[dcolton]

I would say that there are four major players in Arab-Western relations - Arafat, bin Laden, Sharon, and President Bush. If you had the opportunity to eliminate Arafat, Bin Laden, Sharon, or Bush...which would you eliminate? Which elimination would have the greatest potential to start peace.

If it makes you feel any better, eliminate doesn't necessarily have to mean assasinate or destroy.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I would say that there are four major players in Arab-Western relations - Arafat, bin Laden, Sharon, and President Bush. If you had the opportunity to eliminate Arafat, Bin Laden, Sharon, or Bush...which would you eliminate? Which elimination would have the greatest potential to start peace.

If it makes you feel any better, eliminate doesn't necessarily have to mean assasinate or destroy.

Bush. Follow the $$$.

[Logic]

Arafat, Sharon and Bin Laden.

Bush could create new ones with his ignorance on the Middle-East but fortunately he can only be four more years in charge. So he's on probation.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Arafat, Sharon and Bin Laden.

Bush could create new ones with his ignorance on the Middle-East but fortunately he can only be four more years in charge. So he's on probation.

Wow, you would eliminate 3 when I only asked for one. Talk about blood thirsty!

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Wow, you would eliminate 3 when I only asked for one. Talk about blood thirsty!

f it makes you feel any better, eliminate doesn't necessarily have to mean assasinate or destroy.

reported.

[Sven G]

I would give them all 4 a beer, and then move on towards more interesting goals - with or without them...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
reported.

Hmmm...just a quick look through one thread - maybe I should be the one "reporting"

Originally posted by Logic:
Just wondering....

Have you seen a doctor about your paranoia?

Originally posted by Logic:
It is you who support killing people and not I.

Originally posted by Logic:
You are one bloodthirsty mofo!

Originally posted by Logic:
Now who's the bigot......

There are more classic Logic attacks, but I don't want to spend my time searching.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Hmmm...just a quick look through one thread - maybe I should be the one "reporting"









There are more classic Logic attacks, but I don't want to spend my time searching.

Feel free to report me.

[macvillage.net]

If that were a real situation...

I'd nuke the rock. End of story.

No questions asked.

Then put their bodies in the same bunker with Hitler. And urinate on the bunker.


Then the world can move on, rebuild and become a better place. We have no need for these idiots.

All cruel people with no morals, ethics, standards. The world clearly is better than them, and can do without them.

[Mithras]

If I were on a small desert island with Arafat, Bush, Sharon, and Bin Laden, and could eliminate any one person, I would throw myself into the sea, immediately.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Then put their bodies in the same bunker with Hitler. And urinate on the bunker.

LOOOOOOOL

100% agreed!

[Millennium]

Can I just drop a MOAB on the island and liquidate them all?

OK, failing that, I see the following four possibilities:

ARAFAT - Sharon genocides the Palestinians, Bin Laden turns his attention away from the US and genocides Israel, and there is peace in the Middle East but it is the peace of the grave. Bush somehow manages to trumpet this as a great success of his.

BUSH - Lots of cheering in the short term, but few actual changes. Bin Laden finds another cheap excuse to hate us, while Sharon and Arafat carry on their decades-long quibble.

BIN LADEN - Another rises to take his place, using this as yet another cheap excuse to hate us, while Sharon and Arafat carry on their decades-long quibble.

SHARON - It all depends on his replacement. Arafat has demonstrated a willingness to talk with reasonable men, but he is easily goaded back to his old ways (as Sharon showed us). If we get someone who wants peace, then we'll have peace in the Middle East within a decade (but probably not much sooner than that). If one of Sharon's cronies gets the job, then no changes. Meanwhile, Bin Laden finds another cheap excuse to hate us.

In short, bin Laden is inescapable, Bush is meaningless, and Arafat is holding Sharon's leash. That leaves only one choice, and even that one is a gamble.

[eklipse]

Chuck all 4 in a steel-cage-death-match.

Screen it on pay-per-view, sell merchandizing rights etc.

Distribute the money amongst the people they caused suffering.

[Logic]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Chuck all 4 in a steel-cage-death-match.

Screen it on pay-per-view, sell merchandizing rights etc.

Distribute the money amongst the people they caused suffering.

Allow gambling as well to increase the revenue!

Who will win?? My bet is Sharon, he just has to sit down on the other three!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Can I just drop a MOAB on the island and liquidate them all?

