Which side would you support?

This is really asking in very black and white terms some pretty grey questions and demanding black and white answers. Support for what? Say I pick Israel for the fourth one. Does that mean I support Israel to contain just Israel, or the West Bank and Gaza too? What about the Sinai? And Golan Heights? Do I have to support them even in their atrocities in the occupied territories? What about the Palestinians? And what sort of problem is this anyway?


But in general, my biases seem to flow towards:
China
Tibet
Kashmiri independence
Palestine

This is really asking in very black and white terms some pretty grey questions and demanding black and white answers. Support for what? Say I pick Israel for the fourth one. Does that mean I support Israel to contain just Israel, or the West Bank and Gaza too? What about the Sinai? And Golan Heights? Do I have to support them even in their atrocities in the occupied territories? What about the Palestinians? And what sort of problem is this anyway?

Not so... I never said anywhere, that you *had* to answer it black and white...

This was more intended to be a quick answer... then to look back... but, i'll wait and see if anyone else responds...

Not so... I never said anywhere, that you *had* to answer it black and white...

Well, the way it is laid out, I could either go for real black and white, or a LOT of writing. And since I'm lazy, that eliminates one of the options. If you want to discuss a specific issue, that would be much easier, as we have a mindblowingly large set of issues that would take forever to write about.

Well, the way it is laid out, I could either go for real black and white, or a LOT of writing. And since I'm lazy, that eliminates one of the options. If you want to discuss a specific issue, that would be much easier, as we have a mindblowingly large set of issues that would take forever to write about.

Hmmm, will have to think 'bout that...

a mindblowingly large set of issues

Yes, indeed. I am curious as to the 'issues' that would lead you to 'support' a communist tyranny [China] over one of Asia's youngest democracies [Taiwan] ...

I suppose we are talking each respective party's official positions.

Although for Palestine, do I count the most vocal (Hamas, who want Israel destroyed), or do I count the PLO (who use forged documents about Jews as the basis of their policies).

Anyway, here's my list:

Taiwan (either ROC or Taiwanese independence)

Tibet (I'll let the Dalai Lama decide what's best for Tibet and support whatever it is)

India (because Kashimir is legally Indian and that's it for me.)

Israel (because I don't want a Jew-free Arab world like Hamas and because I cannot really support the PLO until they apologise for their own terrorism against Jews and Arabs and their attacks on Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon)

I don't believe that any problem can be solved by getting rid of the Jews, so how could I support "Palestine"? I support _Palestine_, the Jewish and the Arab parts of it.

Latour999 seems to have an interesting bias towards murderous dictatorships and Jew-hating terrorists.

Not that I'm surprised...



Would you, Latour, support Israel if only they murdered as many people as China's government? Or if they had not defended themselves against Arab attacks?

Perhaps to make it worthy of Latour's support, Israel should, after each Arab attack, give back the staging ground to the Arabs so they can attack again? Would that kill enough Jews?

What's Latour's solution?

Prediction:

Right-wingers will support democracies, left-wingers will support dictatorships.

Right-wingers will support fighters in uniform, left-wingers will support terrorists.

Right-wingers will support Jews, left-wingers will support those who want to throw them into the sea.

Want to bet?

Reply By: Leauki

Ehh, not necessarily...

I suppose we are talking each respective party's official positions.

No, unless that is what the person beliefs are...

And you two! NO ARGUEING! (sp) I *WILL* delete your comments as necessary...

I suppose we are talking each respective party's official positions. No, unless that is what the person beliefs are...

But then the entire thing becomes pointless.

How can I be for Israel if "Israel", here, could stand for absolutely anything and is not defined as Israel's official position.

And others could be for "Palestine", imagining that Palestine stands for basically whatever they want, without connection to the PA's or other Arab Palestinian organisations' real positions.

If you ask me if I support Taiwan, Israel, Tibet, and India, and by that you mean Taiwan's official position, Israel's official position, the Dalai Lama's official position, and the legal situation in Kashmir, I would have to say yes.

But if by Taiwan, Israel, Tibet, and India you mean any positions that could possibly be associated with the four (Taiwanese independence and no Republic of China, right-wing Israeli politicians, independent Tibet no matter the price, India should annex Pakistan), then I would have to say no.

And you two! NO ARGUEING! (sp) I *WILL* delete your comments as necessary

They're not fughting, Lucas. There hasn't been any namecalling. They're debating, poking holes in each other's answers and calling each other to task on why they responded.
That's what people do when they debate.

They're not fughting, Lucas. There hasn't been any namecalling. They're debating, poking holes in each other's answers and calling each other to task on why they responded.That's what people do when they debate.

I did it pre-emptively... just in case.....

How can I be for Israel if "Israel", here, could stand for absolutely anything and is not defined as Israel's official position.And others could be for "Palestine", imagining that Palestine stands for basically whatever they want, without connection to the PA's or other Arab Palestinian organisations' real positions.

Well then thats there delusions... you don't have to follow along party lines...

China -or- Taiwan China -or- Tibet India -or- Pakistan (Kashmir province) Israel -or- Palestine

Taiwan - Because they are the original legitimate Government for China (and its UN veto vote). Taiwan was legally part of China for 8 years (1887-1895) and an occupying force for four years (1945-1949).Link

Tibet - Never really apart of China

India - Legally (Black and White)
Kashmir independence - Will help solve the problem

Israel - Right to exist and secure its boarders (i.e. wall)
Palestine - Right to exist and to the occupied territories that the other Arab counties are willing to hand over to them.

