sudanese government

Lots of Sudanese oil goes to China. Many international oil corporations do business in the Sudan. The UN isn't telling them to get out.

But you're right--it is an American/Israeli connection, so of course the UN is going to jump all over it.


Of course, the UN elected China and the Sudan to the Commission on Human Rights . . .

[newyorican]

14. changethetopicitis

a virtual epidemic...

[geek tragedy]

16. This whole thing

is a manufactured controversy brought about by a UN flunkie with a clear political agenda. That's on topic.

Btw, this clown thinks that "history and morality" are on Robert Mugabe's famine-inducing measures.

Fuck the UN.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. The UN didn't make caterpiller sell bulldozers to the IDF

. It didn't make the Idf use the bulldozers on Palestinian neighborhoods like Rafah. Nor does the UN make Israel build houses for settlers on the West Bank. Since they didn't how is this issue manufactured?

[geek tragedy]

18. Selective outrage.

The UN cares more about bashing Israel than anything else. That much is documented fact.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. The UN created Israel

an act of kindness(The UN gave Israel land that wasn't theirs to give) Israel rewarded by not giving the half of the land the UN designated to the Palestinians to the Palestinians. Since Israel is an artificial rather than natural construct, created on land that would have otherwise been arab, it's creation would naturally ruffle feathers, and create problems requiring special attention. The problem particularly requires attention now in the war on terrorism.

[geek tragedy]

20. "Artificial construct?"

All states are artificial constructs.

The UN that created Israel no longer exists. The UN's goal now is to delegitimize Israel. Give the Palestinians the WB and Gaza, and then there will be yearly condemnations regarding the "right to return." And then there will be attempts to weaken Israel's ability to defend itself--demands to give up the Golan Heights and to get rid of its nuclear deterrent.

The Arab world hasn't changed its attitude towards Israel--only its perceived capability of realizing the ultimate goal has changed.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. This artificial constuct displaced native inhabitants who

would have otherwise controlled the land. The UN originally gave the Palestinians the west bank, so claiming their is a different agenda is wrong and ahistorical. Yes the golan heights and giving up weapons of mass destruction will be demanded. None of those things with the exception of the right of return even potentially delegitmizes Israel unless ofcoarse you lied when you said you favored two states. You used to claim you wanted two states and for Jerusalem to be an international city. NOw it looks like you favor the indian reservation plan.

[Gimel]

37. The UN sanctioned Israel

The Jewish homeland that was already heavily populated with Jewish refugees, fresh from the concentration camps, to the land which the Balfour Declaration gave from the British Mandate. So it wasn't artificially created by the UN, it was simply a rubber stamp for what was already a fact.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. The UN also sanctioned a second state...

Which was already heavily populated (as was all of Palestine) with Palestinians, who had been there for a long, long time....

The Balfour Declaration did not give any land away to anyone. Could you show me where it supposedly did this?

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"

I'm not seeing that particular 'fact' in the Balfour Declaration...

Also, I thought most survivors of the concentration camps didn't arrive in Israel until 1950 or 1951. I've never heard about large numbers already living in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel...



Violet...

[Gimel]

45. Balfour

As you well know, proposed that the Crown of England create a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. The UN and the crown of England also recognized a homeland

for those displaced by this decision.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. The Balfour Declaration did not give anyone anything...

You claimed that the Balfour Declaration made the state of Israel a fact, and that the UN partition was merely a rubber-stamp of a fact. That claim isn't correct at all. The Balfour Declaration didn't mention statehood, nor did it say anything about the whole of Palestine being the Jewish homeland....


Violet...

[Gimel]

63. The whole of Palestine

That was actually pretty large. After all the British Mandate was broken into Syria, Jordan and Palestine, which was to be a homeland for the Jews. The UN vote divided the land into two countries, as it became clear the that the Palestinian Arabs wanted and needed a separate county.

Jews were prohibited from living East of the Jordan and those who lived in the Golan area were forced to vacate. Syrian Jews were evicted as were any Jews living beyond the Jordan river.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. The Balfour Declaration didn't make a state a fact...

And that's what you were claiming in yr post. The Balfour Declaration did not specify territory at all, and Palestine in its entirety was not promised as a state....

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

40. The Jews were a minority even in 1948, so your wrong

The state wouldn't have happened at that time without the UN.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. It was?

And all this time I'd been thinking that the UN was created in an attempt to be a much improved version of the League of Nations. But as the UN was formed in 1945 and the British didn't hand over the Mandate till 1948, I think the UN was created for the reasons laid out in its Charter. If the UN had been created to carry out one sole task, then after their work was done, they would have slapped each other on the back and disbanded the now pointless UN ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

62. No not necessarily

It's like a wedding is to create a family. After the pregnancy is accomplished, does the marriage disband?

Peace is in the world is a stated ideal, but that goal is reached by changing things that can't be done by individual nations. The first task of the UN was to establish a homeland for the Jews. Without it, it would have been a very lost world.

[Classical_Liberal]

65. How would it be a lost world?

? The UN partitioned Pakistan and India at the same time, so this was along those lines. It created the same level of violence in those places as well. Isn't it conspiracism to say the UN was created just for Jews?

[Gimel]

67. However, I didn't say that

Read my post #45

I said the UN was created for world peace.

It would align with conspiracy theories only if I had said the UN was created by Jews.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Thats what it appeared you were saying...

The first task of the UN was to establish a homeland for the Jews. Without it, it would have been a very lost world.

Putting aside the blatantly obvious fact that the Partition wasn't the first task of the UN at all, and that the UN wasn't created for the purpose of creating Israel, how that comment reads is that you were saying that without the creation of Israel, it would have been a very lost world. But thanks for yr clarification that you were actually saying that without the creation of the UN, it would have been a very lost world. Personally, I think the world would be little different without the UN, as the Security Council was basically nobbled throughout the Cold War, and since then with the US being a global hegemon, it's been the US that calls the shots throughout the world...

Violet...

[Gimel]

199. The obvious complexities

The situation was obviously complex then as it is now. There is no single cause an effect here, and I was avoiding that insinuation. The UN was crated after the League of Nations failed. The league of Nations left the issue of Palestine as a legacy world problem for the United Nations to undertake. Perhaps it wasn't the very first order of business, but it was the one major issue that demanded attention. In the speech given to the UN on the event of the Conference on Anti-Semitism, by Anne Bayefsky, which is posted here in the thread titled "One Small Step", she opens with the words:

"This meeting occurs at a point when the relationship between Jews and the United Nations is at an all-time low. The U.N. took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and according to its charter was to flower on the strength of a commitment to tolerance and equality for all men and women and of nations large and small. "

The phrase "The U.N. took root in the ashes of the Jewish people" is a graphic one, is it not? Is it only poetic, or is there real truth in it? I think that it is largely recognized as fact, although of course, individuals are entitled to their opinions.

Whether or not the UN has succeeded in dramatically changing the world may also be a matter of debate. The intervention in Palestine was not as successful as they would have like, yet I think that the moderating measure has been important, and that the UN has succeeded in some measure in helping the disenfranchised of the world. Unfortunately, it's possibilities were also viewed as a propaganda tool, and that has reduced it's effectiveness greatly.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. The Sudan doesn't give Al Qaeda a legitimate gripe

and recruting tool against Israel and the US, or threaten to Ignite a clash of civlization. I don't really give a rats ass about the UN, though their focus on this issue is completely correct given the terrorist recruting tool it provides Al Qaeda. I give a rats ass about the security of my country. They focused on the Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan, but they also need to focus on the swamp on the West Bank. Israel is not being picked on by any stretch.

