posted
The righ-wing winds are blowing all over the world this year. My country's social democrat majority will likely be swept away by the right wing coalition this year, and it will be the usual "kill-all-ongoing-projects-of-the-former-guys" and lowering of taxes, gutting of the treasury and a harder foreign policy. And of course the treasured increase in deportations.
How likely is it that the conservatives would win England? They're in in Germany, I don't know about France...
Oh, and who hasn't heard about the Hamas-victory? I wonder if anything good will come out of it?
Like perhaps the bombing will cease now that they A: have to recognize the state of Israel, and B: get so much power and attention that they can't pretend to be "hounded freedom fighters hiding in cellars". I mean, if they now take one step up on the state-version of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, they'll go one step down on the "reactionary fighting"-slope.
I hope they won't go all Taliban on their population now, shutting women in and banning them from working.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We've only just had an election so we won't have to worry for another four years unless Blair (or his successor) screws the pooch so comprehensively a Vote of Confidence is called for and lost.
Blair IS going to try to stay as long as he can, while endeavouring to ensure that things are screwed up sufficiently to make life very difficult for his successor as Leader of the Labour Party, especially if that person is Gordon Brown. A lot of the good things have come of the past nine years were Brown's ideas, you see, and what Blair fears more than anything is that Brown as PM goes on to achieve far greater things, leaving Tone as a mere footnote in history.
Not, of course, that Brown has his hands clean. He did just as much as Blair to change their policy as stated at the time of their election in May 1997, to make the UK to the leading nation of Europe, to one which has led us to where we are now, a satrapy of the US. In fact, in some ways, Brown has done more to achieve this calamitous turnabout, by being so down on EMU (European Monetary Union) and by refusing to become the figurehead for Labour rebels on many issues, not least of which were the invasion of Iraq and various measures supposedly to counter the "War" on "Terror."
(I await posterity's verdict on which of his many lost opportunities was his one actual big chance which he blew)
The Conservative Party remain a shambles. After their 18 years in power they'd become so assured that they were the natural party of government and the people's choice that they never bothered to actually ask anyone if they agreed (no-one, is the answer). Much of their grudging stake in the centre ground has long been usurped by New Labour. Now they've chosen as their head an old Etonian twit who rides a bicycle to work but whose cabal of supporters (the "Notting Hill" set, and I'm sure there's a Hugh Grant/Julia Roberts joke in their somewhere) make US neocons seem like a bunch of old hippies. Ultimately they'll get elected just because they're not Labour, but hopefully not for about nine-odd years.
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Oh, and who hasn't heard about the Hamas-victory? I wonder if anything good will come out of it?
Like perhaps the bombing will cease now that they A: have to recognize the state of Israel, and B: get so much power and attention that they can't pretend to be "hounded freedom fighters hiding in cellars". I mean, if they now take one step up on the state-version of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, they'll go one step down on the "reactionary fighting"-slope.
I hope they won't go all Taliban on their population now, shutting women in and banning them from working.
I was watching some BBC coorespondant talk about how this might "mellow" Hamas. What a laugh.
Now they're elected terrorists.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Maybe now they'll have to go though a committee [sp?] before sending out a suicide bomber.
*Browser hiccup made a double post. Please delete*
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Maybe now they'll have to go through a committee [sp?] before sending out a suicide bomber.
"I am NOT a committee!" - Princess Leia, Star Wars Ep: V The Empire Strikes Back.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Actually, lokks like the FATA party has it's very own extremists that are not adverse to taking up arms against their HAMAS countrymen and their own corrupt leadership.
Good for them.
Best thing Israel can do here is stay well out of the fighting, complete their 'lil barricade and get ready to kil lots and lots of suicide bombers. Said bombers will be state sanctioned and government approved in the near future.
Best thing the US can do is what Bush is threatening- cut off all aid to the palenistenans (sp?).
Sure, it's all intended for humanitarian aid, but well...fuck that shit. HAMAS recieves as much in donations for fun stuff like compensating widows of suicide bombers.