OK, failing that, I see the following four possibilities:

ARAFAT - Sharon genocides the Palestinians, Bin Laden turns his attention away from the US and genocides Israel, and there is peace in the Middle East but it is the peace of the grave. Bush somehow manages to trumpet this as a great success of his.

BUSH - Lots of cheering in the short term, but few actual changes. Bin Laden finds another cheap excuse to hate us, while Sharon and Arafat carry on their decades-long quibble.

BIN LADEN - Another rises to take his place, using this as yet another cheap excuse to hate us, while Sharon and Arafat carry on their decades-long quibble.

SHARON - It all depends on his replacement. Arafat has demonstrated a willingness to talk with reasonable men, but he is easily goaded back to his old ways (as Sharon showed us). If we get someone who wants peace, then we'll have peace in the Middle East within a decade (but probably not much sooner than that). If one of Sharon's cronies gets the job, then no changes. Meanwhile, Bin Laden finds another cheap excuse to hate us.

In short, bin Laden is inescapable, Bush is meaningless, and Arafat is holding Sharon's leash. That leaves only one choice, and even that one is a gamble.

a thoughtful post.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Can I just drop a MOAB on the island and liquidate them all?

OK, failing that, I see the following four possibilities:

ARAFAT - Sharon genocides the Palestinians, Bin Laden turns his attention away from the US and genocides Israel, and there is peace in the Middle East but it is the peace of the grave. Bush somehow manages to trumpet this as a great success of his.

BUSH - Lots of cheering in the short term, but few actual changes. Bin Laden finds another cheap excuse to hate us, while Sharon and Arafat carry on their decades-long quibble.

BIN LADEN - Another rises to take his place, using this as yet another cheap excuse to hate us, while Sharon and Arafat carry on their decades-long quibble.

SHARON - It all depends on his replacement. Arafat has demonstrated a willingness to talk with reasonable men, but he is easily goaded back to his old ways (as Sharon showed us). If we get someone who wants peace, then we'll have peace in the Middle East within a decade (but probably not much sooner than that). If one of Sharon's cronies gets the job, then no changes. Meanwhile, Bin Laden finds another cheap excuse to hate us.

In short, bin Laden is inescapable, Bush is meaningless, and Arafat is holding Sharon's leash. That leaves only one choice, and even that one is a gamble.

My only addition is to put their bodies in the same bunker as Hitler, and urinate on it.

Other than that, yet another fine post by Millennium.

[benb]

Originally posted by Logic:
reported.

Oh my.


I think in here it is required to have as thick a skin as you require of everyone else.

However, that rarely happens. In short, people hold each other to a higher 'moral' standard than they hold themselves too.

[Logic]

Originally posted by benb:
Oh my.


I think in here it is required to have as thick a skin as you require of everyone else.

However, that rarely happens. In short, people hold each other to a higher 'moral' standard than they hold themselves too.

Good for you. Now you can ask me why I reported it, instead of implying that I'm thin skinned.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Good for you. Now you can ask me why I reported it, instead of implying that I'm thin skinned.

I'm curious...why did you report it?

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I'm curious...why did you report it?

Because DH asked us in the other thread to end the personal attacks. Because I'm tired of every debate here turning into personal attacks. And because it was completely unnecessary.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Because DH asked us in the other thread to end the personal attacks. Because I'm tired of every debate here turning into personal attacks. And because it was completely unnecessary.

Well, I am sorry if you felt that to be a personal attack, because it really wasn't the intent. When I personally attack you - there will be absolutely no doubt That should never happen because you are one of the few whose opinion I can respect - even though some of your posts are becoming eerily lerk-like. You are better than that!

[benb]

Originally posted by dcolton:
even though some of your posts are becoming eerily lerk-like. You are better than that!

ohohoohoho!

REPORTED!!!!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I would say that there are four major players in Arab-Western relations - Arafat, bin Laden, Sharon, and President Bush. If you had the opportunity to eliminate Arafat, Bin Laden, Sharon, or Bush...which would you eliminate? Which elimination would have the greatest potential to start peace.

If it makes you feel any better, eliminate doesn't necessarily have to mean assasinate or destroy.

None of them make any difference. Eliminating any of them would only result in someone similar.