[DLC]

21. Support Cat here

Israel is our ally in the war against terror. The UN has no business going after a private contractor.

[Darranar]

22. Private contractors can commit human rights abuses...

like every other institution. Why shouldn't the UN condemn them for it?

What "war on terror" are you talking about? Bush's imperial ventures in the middle east under the guise of "fighting terrorism"?

[DLC]

23. No they can't

Should the UN start going after makers of any and all military equipment, too? Why Cat? The bulldozers are making Israel safer. I say keep them rolling, and I just bought some shares of Cat stock in support!

[Darranar]

24. How exactly are they making Israel safer?

Destroying civilian homes does exactly the opposite.

Private contractors that commit human rights abuses - and they can and do, look at Iraq - deserve to be criticized.

[DLC]

25. You can thank Cat

Neighborhoods may get rearranged, but if it's to expose tunnels and deter the killers, I say roll.

[Darranar]

26. "Rearranged"?

How exactly does it "deter the killers"? If someone's home is bulldozed, doesn't that make them MORE angry at Israel, and therefore MORE likely to attack Israel or support attacks against it?

[DLC]

27. They know if they blow theirselves up in Israel

they can count on their family's home being leveled. Bet that made some think twice.

[Darranar]

28. Why would they care?

If they're willing to kill themselves in the process of attacking Israel, they're pretty far gone....

Why should the suicide bomber's family be punished for something they didn't do?

[DLC]

29. These psychos are far out

But they think they're helping their people. A little disincentive won't hurt.

[Darranar]

30. But it does...

the family of the suicide bomber is hurt by the bulldozing.

[DLC]

32. Damn right they are

n/t

[Darranar]

35. So it's all good and fine when innocent people are hurt? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Apparently so...

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on one's belief on whether or not attacks on ALL innocent civilians is abhorrent) they aren't able to answer yr question. I wonder if folk who take that position ever realise that their mindset is no better than the terrorists they rail against, who also believe it's just great to attack innocent civilians as long as it's not their favoured group of innocent civilians...


Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

42. Rafah were just Palestinians. They weren't the families of

suicide bombers. If you can punish the Palestinians in general for a suicide bombings why can't Palestinians punish the Israelis including their civilians for land theft? This behavior justifies collective punishment, and thus suicide bombings.

[Gimel]

68. The response

This behavior justifies collective punishment, and thus suicide bombings.

The response to the destruction is more of the same, ie suicide bombings? If there wasn't a suicide bombing to begin with there would be no destruction of homes. Destroying a structure is equals and justifies random killing of innocent people, in your mind?

Harboring murderers is also a crime. So the people are not completely innocent. They also receive large amount of cash for their suicide bombing children.

[Classical_Liberal]

71. You have no reason to assume they are harboring murderers

Destroying homes without good reason is also a crime, even if it doesn't rise to suicide bombings. You are deliberately doing harm to people. Nothing justifies collective punishment either way. That is the damned point. Besides in Rafah they also shot into crowds, and endangered lives by giving no notice before the destruction of the home and providing no alternative facilities to live in before or after, so it isn't just destruction of property, and it also means passive resistence is rewarded the same way as active resistence.

[Gimel]

74. Bomb attacks

suicide or otherwise in public places, frequently and at random constitutes collective punishment. It not only kills, intentionally maims and causes extensive damage, economic and human damage, the emotional and psychological damage is also great.

So Israel is not obliged to put up with this as the Intifada to allow the Palestinains to object to Camp David or Oslo or to promote Hamas demands that Israel destruct. Destroying homes of bombers sends a clear message. There are no intentional random killing of Palestinians by the IDF.

"Nothing justifies collective punishment either way"

[Classical_Liberal]

77. Yes suicide bombing constitute collective punishment

so does bulldozing homes in Palestinian neighborhood, simply because the residence are Palestinian. Destoying homes without notice consitutes depraived indifference the deliberate creation of homeless refugees. I don't see how shooting protesters is not intentional killing of civlilians. Israel are the ones that are objecting to Camp David and Oslo. Ariel Sharon built his career on it. The wall is in direct contradiction to it. The protesters were protesting the home demolishons and the wall, there is no right to kill them over it.

[Gimel]

79. They were not targeted

so your whole argument fails.

[Classical_Liberal]

92. I feel that they were and without an independent investigation

I assume dishonesty. Furthermore, there is still no excuse for deliberately creating homelessness of Palestinian people for no other reason than being palestinian. Or for not giving advanced notice prior to home removal. That is recklessly endangers the people who live in those homes.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Destroying homes IS collective punishment...

And it's impossible for anyone who thinks that suicide bombings are a form of collective punishment to think otherwise....

There are no intentional random killing of Palestinians by the IDF.

So what was the recent killings of innocent Palestinians in Rafah? The IDF definately indulges in random killings of Palestinians, and in most cases it appears to be that they don't intentionally target civilians, but don't give a shit if they kill them anyway. To me that's no better than intentionally targetting someone. But of course there are instances where civilians and foreigners have been intentionally targetted and killed by the IDF...

Violet...

[Gimel]

85. Your opinion

is not shared by a majority. Thankfully.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. That wasn't an opinion...

It was a hard,cold fact. Collective punishment is defined as a punishment which is inflicted on a population for the acts of individuals for which the people being punished cannot be held responsible, and which the people being punished haven't committed. Maybe you have an OPINION on what collective punishment means that differs from that of international law? See, to agree with the definition of collective punishment means that to disagree it applies to the Palestinian people leads to the conclusion that the Palestinian people are collectively responsible for the acts of individuals. And that's a very shaky position to hold, because someone holding that view would have a very hard time trying to explain why it doesn't apply to suicide-bombings, where the population are being punished for acts of individuals (in this case the Israeli govt). Or, maybe it could be argued that the definition of collective punishment used in international law is wrong and immoral. But as no-one but the most extremist types would even try to argue that it's wrong to mete out collective punishment on any population, that particular argument would go nowhere fast...

btw, I wasn't aware that there were opinion polls saying that a majority of folk think collective punishment is acceptable. Was it in the US? They have some strange results in polls there, like the one where a large number of those polled actually believe angels exist ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

123. Random accusations

prove nothing. Laws have to be interpreted and applied, which is an on-going process. The moment anyone thinks he or she has all the power in his or her hands to apply interpretations, the legal system itself will be abused. Fortunately, Western legal systems have worked beyond that.

Forms of punishment that are collective punishment are not applied to persons who have any guilt in the matter. Imposing a fine would be better, but there is no legal infrastructure for that.

[Violet_Crumble]

124. Random accusations??

Yr not claiming that the IDF didn't target those civilians they killed in Rafah, are you? Because me pointing out they did is a fact. Trying to claim that laws have to be interpreted and applied, blah blah, ONLY when it comes to the deaths of Palestinian civilians doesn't cut it. Will you be applying the same excuses when Israeli civilians are killed, or does everything suddenly become clear-cut when it comes to international law?

Forms of punishment that are collective punishment are not applied to persons who have any guilt in the matter.

That particular random accusation is total bullshit. Can you explain how the families of suicide bombers are guilty? Can you explain how the occupants of each and every home that the IDF has destroyed are guilty??

Violet...

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DLC]

33. Make that

moderate Democrat and supporter of Israel.

[newyorican]

34. I made no allusion as to what you are...

I provided an accurate assessment of what you've brought to the table...

You can define yourself as the tooth-fairy for what it's worth...

[drdon326]

36. What newyorican is trying to say is......

Welcome to DU I/P.

[newyorican]

48. I said exactly what I meant to say...

and I even used small words so others could understand...

Obviously not small enough...

Tell you what don, use your mouth for what you want to say, that would be a novel idea, eh?