Now they can use that cash to buy food instead.
Or they can see how far their popularity stretches when they cant feed their people.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Eventually even Hamas is going to run out of people willing (or stupid) enough to blow themselves up. What then I ask. Strap bombs to dogs and teach them to chase Isreali cars?
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Er...what? Did you even read the post? The US was not providing Iraq with direct means to feed their citizens (they had the UN's Oil for Food plan for that clusterfuck), so Bush did not (and could not have) threaten to cut off funding there.
The US has provided 1.7 billion in relief aid to the Palestenians over the past ten years alone for food aid (handled through food relief organizations for the most part to prevent the money going into pockets or to buy bombs).
Why do you think Arafat was ever willing to sit down at a US mediated peace conference in the first place? It sure wasn't because he really wanted peace.
It was because a population that goes to bed with a full belly is a lot more content than one going hungry...while it's leaders (and their families) are multimillionares.
HAMAS got the vote by decrying the corruption of the Fata party, so lets see them use their own money and donations to feed the masses. Unless....could it be?.....the people donating cash to destroy Israel are not intrested in that money going to help their own people?
Naaaa!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
*yawn*
I'm not talking about Bush's threats in particular. I'm talking about your stock "dry up the well and all will be A-OK" reaction, when all that's going to accomplish is 1) hurt the people those leaders don't actually care about, ie. the general population (which is ALREADY starving, despite your vitriolic assertion about Arafat keeping the masses fat, content, and happy for his own benefit) and (as an added bonus!) 2) play right into Hamas' hands. So yes, I read it.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
One of the reasons Hamas won was they've set up working health, welfare, and educational infrastructures where the Palestinian Authority hasn't.
Also: "Actually, lokks like the FATA party has it's very own extremists that are not adverse to taking up arms against their HAMAS countrymen and their own corrupt leadership."
Indeed, I'm sure everything will change now that the ruling party has an armed wing
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"It was because a population that goes to bed with a full belly is a lot more content than one going hungry..."
And, therefore, we should withdraw humanitarian support. Because the thing we want more than anything is further discontent in Palestine.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The only alternative is to continue to financially support a group who's main goal is the destruction of out closest ally in the region.
How can we really do that?
Severing our finaincial ties will not bring definite hardship to the poorest Palestinians -as I said, they have the monetary means, they just have to use them. Though it's unlikely they will (at least at first).
I dont think eliminating the unwanted US presence in Palestine's political affairs will further their "discontent". If anything, financial support of Israel's greatest ally was seen as part of Fatah corruption. Hamas has called for a stand-alone independant Palestine, this can be the first step to real (financial) independence.
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: *yawn*
I'm not talking about Bush's threats in particular. I'm talking about your stock "dry up the well and all will be A-OK" reaction, when all that's going to accomplish is 1) hurt the people those leaders don't actually care about, ie. the general population (which is ALREADY starving, despite your vitriolic assertion about Arafat keeping the masses fat, content, and happy for his own benefit) and (as an added bonus!) 2) play right into Hamas' hands. So yes, I read it.
As opposed to your "do nothing and hope things get better" stand?
Withdrawing out suppoprt is the only thing we can do to show our disapproval (though I'm sure there are those in the Right that would love to see us support a joint US/Israel military action).
Continuing to financially suport the Palestine government will also "play into Hamas' hands" by maintaining the status quo. Those millions of dollars were the only incentive anyone had to get them to the peace conference (not Arafat's altruistic claims of wanting a lasting peace or a Palestenian state). That "road ro peace" was always paved with cash.
Why keep paying for something that Hamas literally cant work toward? In many ways the voters have painted temselves into a corner: the majority of voters wants a lasting peace, more concessions from Israel and an end to the violence that they live with daily, but they also wanted to oust their corrupt leadership...leaving only militant radicals as an alternative.
Mabye they need Ralf Nader.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
