Menchise

quote:if you had any clue about the discussion then you would know that thats what i meant. but alas i cant expect everyone to "read minds".I was expressing my annoyance at your crack about the colour of the sky where I live. quote:however the bond that is formed is alot closer than the one shared by the worker... unless like i said before you were a firefighter or police.The bond is a manifestation of comradeship, not a manifestation of teamwork. Teamwork is based on a common cause or interest, without which a team cannot exist. quote:however to simplify it further, most... no ill give the benefit of the doubt and say half the people who arent in a life or death teamwork environment tend to slacken off the teamwork aspect of the job after theyve left it for awhile, while those that are, that teamwork aspect lasts forever... maybe its something exclusive to high danger job fields i.e. police, FD, military (and not even all the military)??? who knows.A sense of teamwork does not slacken off over time. That's like saying that people who oversleep tend to go blind. Developing a sense of teamwork is like learning how to ride a bicycle: you retain the skill even if you haven't used it for years. quote:if you dont get the meaning of my question, then nevermind... i forgot your not a mind reader, and i dont feel like drawing a map.OK, I'll make an assumption about what that question was supposed to mean and then answer it. My situation in itself is irrelevant. I am not the system. For example, the Sultan of Brunei is the second richest man in the world, but that does not mean that everyone else on Brunei is a billionaire. [ 05-10-2002, 04:19: Message edited by: Menchise ]

They should be called slap-me lines. [ 05-09-2002, 06:22: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:exactly what color is the sky on the planet you live on? these people either work together or they die. period. odds are on most jobs if the guy next to you screws up, you wont buy the farm. theres a MUCH closer sense of teamwork... a sort of brotherhood, with the men and women whos lives depend on eachother... much like police or the fire depratment... or the "state" agencies as you would call them. i seriously doubt if you were sitting in your little cubicle and the guy next to you screws up, that your boss would come in and shoot the both of oyu in the head. If that's what you meant, then that's what you should write; I am not a mindreader. My point is that a sense of teamwork does not need to be set within a life or death situation in order for it to stick. quote:for that matter how is it where you live??? hmmm??? you seem to be doing well in a capitalist system.Yes I am. So what?

quote:and without the defenders, any joe with a gun can come in and take what the workers labored so hard to produce.That is why soldiers as well as workers have citizenship and voting rights. quote:as for serving while young... im for it. if anything it will install a sense of discipline and self worth... perhaps even a sense of teamwork....just like any other job that involves working in groups. quote:The Russian people are not up to par with say Mexico, but they will be there within the decade.Is that supposed to be good news? Mexico is in bad shape, which is why so many cross the border. quote:Capitalism and all its wonders is taking hold, it will lift all boats and it will last if it's not screwed with.Hey Jag, how's Argentina these days? How about Serbia, Turkey, Zimbabwe, and the Phillipines? Let's not forget India (the world's largest capitalist 'democracy', where millions live in urban slums). *sigh* Here we go again.

Well, I do now.

quote:You and I are nothing. We didn't proactively support the defense of this country so we are mere worker ants. Mindless drones whose only job is to produce.*Nick wonders if he's still on planet Earth* Workers make or break nations! Without production there is nothing to defend. Heinlein's idea is so pre-occupied with the defenders that it has no regard for the builders. I will never support it.

I want my 2 minutes back!

quote:There are two really big reasons for requiring military service for citizenship. The first is that people who arenÔÇÖt willing to risk there lives to defend there nation shouldnÔÇÖt have a say in how its run.First, soldiers are not the only people who risk personal safety in order to defend the people. Secondly, an unwillingness to risk one's life is not the only reason why one doesn't choose to join the military: there is also the issue of taking a life. quote:The second in the effect serving has on people, teaching discipline and all thatIf military service becomes a requirement for citizenship then discipline will not be the only thing being taught. Government can use the opportunity to indoctrinate the entire voting population with state propaganda. *Nick waits for everyone to call him crazy*

*sigh* Here I go again. Cultural diversity, by definition, is not about replacing one culture with another. It's about having many cultures that interact with each other, thus forming new ideas from the best of each and enriching the general social being. Cultural hegemony, the assimilation of all cultures into one dominant culture, narrows the plain of thought and stagnates the general social being. Language is much more than a method of communication: it's also the method of organizing the expression of thought. One of the reasons why English speaking people initially had great difficulty translating German was because Germans spoke dialectically. It was this method of communication that enabled great thinkers such as Hegel and Kant to develop new philosophical methodologies and ideas that weren't even imagined by other cultures. While I agree that basic social cohesion demands that a standard communication method be in use on practical terms (since it takes years to learn a second language), it is also important not to discount the role of language in cultural interaction.