[DLC]

50. Why get personal

Attack the issue, not people.

[newyorican]

53. kumbya

;)

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Baltimoreboy]

49. Aren't you advocating collective punishment of an innocent firm?

CAT has no obligation to not sell. It creates a product that, like almost anything, can be used for good or evil. Beyond that creation and sale, it bears no burden for how the product is used. Since there are clearly two sides debating that use, there is no definitive answer on whether or not what they are doing is "good."

[Classical_Liberal]

54. no, not really

I am trying to make it difficult for Israel to bulldoze homes of innocent people. The profits of this company are a trifle.

[Baltimoreboy]

60. Not to the company or its owners

And, if you start demanding action by CAT, then you can demand action from every single firm in the world. If your firm makes steel, somehow that ends up in weapons. If you make food, clothes, etc., you can be accused of aiding various nations somebody doesn't like.

Trade grinds to a halt.

It is not CAT's job to monitor how its equipment is used.

[Classical_Liberal]

64. I doubt trade would grind to a halt, if that happened

I don't have a problem with applying such standards to companies that act the same as Cat and don't think it will kill their business. What in the hell is wrong for holding companies responsible for selling to the wrong people? Trade didn't grind to a halt when companies were boycotted in the past. People are more important than business considerations.

[Baltimoreboy]

66. Who gets to define "wrong people?"

Unless the U.S. government does so (since we live in the U.S.) then the recipients are not "wrong people."

If you asked most Americans, they would eliminate trade with the Arab world except for oil and that only reluctantly. It cuts both ways.

[Classical_Liberal]

70. I don't really care whether they elimate aid to the Arab world

we don't give that much aid to it anyway. Most Americans would also eliminate aid to Israel, if this country wasn't favoring special interests in the defense industry, and if Americans were more assertive. The Plebisite and world bodies have every right to decide who the right people are, they already do in fact, either through their active support or their passivity. In the case of Israel it is more passivity.

During the cold war catapiller was probably denied the right to build tanks for the solviet union, something they did for us, because they were instruments of solviet oppression, not to mention the fact that they could be used against us. This is no different. BTW, trade didn't grind to a halt as a result of those rules.

[Baltimoreboy]

87. I didn't say aid, I said trade.

And no, most Americans would not eliminate aid to Israel. Israel remains far and away a popular friend and ally.

For U.S. companies, only the U.S. government has a right to tell them who to trade with or not. Just as they would have limited CAT's ability to build for the old Soviet Union, they could eliminate that ability for them to build for our enemies now. Israel is not our enemy and there are zero limits on CAT's trade with tehm.

[Classical_Liberal]

95. Americans Tell Congress to Say No to $12 Billion More in US Aid to Israel

(Washington, DC -- 3/10/2003) Americans throughout the country will send an outpouring of calls, faxes and e-mails to Congress on Wednesday demanding that it rejects a new $12 billion US aid package to Israel. Israel already receives close to $3 billion a year, making it the single largest recipient of US aid. Last fall, Israeli officials asked for $12 billion more, consisting of $4 billion in military aid and $8 billion in US-backed loan guarantees. The March 12 national day of advocacy, dubbed "Washington Wednesday," is American taxpayers’ response to Israel’s request for substantial new funding.

The aid package is expected to be incorporated into a $100 billion supplemental spending bill for the war in Iraq. A poll
commissioned by the Council for the National Interest shows strong opposition to the new Israeli aid request. The February 2003 opinion poll by Zogby International found that, by nearly a 2-1 margin (57%-29%), Americans oppose this additional $12 billion aid package. Significantly, every race and age group opposes such a plan....

• According to a February 2003 opinion poll by Zogby International, 57% of Americans oppose this Israeli aid request while only 29% ....

support it.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:G-ZBOOdyfk4J:www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp%3Fid%3D56+American+polls+aid+Israel+settlements&hl=en

[Baltimoreboy]

96. I don't

America could give $100 billion in aid to Israel and, if it were needed, I would support it.

Considering how survey after survey shows widespread U.S. support for Israel, I question the validity of the Zogby poll. It's all how you word it after all.

[Classical_Liberal]

100. With all due respect support for Israel in general

doesn't mean aid money, and never has. You are an exception. I have never seen a poll that shows support for aid to Israel. Nor does it indicate support for settlers. Show me one poll that supports Israel's appropration of the West Bank or us giving aid to Israel. I think people who are trying to get Israel to stop this practice are more supportive of Israel than those who give them a pass on their right wing slide into oblivion. Israel doesn't need the money to defend itself. It invests the money in settlements and not one informed person would support such stupidity particularly someone who claims to support Israel.

[newyorican]

56. collective punishment of a single firm?

someone has missed the definition of collective punishment...

[Baltimoreboy]

61. Single firm, many workers, many stockholders

That's a pretty big collective actually.

[Classical_Liberal]

72. The boycott on allowing such firms to build weapons for Russia

represented the same sort of collective punishment then. So did the Montgomery bus boycott.

[Baltimoreboy]

88. We were at war with the Soviet Union

Albeit a Cold War. We are not at war with Israel. They are an ally and the U.S. will not restrict trade with them.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. But it'd still be 'collective punishment'...

All those poor workers and shareholders being collectively punished *sob*

Saudi Arabia's also an ally of the US, but you seem to be in favour of the US restricting trade with them...

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

97. Not what I said

I said most Americans would support no trade with the Arab world -- except for oil.

Personally, I think the Saudi government stinks.

And yes, workers and stockholders do have rights in America.

[Violet_Crumble]

116. So most Americans support collective punishment...

That's where yr form of logic leads. Or does the definition of collective punishment that you've created change depending on whether you think a government sucks or not? Guess what? I and many others here at DU think the right-wing government of Sharon and his cronies stinks. And you'll find that most of us think the Saudi government stinks too....

Why on earth would most Americans support no trade with Jordan?

The argument isn't whether or not stockholders or workers have rights in America. It's about whether a company should have a moral obligation to refuse to sell a product that's being used for the purpose of violating human rights...

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

94. Apartheid South Africa was our ally as well

The American people still created boycotts against firms that supported their immoral activities and stopped the American government from giving aid to them. The American people should have a say in what the government does, not just defense contracters, christian zionists and neocons.

[Baltimoreboy]

98. That was the choice of individuals

It is not the choice of either CAT or its stockholders. Because of that, they continue to trade with Israel.

The American people do have a say in what the government does. You just don't like what they are saying.

[Classical_Liberal]

101. Since the American people don't support aid to Israel

according to any polling I have seen, how can that be. The fact of the matter is, pro-likudniks control both parties, Americans are not given and option, look at this fucking Presidential election(Kerry and Bush are identical) and this is a two party monopoly, so they are being screwed, and their opinion is not being reflected.

[Baltimoreboy]

102. Your pro-Likudnikd comment is meaningless

The Likud is the party in power. Americans support Israel. If the another party were in power, they would support that as well.

Kerry and Bush are identical? Sure could have fooled me.

[Classical_Liberal]

103. The American people don't support aid to Israel

That has nothing to do with general support. People who support aid to Israel despite the Likudniks and the settlements don't really support Israel at all. They support the Rapture most likely, or they are openly supportive of apartheid or some kind of transfer. Yes on Israel Kerry and Bush are absolutely identical.

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush broke with the tradition and policy of six predecessors when he said that Israel can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular homes. Do you support President Bush?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Completely?

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

You just admitted both parties are the same on issue, so how can you argue we have the choice presented to us. The American people don't support aid to Israel but we get it anyway, basically because the parties don't offer any choice on the matter. The pro=likud faction are dictating to us like the NRA, and the right wing cubans.