Taiwan

Tibet

India

Palestine

To be honest, the middle two don't really agitate me as much as Taiwan and Palestine.

To be honest, the middle two don't really agitate me as much as Taiwan and Palestine.

Good for you....

Taiwan - Because they are the original legitimate Government for China (and its UN veto vote). Taiwan was legally part of China for 8 years (1887-1895) and an occupying force for four years (1945-1949

I agree whole heartedly...

Best Regards, Lucas

So what does it mean if somebody says "Palestine"?

Do they actually support what "Palestine" wants (i.e. to drive the Jews into the sea) or do they simply support what Israel wants (i.e. a democratic Palestinian government in the occupied territories)?

So what does it mean if somebody says "Palestine"?

To me, it means they support palestine... I'm not gonna make assumptions that they are "terrorist lovers"...cause i don't know... they might, or might not be... In my mind, i wouldn't think they would be...

Yes, indeed. I am curious as to the 'issues' that would lead you to 'support' a communist tyranny [China] over one of Asia's youngest democracies [Taiwan] ...

This is one I tend to be the most neutral on. Taiwan deserves independance, but I have to say that at this time, the PRC is the legitimate government of mainland China.

And to be fair, I did say I supported Tibet.

Would you, Latour, support Israel if only they murdered as many people as China's government? Or if they had not defended themselves against Arab attacks? Perhaps to make it worthy of Latour's support, Israel should, after each Arab attack, give back the staging ground to the Arabs so they can attack again? Would that kill enough Jews? What's Latour's solution?

There are two ideal solutions: one state, comsisting Israel and Palestine, where they could live side by side. This might be the best solution, considering what happened when they split up India. Failing that, an independent state of Palestine, consisting of Gaza and the West Bank, and a small strip of land consisting of a railway or highway connecting them. Also, Palestine should be free of Israeli influence and allowed to develop on its own, without fear of Israeli bombs and bulldozers.

the PRC is the legitimate government of mainland China.

And Taiwan isn't mainland...

#15 by O G San Monday, November 14, 2005 Taiwan Tibet India Palestine To be honest, the middle two don't really agitate me as much as Taiwan and Palestine.

Fascinating. I would have thought Tibet to be the most clear cut and agitating.

the PRC is the legitimate government of mainland China. And Taiwan isn't mainland...

The Island of Taiwan was only part of China for eight years (because they decided to annex the Island even without the Island Government's approval). In 1895 the Chinese signed over the island to Japan during a peace treaty.

China occupied the Island at the end of WWII, but the Japanese did not sign the Island over to the Chinese in the San Francisco peace treaty. Taiwan was officially turned over to the UN. "The formal result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is thus that the people of Taiwan should determine the future status of the island based on the principle of self-determination." There has been no other treaty or UN resolution since.Link

When the original WWII government fled to Taiwan during the communist up rising, IMO it took the UN veto vote with them. If one wants to say that the PRC is the official government of the Mainland, I have no problem. But that Government does not have the right to the UN Veto given to the Chiang Kai-shek Government, and no legal right to the Island.

There are two ideal solutions: one state, consisting Israel and Palestine, where they could live side by side. This might be the best solution, considering what happened when they split up India. Failing that, an independent state of Palestine, consisting of Gaza and the West Bank, and a small strip of land consisting of a railway or highway connecting them. Also, Palestine should be free of Israeli influence and allowed to develop on its own, without fear of Israeli bombs and bulldozers.

They tried the one state for a few days. The Arabs started slaughtering the Jews. That was in 1949.

I guess we have different definitions of "ideal".

And then there was the time between 1949 and 1967 when the "Palestinians" had Gaza and the West Bank (or would have had, had Jordan and Egypt let them). They used the land as a staging ground for attacks on Israel.

Again, different opinion about "ideal".

While allowing the Arabs to rule West Bank and Gaza is "ideal" in a military/strategic sense (for them), it is hardly "ideal" in any other sense.

And the one-state solution, a country with Jews and a hostile Arab population who randomly slaughter Jewish children isn't even ideal in a strategic sense.

To me, it means they support Palestine

Great. What does THAT mean?

Why can't anybody tell me what exactly "supporting Palestine" means?

Fascinating. I would have thought Tibet to be the most clear cut and agitating.

Hmmm, do i detect a hint of sarcasm?

Great. What does THAT mean?Why can't anybody tell me what exactly "supporting Palestine" means?

In general...

Reply By: Lee1776

Der... Sorry, mis-interpreted what you meant...

In general...

Lucas...at some point you're going to have to grow some balls and say what you mean. There is no "in general"...there's about a million ways you could define supporting any given thing, and you're being asked to state how YOU define supporting Palestine.

Here's an example.

Let's say I support Wal-Mart.

That could mean that I own Wal-Mart stock and I am interested in their financial success.

It could mean that I think Wal-Mart is good for the local economy because of its prices and because it hires so many people.

It could mean that I approve of its stance on unions.

It could just mean that I shop there.

It could be all those things, or something different entirely.

What is it that you consider support of Palestine?