America's activities in the Middle East have very little to do with Bush but rather decades of American foreign policy. Sharon's activities are dictated more by the Likud party and the agreements it is forced to make in order to pass any decisions. Arafat is probably (now) one of the more moderate elements in the Palestinian struggle. Bin Laden doesn't hate Bush; he hates America ... but so do thousands of others.

The only result of eliminating any of these people by force would be to galvanize their supporters and strengthen their movements.

Likud and Fatah need to be regime-changed simultaneously. Someone needs to go in by force and either set up a Palestinian state or rename the whole area Isaelestine and ensure both people have equal rights under the Israelestinian constitution. Both will require years/decades of baby-sitting.

Resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict will go a long way towards getting rid of the Bin Ladens of the world. Without that conflict, one of the major sore spots in America/Arab relations will be gone. America removing it's military presence from Arab nations will also help.

Bush cannot, and should not, be removed forcibly. Bush, and any Neo-Con to follow him, will be removed by either the American people or the Republican party should they decide that he is no longer useful.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Bin Laden doesn't hate Bush; he hates America ... but so do thousands of others.

Actually he hates American policy. What a chunk of land does thousands of miles away doesn't matter to him one bit. His breaking point was Saudi Arabia allowing US forces in for Gulf War I, when he said no, because we wouldn't leave.... and we didn't. he felt it was opressive occupation.

He couldn't give a crap about America. What he's pissed off over, is American policy of the region.

He does indirectly hate Bush, because it was his father who set this all off. There are many experts who believe the 9/11 plan became an official when Bush came into office, as retaliation for another Bush in the whitehouse. Of course only Bin Laden really knows for sure.

But Bin Laden couldn't care about the US and it's problems. It's only becomes his concern when it came to him in Afganistan, and again in Saudi Arabia.

So it's not quite right to say "hates america", he "hates american policy". He couldn't give a poo about America itself. It could stay and thrive or fall into the sea for all he cares. As long as it doesn't effect him.


He wouldn't mind the island, provided Bush or Sharon weren't on the Island to boss him around.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
So it's not quite right to say "hates america", he "hates american policy". He couldn't give a poo about America itself. It could stay and thrive or fall into the sea for all he cares. As long as it doesn't effect him.

Good point.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Well, I am sorry if you felt that to be a personal attack, because it really wasn't the intent. When I personally attack you - there will be absolutely no doubt That should never happen because you are one of the few whose opinion I can respect - even though some of your posts are becoming eerily lerk-like. You are better than that!

um. I'm not even in this interchange. Now you're attacking me personally when you aren't even talking to me.

Wait a moment...now that I think of it, perhaps that's best.

[SubGeniux]

How about we by-pass those people above, and we nuke the bankers, industrialists, military chiefs, and the background hawks who support, fund (same bankers, and military complexes fund both sides), and whsper into the ears of politicians to keep the conflicts going.

I'm up for that.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
How about we by-pass those people above, and we nuke the bankers, industrialists, military chiefs, and the background hawks who support, fund (same bankers, and military complexes fund both sides), and whsper into the ears of politicians to keep the conflicts going.

I'm up for that.

Works for me.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Good point.

Reported.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Reported.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Reported.

huh?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
huh?

Reported.

[Millennium]

Cut it out with the inappropriate reports, guys.

[MindFad]

[ladybird]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Bush. Follow the $$$.

and, me too..
Bush.
But... This man is not "alone"
It's not a solution, but It's my preference.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
How about we by-pass those people above, and we nuke the bankers, industrialists, military chiefs, and the background hawks who support, fund (same bankers, and military complexes fund both sides), and whsper into the ears of politicians to keep the conflicts going.

I'm up for that.

SubGeniux is not representative of your speech at all...

I am with you 100%!!

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Cut it out with the inappropriate reports, guys.

Reported.

[macvillage.net]

And the question is: Will Millenium discipline himself? Banninate himself?

Perhaps just do a hundred of these:

[Millennium]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
And the question is: Will Millenium discipline himself? Banninate himself?

Perhaps just do a hundred of these:

Um... reported?

Seriously; what the heck is this string of reports all about, anyway? I'm just trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

By the way, I'm not a mod here, so I wouldn't be the ones doing the discipline or banination. I'm just as vulnerable as you guys.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um... reported?