[Baltimoreboy]

104. American people don't support government spending much at all

If we held a referendum on spending, only military spending would pass by a wide margin. So what is your point? That you don't like Congress sending aid to Israel. Too bad. If Americans really didn't like it, they would vote for new Congress critters.

And many Americans who support Israel are neither fundies nor any of the other gross generalizations you made. Many of us simply realize that Israel is far and away the best choice in the Mideast. The best choice for freedom. The best choice of an ally. The best choice for America by a wide margin.

And if Kerry and Bush are identical on Israel, perhaps it's because that is the correct choice.

[Classical_Liberal]

105. Aid to Israel has nothing to do with support for Israel

Those who support the settlements and the wall and Sharon are exactly what I said they are. Furthermore, there are no alternative congress critters since both parties are identical on the issue. They aren't a good ally since they make us look shitty to Arabs by associating us with their fucking settlement enterprise. Their settlements are the apartheid not freedom, and supporting them in this is the worst choice for America by a wide margin, since it makes it impossible to stop terrorist recruitment, and makes us look corrupt and racist.

It is more likely they are both in favor of settlements(not the same as support for Israel) because they are scared of losing defense contractor money, and Bush is scared of losing the fundies.

[Baltimoreboy]

106. No, they are who THEY say they are not who you claim

Anyone who supports the fence does so because it obviously works.

Again, if there are no "alternative congress critters," that is for a reason. The reason is Americans are perfectly happy with the choice being made.

We look shitty to some Arabs because we invaded Iraq, not because of Israel. And many Arabs support attacks on or the destruction of Israel. I couldn't give a damn if we look shitty to them. Fuck them.

[Classical_Liberal]

107. Americans are not activated yet this is true

they have been lulled into false consciousness by the neocons in the media. This will change just as it has on Iraq.

We look shitty because of Iraq and Israel's settlements. They support attacks on Israel primarily because of the settlements. and that is understandable since the settlements are land theft and racism. Iraq hadn't happened yet, when Al Qaeda struck. If you don't give a fuck about racism, that is your problem. I do.

[Baltimoreboy]

109. I care about racism and anti-Semitism is racism

Of course, when your cause has insufficient support, blame the media.

We all know that the PLO predates the settlements, the taking of the West Bank, etc. There is little doubt that the settlements are part of Israel's problem, but only part. The terror predates them and will post-date them as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

112. The PLO originally rejected Israel as a Jewish state

They wanted a multicultural one. This is true. They recognized Israel's right to exist in 1994, but the settlements didn't stop. There was a long lull in terrorism after Oslo. Settlement expansion continued. I also believe the terrorism goes both ways. The expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians in 1948 to create a Jewish majority is not exactly a peaceful act. If you ignore the problem of settlements your claims to care about racism are not serious. Philosemitism or favoritism toward Jews as a group is not actually the opposite of antisemitism. They both reflect bias, and not a belief in equality. It is identity politics. Only racism against one ethnic group is bad, but racism against other ethnic groups is acceptable. If Israel gets out of the West Bank and the antagonism toward it doesn't decline, the liberal side of the political spectrum will probably be more sympathetic to it's claims of antisemitism. Until then Israel and it's supporters are just playing a mind fuck and demonizing those who care about racism as being racists. Israel won't earn any really good friends this way. It's friends are currently repukes, and right wing dems, both whom have demonstrated antipathy toward non-white people, and non-christians.

[Andromeda]

114. I'd like to see the polls that support

your contention that the American people don't support aid to Israel.

Maybe YOUR opinions aren't being reflected in our two-party system but extremists from either end of the spectrum are rarely satisfied with the status quo and think their way is the best way and to hell with the majority.

Americans ARE given an option to vote for Bush or Kerry and there is a distinct difference between the two political parties.

It's called democracy.

[Violet_Crumble]

117. Okay, that was funny...

and there is a distinct difference between the two political parties.

That was sarcasm, I hope!

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

120. If you don't think there is any difference, why do you vote?

Why are you here?

[Violet_Crumble]

127. I can't vote...

And I'm here because I'm a progressive, and well, DU is for progressives. Why are you here?


on edit: Just out of curiosity, can you point out the major differences between those two parties, and which ones of the Democrats that you support?


Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

129. Why can't you vote?

The parties are vastly different. If no other reason than judicial appointments. Do you want another Republican on the Supreme Court?

And DU is for Democrats of which I am one.

[Violet_Crumble]

130. That should be obvious...

So DU isn't for progressives?? Holy crap! And all this time I thought I was welcome here!! ;)

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

131. I never said that

I was pointing out that DU is for Democrats. That is what the D stands for.

So why can't you vote? You can still register before November.

[Violet_Crumble]

132. I'm not a Democrat...

So you appear to be saying DU isn't for me...

Uh, you do realise the internet is a big place full of people that aren't Americans, right?

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

133. You are misreading me

I said the D is why I am here. Why you are here is not my decision. So, you seem to be implying you aren't American. If so, that would explain the voting. But then how do you conclude that the two parties are the same?

[Andromeda]

167. It says in your profile that you live in Australia.

Have you moved to the US?

[Violet_Crumble]

171. Yeesssss, my profile is correct....

I sure hope yr not going to claim that only a US citizen should comment on US politics, because I find that a totally unacceptable view, and rather hypocritical, given that a great number of US citizens do comment on politics in other countries that they don't live in and in many cases, have never been to. Where someone lives has nothing to do with anything, so could you please stop trying to use my nationality in yr posts?

Thanks

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

146. It is also for progressives of all stripes read the rules

. She belongs here just as much as anybody.

[Baltimoreboy]

148. Nor have I said otherwise

I was asked why I was here. I gave an answer. I asked a polite question in response and got evasion.

I couldn't care less if the poster is from the U.S. or Pluto, don't try to tell me the two political parties are the same -- especially if you aren't even here.

[Classical_Liberal]

152. You used a capital D, which indicates Democratic party members

only. I think the two parties are substantially the same on foriegn policy these days, and on a number of other issues. I am trying to change it but am not convinced it can be, so I am also looking at third party alternatives. That doesn't mean Nader since Nader is strategically stupid and won't recognize the spoiler affect is a bad thing, but a smart third party movement that encourages stratigic voting may win me over. I care about more than just abortion, and gay marriage. I am also concerned with the poor, fair trade, not getting into wars for oil, National Health Insurance, the right to vote for all Americans including black people who have the same names as felons in Texas, more powerful Unions, and a two state solution in Israel/Palestine.

[Baltimoreboy]

156. You are quite amusing

I used a capital D because DU uses a capital D. And, as a Democrat, I use a capital D. Nowhere in that self description did it exclude anyone with another letter or no letter at all.

The two parties aren't the same on foreign policy, perhaps just this issue of foreign policy and such agreement is bound to happen on some issues.

I too care about the poor and avoiding unnecessary wars. (Not sure Iraq was a war for oil since it would have been much easier to simply end the embargo or take the oil the first time.)

I would fully embrace a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. I'd bet we don't agree on everything though. Fair trade is in the eye of the beholder for example.

[Classical_Liberal]

157. You asked her what she was doing here if she wasn't a Democrat

then specified the big D. When you start getting mad that Israel isn't persuing a two state solution, maybe I will believe you support it. As it is you get mad at the people trying to accomplish this goal, you support the wall not being on the green line, which makes two states absolutely impossible. There is not enough land leftover to make two state,and you support continued harrassments and bulldozingings on the west bank, which actually creates more terrorist than it catches. I suspect you like the walled bantustan plan, complete with the lousy settlements and you will call it two states. We just aren't on the same page.

Kerry also attacks Hugo Chavez exactly like Bush and would prefer a damned conservative government there that dismantles the social safetynets, and fair wages. Kerry also supports pre-emption. He only will talk nicer to the Europeans. I don't give a shit about the Europeans anymore than the conservatives do, but that war was bullshit. There was no link to Al Qaeda, and we knew this before the war started. Furthermore the Bush administration wouldn't have taken oil outright, because that would expose them as fucking greed heads. Though the pro-likudnik christian zionsits in the Bush administration also promoted the war because of their delusion that Israel is disliked because of dictators rathr than settlements. This myth can be easily debunked when you consider Iran is a democratic country, and not one bit pro-israel.

Fair trade means not signing trade treaties, that undermine labor and environmental standards, or social safety nets, in any country.

Caring for the poor means the same thing.

Barring taking the party back, democrats like me need to create a battered womens shelter party so the neoliberals in the party can't threaten us with homelessness, if we won't submit to a beating.

[Baltimoreboy]

159. Not exactly true

I asked her if she didn't think there was a difference between the parties, then why was she here. There's a big fucking difference.

Israel will pursue a two-state solution when there is someone on the other side who agrees with the idea in the seat of power.

I would love to see no need for the fence. Let me know when terror bombers stop trying to enter Israel and I will celebrate with you. In the meantime...

Your claims about Iraq ring hollow. If the right wanted the oil, all they had to do was kill the sanctions and oil would have flowed like crazy. And if they wanted to boost the military industrial complex, they could have attacked almost anyone. Iran for instance. Iraq was stupid, I just don't see it as an oil grab.

Your definition of "fair trade" includes not undermining environmental standards. Whose? Labor. Again, whose?

[Classical_Liberal]

162. Arafat agreed to the two state solution in 94

and recognized the Jewish character of the state. Even the members of the mossad have admitted Barak and Sharon trumped up the no partner for peace business.

I didn't argue no fence was needed, to protect Israel. It isn't just protecting Israel because it isn't on the border between Israel and the West Bank. It protects West Bank settlements that don't belong to Israel. Until Israel relocates to wall to the green line, it is just land theft and and deliberate attempt derail of the two state solution. Sharon admits he doesn't want to give the Palestinians the west Bank and that he intends on keeping the settlements, yet you support his government. How can you claim to support two states and do that? Kerry and Bush have conceded the settlements to Sharon. This means two states are not possible. Since the settlements only expanded even in the Oslo era, I see no evidence of any commitment to two states on Israels part, even when Labor is in power. The actions of the neoliberals betray their true intentions, as far as I am concerned. There actions result in the same land grab as Sharon's, so I think they are dishonest in their claims to support the two state solution. Their actions will never lead to a two state solution, so we are not on the same page and politicians who think like you don't and can't represent me.

The right doesn't just want oil flowing from Iraq. They want to own the oil flowing from Iraq, and make the profits from that Oil. They couldn't do that because Iraq's oil was nationalized. They invaded as part of a privatization scheme.

I don't want to see labor, and and environmental standard or social safety-nets relaxed anywhere on the planet, to accomodate trade. if they are to be relaxed it should be the idea of the voters and not corporations.

James Carville criticizes dems like me because he says we are bolting from candidates we agree with 90%. I don't believe I agree with them on even 60% of the issues. I am not represented by the neoliberal Dems. I believe my issues would resonate with the majority if presented, and I am planning to bolt, if the dems don't offer them.

[Violet_Crumble]

160. You implied that I didn't belong here if I wasn't a Democrat...

Post #120 said: "If you don't think there is any difference, why do you vote?


Why are you here?"

Once you've been at DU a bit longer and become familiar with it, you'll discover that DU is not only for Democrats, but just as much for progressives from around the world. Once the shock of that wears off, you'll discover there's even US citizens here who vote, but don't vote for the two major parties, and even a few who don't vote at all. They also belong here, because they're progressives...

I couldn't care less if the poster is from the U.S. or Pluto, don't try to tell me the two political parties are the same -- especially if you aren't even here.

You appear to be contradicting yrself. If you don't care if a DUer is from the US or not, then you wouldn't have added 'especially if you aren't even here' to yr comment. Thinking that people can only have a knowledge of politics of a country if they live there is one of the more ridiculous attitudes I've encountered. I'd hazard a guess that there's some DUers who aren't US citizens who know more about US politics than many US citizens. And as one of those DUers, that's why I'll point out to you that I won't try to tell you the two political parties are the same. What I'll tell you is that there's not as great a difference between them as people would like to think, and definately not as great a difference between them as there is between parties of the left and the right in some other countries....

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

164. They were questions

That's why they had that little squiggly at the end of each. It's called a question mark.

My first question was based on my assumption that you, who seem so clear on the differences between U.S. political parties, voted. It now appears you do not -- at least in U.S. elections.

My second question remains. If you think the two parties are so similar, why are you here?"

They are not accusations, they are inquiries.

As for the D in DU being Democratic, it is. That doesn't exclude anyone. That's the word and that's why I am here.

As for U.S. citizens who vote for those other non-parties in the U.S., I will save my insults for them at another time.

Again, I don't care if you aren't from here. If you are from Germany, it adds some strength to what you say about Germany. If you are from Peru, the same goes. But it also means I am less likely to listen to you in reference to U.S. political parties. There are lots of ways to get knowledge, but first-hand is usually the best.

[Violet_Crumble]

169. Oh. Implications can't be formed as questions?

I think you may be wrong on that, somehow. And I'm well aware of what a question mark is. They're the squiggly things on the end of the questions I've repeated at yr request elsewhere in the thread that you still haven't addressed. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=72022#72683 I'd much rather you do that, which is dealing with the I/P conflict, rather than continue to go on about *me* and where I'm from. If you have any more 'questions' like that, rather than make this thread more unwieldy, how about you take them to PM or email me?

It depends on what the people from whatever country are saying. If you are from Germany and come out with some absolute garbage, it makes what you say have no more strength than if you'd said the same garbage as a citizen of any other country. I'd say more than likely yr more likely to listen to anyone who agrees with yr views, regardless of where they're from. To be honest, I'm not interested in whether you listen to me or not when it comes to US politics, especially if as you claim in yr post, it consists of insults towards people who do vote for minor parties. I'd rather listen to someone make a constructive argument than watch insults being flung around...

If first-hand knowledge is usually the best way to get knowledge of politics, maybe those who study International Relations should be forced to live in the countries they're studying the politics of, lest they be pooh-poohed because they're furriners with no first-hand experience. Though it's interesting to realise that you don't expect anyone to listen to you when it comes to Israeli politics or the I/P conflict ;)

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

173. First-hand knowledge

Those questions have been addressed.

I do insult people who vote for minor parties when we have major issues to contend with.

Now, here I agree on something. Those who study International Relations should be live (not be forced) or visit in the countries they're studying the politics of. That seems a basic requirement.

I have indeed been to Israel, btw.

[Violet_Crumble]

175. My first-hand knowledge is...

That you have NOT answered the questions you asked me to repost for you. Care to give them a try?

If you feel the urge to insult people who disagree with you politically, don't expect folk to take what you say seriously, and I really hope for yr sake you don't do it at DU. If you have a problem with something, arguing constructively gains a lot more than flinging insults around...

Uh, I was being sarcastic about IR students. I'm not interested in living anywhere else and it has zero impact on what gets learnt...

You've BEEN to Israel? Have you LIVED there?? Or in yr opinion, does taking a vacation somewhere give you the FiRsT-hAnD knowledge that you say others should have?

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

182. As you later noticed, I have answered those questions

First-hand knowledge and all.