Seriously; what the heck is this string of reports all about, anyway? I'm just trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

By the way, I'm not a mod here, so I wouldn't be the ones doing the discipline or banination. I'm just as vulnerable as you guys.

They're joking! I fell for it, it was kinda out of the blue though anyway.

(reported)

[Lerkfish]

BOT:

I think the problem with the excercise is it concentrates on leaders instead of situations.
Although those are the guys that make decisions, in many cases we are at this point where those particular people are able to make those decisions because of the situation. So, in other words, eliminating these particular leaders will not necessarily address the situation...

or to put it another way, you'd be treating the symptoms and the not the disease.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
BOT:

I think the problem with the excercise is it concentrates on leaders instead of situations.
Although those are the guys that make decisions, in many cases we are at this point where those particular people are able to make those decisions because of the situation. So, in other words, eliminating these particular leaders will not necessarily address the situation...

or to put it another way, you'd be treating the symptoms and the not the disease.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um... reported?

Seriously; what the heck is this string of reports all about, anyway? I'm just trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

By the way, I'm not a mod here, so I wouldn't be the ones doing the discipline or banination. I'm just as vulnerable as you guys.

Ok, this just begs the off topic question. Why does it say "Moderator" under your name?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Ok, this just begs the off topic question. Why does it say "Moderator" under your name?

Because I'm a mod in the Developer and Web Developer forums. I am not, however, a moderator in the Lounge; I have no more power here than any non-admin user.

If you think that I should be shown as a non-mod in forums where I am a non-mod, please take it up with the admins. No, really, I mean it; I've suggested this several times, but the current policy is deemed to be "less confusing", and so it stands. If more people were to ask, the suggestion may carry more weight.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you think that I should be shown as a non-mod in forums where I am a non-mod, please take it up with the admins. No, really, I mean it; I've suggested this several times, but the current policy is deemed to be "less confusing", and so it stands. If more people were to ask, the suggestion may carry more weight.

Why not keep it generally the same but instead just add 'software' or whatever forum it is that you mod, next to where it says 'moderator'? Just for clarity's sake. But really, what difference does it make? It says who mods whatever forum at the top of the page.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Why not keep it generally the same but instead just add 'software' or whatever forum it is that you mod, next to where it says 'moderator'? Just for clarity's sake. But really, what difference does it make? It says who mods whatever forum at the top of the page.

I do think its somewhat confusing for the new member. I recall some moderator (perhaps millenium, I'm not sure) that I tussled with on the forum and felt their behaviour was unbecoming a mod (whether true or not, that was my percpetion at the time) Only afterwards was I aware of the compartmentalizing of responsibility in the lounge and therefore the relative freedom of nonresponsible mods to speak their minds.

which I think is a good way to do it, actually, but can be confusing at first.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I do think its somewhat confusing for the new member. I recall some moderator (perhaps millenium, I'm not sure) that I tussled with on the forum and felt their behaviour was unbecoming a mod (whether true or not, that was my percpetion at the time) Only afterwards was I aware of the compartmentalizing of responsibility in the lounge and therefore the relative freedom of nonresponsible mods to speak their minds.

which I think is a good way to do it, actually, but can be confusing at first.

Started thread in feedback forum here You might just wanna re-post your point there.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Hmmm...just a quick look through one thread - maybe I should be the one "reporting"

There are more classic Logic attacks, but I don't want to spend my time searching.

Indeed, glass houses and stuff.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um... reported?

Seriously; what the heck is this string of reports all about, anyway? I'm just trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

By the way, I'm not a mod here, so I wouldn't be the ones doing the discipline or banination. I'm just as vulnerable as you guys.

It's all about silencing the opposition.

They can't argue against it, so they must silence it.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's all about silencing the opposition.

They can't argue against it, so they must silence it.

And it doesn't go both ways. They attack, insult, take cheap shots and name call...and when we do the same - it's a mortal sin and an instant report.

Bah...IT'S A DISCUSSION FORUMIf an anonymous person can disrupt your life so much that you have to "tell" on them for the most trivial of offenses, you seriously need to re-evaluate your life.

Here is my favorite...

(different thread, same day)

Originally posted by Logic:
You are one bloodthirsty mofo!

a few posts later...(this thread)

Originally posted by dcolton:
Wow, you would eliminate 3 when I only asked for one. Talk about blood thirsty!

Originally posted by Logic:
reported.