I feel the urge to make this election a TWO-party contest. Not more.

Do you really believe that living in an area has "zero impact on what gets learnt...?" That's scary.

I have been to Israel three times, each for an extended stay. That isn't living there and it isn't vacationing there. It's something in between.

[Violet_Crumble]

185. You've studied IR?

Do you really believe that living in an area has "zero impact on what gets learnt...?" That's scary.

Explain to me why it's scary when it comes to studying IR. I'm fascinated...

Three times? Interesting. Now how do you know I haven't been to the US three times, each for an extended stay? ;)

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

187. Our company has offices around the globe

I deal with IR every day. And to claim you can read a book (or a thousand) and learn about those cultures the same way as you would in person is ludicrous. It defies the whole concept of how people learn through hands-on experience.

All I know is what you tell me. Since this "fact" of yours hasn't surfaced till now, that says so much.

[Violet_Crumble]

189. Really?

So what? The secretary in our IR section also 'deals' with IR every day. I asked you if you'd studied it, though by yr strange answer it's easy to work out you haven't...

I didn't tell you anything. I asked you how you KNEW I hadn't been to or lived in the US, because you descended on me without even asking that....

This is so deja-vu ;)

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

190. I think I was pretty clear on that point

No, I have not formally studied THAT topic. I have formally studied many others. And in every case, field knowledge is vastly superior.

And I never descended on you. And I don't wish to. You seem overly sensitive on this topic of where you live. I am not.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Baltimoreboy]

195. Field knowledge is vastly superior in all fields of endeavor

I am willing to make that generalization. That's why we encourage internships. That's why we all use resumes to get jobs.

Denying that is ludicrous.

I am not haranguing you. You seem to have latched onto this debate. I made the mistake of commenting on this thread when it was in GD and got sucked into the I/P insanity. When this thread collapses from its own weight, I will gladly pass on it.

You shouldn't apologize for being sensitive. You just not try to paint everyone with the same brush. I have no gripe with you. I got involved in this debate because it is a business issue and such things interest me because they relate to work. So if I have offended you as well, apologies in return.

[Violet_Crumble]

197. That's a ludicrous generalisation...

You haven't studied IR, yet use job resumes as a reason to support yr bizarre argument about IR?

Uh, I never said YOU were haranguing me. I said Muddles had in the past. Sorry if that confused you!

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

198. We hire in every field based on experience

It appears you think sitting at home reading about the world really teaches you what it is like.

You strongly implied, by linking me to another poster, that I was haranguing you. I am not. We have different views on things. I think that is what forums are designed for.

[Darranar]

201. So you've had a high-level post in the State Department? n/t

[Darranar]

176. Well, I DO live in the US...

and from what I've seen, when it comes to imperial policy, there's a difference in words and posture, but quite little in actual actions.

And imperial policy is by far the most important issue, since it effects not only every citizen of the United States, but a ton of others around the world.

On social matters, there is more of a difference; economic matters fall somewhere in between, though neither party seems willing to actually do what it necessary to slash poverty and curb corporate dominance.

Before anyone asks, yes, Kerry is better than Bush, and yes, I will reluctantly support him in the GE or any other contest he has with Bush.

[Baltimoreboy]

180. Notice how specific you are being

And you admit there are differences.

[Darranar]

181. You'll note that Violet was talking about "distinct" differences...

not simply "differences".

And you must understand that to most of the world, US imperial policy (or "foreign policy", if you prefer) is far more important than US domestic matters. From that perspective (one I share BTW, though I am an American) Violet is quite correct.

[Baltimoreboy]

184. I would disagree

If you think Bill Clinton and George Bush were identical on foreign policy, then there is little hope for you.

[Darranar]

200. They weren't...

Clinton was considerably less unilateral in his pursuit of imperial objectives.

To us, that may be a distinct difference, but to the people of Iraq, who have had to suffer under bombings, sanctions, two invasions, and a US-backed brutal dictatorship - a series of atrocities continuing under Clinton - it may not be so.

Columbia, Turkey, and Indonesia also come to mind.

[Baltimoreboy]

202. To the people of Iraq

Clinton -- UN supported sanctions
Bush -- Unilateral U.S. invasion.

No small difference even to Iraqis.

[Darranar]

203. You think many Iraqis CARE...

whether the atrocities against them are committed with UN support or not?

I'll grant the fact that the invasion was worse than the sanctions, mainly because the humanitarian situation there has fallen apart even faster in the wake of the aggression. I'll even grant that none of Clinton's bombing runs were as horrid as the murderous slaughter of the invasion.

But the difference is slim, not really a "distinct" one.

[Baltimoreboy]

204. I think they care whether they are invaded or not

I mean the difference in U.S. leaders has unseated their own leadership and installed a new one.

That's not a slim difference.

[Lithos]

150. DU includes many who are not US citizens

Yet who are interested in discussing and sharing their viewpoints and news with like minded progressives. They are even more especially welcome here in the Foreign Affiars forums where their knowledge of events and unique understanding of the situation often provides significant contribution to the debate.

L-

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. Ignore this hiccup...

That was weird. I must have hit post too fast or something...

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

170. That's sad...

Since when has someone got to be an expert to comment on political parties?

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

174. You were the one who made the point

117. Okay, that was funny... and there is a distinct difference between the two political parties.

That was sarcasm, I hope!

So you are saying there is no difference between the parties, yet you don't live or vote here. It seems a valid consideration.

[Violet_Crumble]

177. What are you talking about now?

Where on earth did I say I was an expert? I never said that...

I didn't say there was no difference between the parties. Try reading my posts where I SAID what I thought instead of continuing to put words in my mouth. And for the last time, my nationality, where I live, or the fact that I can't vote in the US isn't relevent to the discussion. I've already asked you to drop it, so I guess there's little point asking you again...

Violet...

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

191. Yr assessment is totally faulty...

I never said or even implied I was an expert. In fact, I asked why someone would think anyone would have to be an expert...

I consider people's intelligence to be a hell of a lot more relevant than their nationality, and implications that people shouldn't bother commenting on politics in countries they're not in is something I'm sure Skinner would disagree with you on...

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

192. You made the comment

You now back away from it.

I stand by my comment that the two parties are not the same.

Knowledge and intelligence are two different issues. One can be knowledgeable without being intelligent. One can be intelligent but know practically nothing.

People are welcome to disagree with me on anything I say. That's what freedom is all about. You are the one continuing to make geography an issue. I am not. I have made it clear that I consider it relevant. That is my choice.

[Violet_Crumble]

196. I never said I was an expert...

But I'm sure you can supply me with a post# where I claimed I was an expert, right? ;)

That's sweet that yr standing by yr comment, but I never said the two parties were the same. Don't let that stop you from insisting that I said soemthing I didn't, though...

Knowledge? I dunno about you, but the words 'knowledge' and 'nationality' are different looking. Cause what I said was: 'I consider people's intelligence to be a hell of a lot more relevant than their nationality'

Hey, you forgot one, which has occured to me after wading my way through this thread. One can be completely lacking in intelligence and know practically nothing. ;)

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

145. Polls shown in post 95

Read the thread for god's sakes! BTW, I am a supporter of Carter's peace proposals, and his belief that American should be more "evenhanded" and that we should have two states. The Democratic party has gone so far right even someone who supports this is considered "fringe"! I consider this marginalization of those who support the two state solution positively orwellian. If I appear Irate it is for a reason. My own country is becoming a damned Stalinist oligarchy.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. Actually, companies do bear a burden...

Most products can be used for good or evil. And the expectation is that a company should not sell its products to those who have a clear intent to misuse its product. I can give you some examples if you like, and in those cases, if refusing to sell to those who'd use a product to harm innocent people means the company would miss out on profits, then tough titties to that company...


Since there are clearly two sides debating that use, there is no definitive answer on whether or not what they are doing is "good."

There's a pretty damn definitive answer on whether or not destroying the homes of innocent civilians is "good" or not, and that definitive answer is that it's in no way "good". Amongst other things, it's collective punishment, or would you disagree with that?

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

89. It's not CAT's job to set foreign policy

It is the job of the U.S. government.

Care to define "innocent civilians" to me?

[Violet_Crumble]

90. No-one is asking CAT to do that...

And I most definately didn't say that in my post yr replying to....

Care to define "innocent civilians" to me?

Yep, and I hope you care to go back and answer the question I asked you. Palestinians whose homes have been demolished by the IDF fall into the category of innocent civilians. Why? Are you going to argue that Palestinian civilians aren't innocent civilians?

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

99. By urging CAT to cut trade with a friendly nation

You are saying they should set policy. They do not agree.

So, again, you give a vague definition. If I harbor a criminal or my house covers a tunnel that is used for smuggling, am I "innocent?"

[Classical_Liberal]

108. If there is a criminal in your neighborhood, can I bulldoze you

house, on the vague chance I might find him? Where will it end? Anyway, their were bulldozings long before the started using the tunnel excuse. It is just collective asskicking against Palestinians, no different than random arrests of black men that go on sometimes in this country.

[Baltimoreboy]

110. If I let murderers use my house

As both an HQ and a place to shoot out of, yes you can bulldoze it.

[Classical_Liberal]

111. What if he is hiding in your neighbors house

Do I still have that right. Afterall, I don't know what house he is in precisely. Can I just bulldoze your entire neighborhood to find him. See I don't see this happening in America, so you really are treating Palestinians like lessor humans.

[Baltimoreboy]

121. Depends on the circumstances

If the homes in a certain area are constantly being used to hide criminals, yes they can and should be torn down. Further, that can happen right here in America as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

135. Give examples of bulldozings of high crime neighborhoods in America!

I am all ears.

[Baltimoreboy]

136. They have torn down buildings like that in Baltimore often

Crack houses, abandoned houses are treated as nuisance properties.

[Classical_Liberal]

137. Those are generally abandoned houses, and never whole neighborhoods

Furthermore they don't do it without proof that the individual house is being used for such activities. It is never done on suspicion of crack activity, or done to the entire neighborhood the crack house is in.

[Baltimoreboy]

139. As a minor point

Baltimore is also not in the middle of a warzone.

And it was done to pretty much an entire neighborhood on the West side so it could be rebuilt. The same with the subsidized high-rise housing.

[Classical_Liberal]

140. Those were condemned and abandoned

not lived in. They didn't demolish any of them with families living in them.

[Baltimoreboy]

141. They didn't demolish them in the middle of a war zone either

So standard rules of condemning buildings don't really apply.

[Classical_Liberal]

142. Not every activity is justified in the middle of a war zone

Steps must be taking to avoid harming the innocents. If anything can be done in a warzone, than suicide bombers can use that rationalization as well.

[Baltimoreboy]

143. Suicide bombers aren't members of a military

When they blow themselves up, it is an illegal act, not an act of war.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

163. Our own revolutionaries weren't members of an officially

recognized military either. If the IDF committed suicide bombings on civilians it would be a war crime, just as it is with the Palestinians.

[Baltimoreboy]

165. You left out that they don't

Only the Palestinians have mastered that art in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

[Classical_Liberal]

166. Baruch Goldstien was an IDF doctor

He committed a suicide killing. The IDF also shoots protesters, and bulldoze homes of innocent civilians deliberately. They also protect settlers that target innocents, with home takeovers and who attack Palestian olive farmers and their trees, and the settlers get away with doing all those things. They are excused in Israeli courts. Those acts are war crimes and not legitimized because the idf is an army. Those acts also inspire terrorism against Israel. If Israel were really interested in stopping terrorism they would dismantle the settlements.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. I've never said anything of the sort...

Point out where I've said anything like that, because I haven't. Have you read the article that started the thread which states that CAT is contravening its own corporate responsibility policy? The issue isn't at all about cutting trade with a state, but about not selling their product in cases where there is a clear intent by the purchaser to commit human rights abuses with the equipment. The only thing you could argue is that the destruction of homes in the Occupied Territories aren't human rights abuses, because the Palestinians aren't innocent civilians, which is where you appear to be heading with yr argument...

Do you really not understand what an innocent civilian is? They are the folk that aren't directly involved in hostilities, y'know, like the Palestinians whose homes are destroyed by the IDF. And last time I checked, being related to someone who commits a crime does not make the relative a criminal. And as for tunnels, let's use Rafah as an example. How many tunnels were uncovered in Rafah? And use a credible source, not proven liars like the IDF. Now, how many homes were destroyed in Rafah? There goes any attempt to paint all those whose homes are destroyed as not being innocent civilians....

And while we're discussing what makes someone an innocent civilian or not, wouldn't you also believe that Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories aren't innocent civilians either, because they harbour those who attack and sometimes kill Palestinians? Or does it only apply to Palestinians?

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

122. According to you, it IS CAT's job

Violet_Crumble (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-20-04 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #49

83. Actually, companies do bear a burden...

Most products can be used for good or evil. And the expectation is that a company should not sell its products to those who have a clear intent to misuse its product.


Now, I am personally arguing that it isn't CAT's job to follow the trail of its equipment around the world. Perhaps you think it should include a security agent with each purchase who rides along on the bulldozer and tells the driver what he or she can or can't do?

I understand what I believe an innocent civilian to be. However, I am concerned what you view it to be. You say, "They are the folk that aren't directly involved in hostilities,"

So, if I live in an apartment and my spouse the terrorist comes home to visit, then I am not innocent because I am hiding a known terrorist, right? Or if I know my neighbor just came home and he is wanted for terrorism, I am no longer innocent, right?

Harboring the legal authorities -- soldiers, police -- is, well, legal. Harboring criminals is not.

[Violet_Crumble]

126. So where did I say what you claimed I said?

Which was that I advocate ceasing trade with Israel? I didn't. I pointed out that companies like CAT do have a moral responsibility to not sell products when the purpose is clearly to violate human rights. And where did I say that CAT has to formulate foreign policy? I never said that either...

Can you answer the questions I asked you in the post you replied to? I can repeat them if you'd like, because I'd really like to see some answers. I'm not interested in silly scenarios about *you* that don't even attempt to answer what you were asked...

btw, settlers who assault and sometimes kill Palestinians aren't criminals?? wow...

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

134. Are you reading what you write?

Companies like CAT have no legally mandated moral responsibility to do anything. And by saying they shouldn't sell to Israel, you are telling them to set foreign policy.

Which questions. This thread is getting a bit unwieldy, so if I missed them, I will try to catch up.

No, settlers who house soldiers are not criminals for doing so.

[Violet_Crumble]

161. Yes, I always do. Are you?

Companies like CAT have no legally mandated moral responsibility to do anything.

Yr arguing something I haven't said. I've not said a word about the moral responsibility of companies being legally mandated, and while you'll totally disagree, I do believe that if a company refuses to take moral responsibility, there are cases when they should be legally forced to...

And by saying they shouldn't sell to Israel, you are telling them to set foreign policy.

Why are you continuing to claim I've said something I haven't said, even after I've told you what I'm saying? I have absolutely no problem with them selling to Israel if the purpose of the equipment is NOT to commit human rights abuses. So, if Israel wants to buy bulldozers to use in a normal way that doesn't involve human rights abuses, I've got no problems with sales in those cases...

Which questions. This thread is getting a bit unwieldy, so if I missed them, I will try to catch up.

Okay. I'm hoping you did the math on this and worked it out for yrself, though...

*And as for tunnels, let's use Rafah as an example. How many tunnels were uncovered in Rafah? And use a credible source, not proven liars like the IDF. Now, how many homes were destroyed in Rafah? There goes any attempt to paint all those whose homes are destroyed as not being innocent civilians....

And seeing as how I asked you about SETTLERS who assault and sometimes murder Palestinian civilians, not SOLDIERS, I'll ask this one again too...

*And while we're discussing what makes someone an innocent civilian or not, wouldn't you also believe that Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories aren't innocent civilians either, because they harbour those who attack and sometimes kill Palestinians? Or does it only apply to Palestinians?


Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

172. Answers

This first one is odd. You are saying you aren't saying that and then you say it. "I do believe that if a company refuses to take moral responsibility, there are cases when they should be legally forced to..."

I sort of rest my case on that one.

As for the second, you are saying that they have to set foreign policy. YOUR definition of human rights abuses seems to include Israel using bulldozers anywhere that impacts the Palestinians. That is not the responsibility of CAT. It is up to Israel, the Palestinians and others to sort out.

With Rafaf, I don't know the exact figures. The IDF doesn't include me on their mailing list. And I think every party in the I/P conflict lies at some time or another.

Those few settlers who attack innocent civilians are not themselves innocent civilians and should be prosecuted.

[Violet_Crumble]

178. Strange...

So you don't believe there are circumstances where a company should be legally forced to not sell their product to those who would commit abuses with them? Because, what I pointed out was there are situations where this should be the case. You don't agree? Wow...

No, if I'd said that I expect a company to set foreign policy, I would have said it. Instead I find myself telling you that I never said that, and finding you returning for encores of the 'you are saying...' nonsense. Maybe you should take the time to read CAT's corporate responsibility statement...

You don't need exact figures to know that vastly many more homes were destroyed than there were claims of tunnels being found. So please explain to me why all those homes that don't have tunnels don't belong to innocent civilians....

Regarding the settlers who murder and assault Palestinians. I was asking about settlers who harbour them. I can repeat the question to make it clearer for you if you like...

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

179. No I don't agree

It appears you are word twisting. It is up to governing authorities to set policy, not companies. If the LAW says not to sell, then they can't sell. Lacking that, they can sell to whomever they wish.

If you expect a company to act OVER AND ABOVE what the nation's foreign policy is, then you are having them set foreign policy.

With the homes, when you are going about things in a battle zone, getting shot at, etc., it's a little hard to be exact. It's not like a public works project.

If you harbor a known criminal (a popular occupation in the West Bank and Gaza), then you are committing a crime. Clear enough for you?

[Violet_Crumble]

183. Is this clear enough for you?

Since when do governments set the policy of a company?? They don't...

I know you don't expect or want it, but you'll find I'm not the only person who'd like to see companies have some moral responsibility in their dealings....

I told you already you didn't need to be exact. Now you can explain to me how those people whose homes were destroyed aren't innocent civilians...

Well, as you've been clear enough to show that yr logic demands you do think settlers harbour those settlers who murder and assualt Palestinians, I think you'll join me in finding it a bit hypocritical that Israel doesn't bulldoze their homes...

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

188. They do, those are called laws or regulations

They can apply to all firms, one industry or even one company.

Morality is the VOLUNTARY choice of a company. Nothing more.

With the homes, imagine this. You are trying to find terrorist tunnels while being shot at in a combat zone. If you think you can be exact in that situation, you are sadly mistaken.

Those settlers you speak of aren't attacking the IDF.

[Violet_Crumble]

193. LOL...

With the homes, imagine this. You are trying to find terrorist tunnels while being shot at in a combat zone. If you think you can be exact in that situation, you are sadly mistaken.

I imagine that I'd be thinking to myself that destroying the homes of innocent civilians is committing human rights abuses. Because the question you were asked is why you think the many Palestinian civilians who don't have convenient tunnels under their homes aren't innocent civilians...

Oh, I see. So if someone isn't attacking the IDF (and Palestinians who attack the IDF aren't committing terrorist attacks, but attacking legitimate military targets who are OCCUPYING territory that doesn't belong to Israel), but merely harbouring folk who murder and assault Palestinians, then it's a whole different set of rules? Thanks for sorting that out ;)

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

41. NO it will just make more hopeless people willing to kill

themselves and other. These are doing it to entire neighborhoods. That is completely bigoted.

[DLC]

51. Thankfully, the net is keeping the bugs out

I suggest any that want to get bent on killing be prepared to die themselves.

[Forkboy]

52. Sounds like someone is getting bent on killing

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

69. IDF not targeting innocent Palestinians eom

[Classical_Liberal]

73. Yes they are. They bulldozed their homes

for no other reason that they were Palestinians, and targeted civilian protesters.

[Gimel]

75. It is not random

The would perhaps have Jews living there but they were already evicted or sometimes murdered for being Jews.

[Classical_Liberal]

76. I am not following your reasoning

.

[Gimel]

78. Your claim

that Palestinians are being attacked because they are Palestinians is not acceptable, in other words. They are Palestinians, and the civilians are not targeted. Period.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Then show how the claim's not acceptable...

One way to do it would be to show an example of where the IDF have demolished the home of an Israeli terrorist...


Violet...

[Andromeda]

115. You made the accusation,

so the burden is on you to show how the accusation you made has any validity. You're twisting the facts to support your argument that Israel kills Palestinians just because they are Palestinians.

Nothing could be farther from the truth and your claim is inflammatory and misleading.

[Violet_Crumble]

119. I think yr mistaken in yr accusation...

I didn't make any accusation. I just pointed out to Gimel a way she could prove her case conclusively. Do you have a problem with that? If you claim nothing is further from the truth, then it should be easy for you to give an example of where the IDF has demolished the home of an Israeli terrorist...

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

93. How did the protesters get injured then

Are you the back to the "they bombed themselves conspiracism". Why does Israel bulldoze Palestinian neighborhoods without notice? We're not talking just about Rafah either. Look at all the bulldozings on the West Bank. Those people who had their houses bulldozed without notice, some of whom got killed by the bulldozers, they aren't civilians? That is deliberately targeting civilians for homelessness, for no other reason that they are Palestinians.

[Gimel]

125. The reasons

If one were to list reasons for the IDF operations in Gaza and in the West Bank Palestinian cities, which were re-occupied in April of 2002, one would first mention the Intifada and the suicide bombings that killed over 100 Israeli civilians in Feb-March of 2002. The leaders of the terrorist organizations (some of whom have been eliminated already) and the leader of the PA, Arafat.

Short notice was given, and of course nothing is really acceptable in a war situation which involves civilian homes and lives. Unfortunately, that is where the weapons factories and arms smuggling was taking place. Civilians were not the target. Innocent lives were lost by actions of the terrorists, and in bringing their battle into the homes of the people.

[Classical_Liberal]

138. Civilians were the target of bulldozing

Bulldozing is a very targeted act. Collateral razing of homes can not be done with a bulldozer. Furthermore, the targeting of civilians in suicide bombings doesn't justify the targeting of civilians for homelessness.

[Gimel]

158. If they could

be brought into Israeli courts and tried with conspiracy, or fined or jailed for sheltering terrorists, that would have been done. In Israel, that is possible. See, for example, the case of the Arabs in the Galilee who housed, fed and transported a suicide bomber, against the laws of keeping Palestinians overnight (and also without a work permit) in Israel. No, their home wasn't demolished, but they were fined and jailed.