Heinlein's idea may seem logical at first glance or skim, but in the political context, it is very unwise. In the military you do not defend the country or the nation, you defend the State, because it's run by the holders of state power (the national or federal government). If the military was in the hands of the people (i.e. independent popular militias), THEN it could be defending the nation at least theoretically. In the big picture, the application of Heinlein's idea will only divide the nation between first class people (the statists) and second class people (the non-statists). What happens if the US loses a war? The government blames the non-statists. What happens when there is a recession? The government blames the non-statists. Who does all the dirty work? The non-statists. And since the government is not accountable to the non-statists, and it is within the interests of the statists to support the government, the stage would be set for a bitter internal conflict.

OK. I'm dropping the Jenin issue for now. Who wants to discuss the one on-topic issue that is yet to be settled (the Iron Wall)? [ 05-04-2002, 22:02: Message edited by: Menchise ]

I get the point and I accept it to some extent. Since this is off-topic I'll leave it at that.

Ahh. I forgot about resident status (doh!).

Soback, when you set a single standard of American culture, it is cultural hegemony. Any American, especially if they immigrated to America, who does not conform to cultural hegemony is marginalized, hence racial division, because they're expected to abandon their own heritage and behave a certain way. They're expected to never complain about the country's problems even when so-called 'true' Americans do it all the time. A diversity of cultures is important to the health of any vast society, otherwise it would socially and intellectually stagnate.

quote:Menchise, ONE (inferred from the comment "an article") source does not constitute a "growing body" of evidence as to a massacre. Go look at any of the major news sites; there is much more evidence pointing to a clean military action with a few civilian casulaties.It was one primary source quoting two other primary sources. Anyway, I decided to check one of the quoted sources and found some new info that discredits some claims and raises a few others. According to British journalist Justin Huggler, who wrote a 7 page report on his investigation in Jenin for the Independent, the body count is between 50-80, half of which were civilians. He found no evidence of mass graves or mass removal of bodies. However, he also states that the Israeli claim of not using airstrikes in Jenin is false. Apache helicopters did fire rockets on the camp, and there are consistent reports of indiscriminate and deliberate shooting of civilians on the ground, and the demolition of buildings by armoured bulldozers, even when they knew that people were still inside. I have an excerpt of Huggler's report here: quote:For days Jenin became a slaughterhouse. A woman with her leg all but ripped off by a helicopter rocket, the mangled remains hanging on by a thread of skin as she slowly bleeds to death. We saw the helicopter rockets rain down on heavily crowded areas. The wounded left to die slowly, in horrible agony, because the ambulances were not allowed to treat them. Munir Washabi bled to death over several hours after a helicopter round came through the wall of his home. Munir's mother, Maryam, ran into the street screaming for help for her son and was shot in the head by Israeli soldiers.So, despite some big exaggerations, there is still sufficient evidence that warrants investigation. quote:The UN HATES Israel, they have an agenda, the only thing that the UN will discover is the fact that one of the main city that the UN sponsors is a mainstay of Arafats Terrorist factions. Now I wonder how that happened.The UN is not the only group for which Israel is denying access.

Hehe. Eric Bana has certainly come a long way since Full Frontal. [ 05-04-2002, 00:02: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:I like Robert Heinlein's idea. No mandatory civil service, but have it be mandatory as a requirement for Citizenship. Anyone who doesn't want to be a citizen doesn't have to do it, they live life just as they do now, they just won't be allowed to vote.Err...$iLk, in that situation, not being a citizen also means that they won't have any of the civil rights granted to citizens by the Constitution. No free speech, no right to due process, etc.

quote:Menchise... Where IS your growing body of evidence for any events at Jenin?Well, I have an article quoting the eyewitness accounts of two British journalists that corroborate Palestinian accusations of indiscriminate killing by the Israelis. quote:As for that Iron wall, I read the article and that's exactly what it says, Iron wall is a metaphore for Israels military power, and the article calls for dismantlement of that *wall* and for Jews to invite arabs into their country while also give them presents on the way inn.The Iron Wall is a militaristic philosophy of racial division and European Jewish supremacism that is adopted by the Israeli government and enforced by the military. It is the foundation of Israel's racial 'democracy'. It is the reason why the Israeli government has no intention of pursuing a lasting peace with the Palestinians unless it's a consolidation of Israeli power (see the 1993 agreement). The Iron Wall is about keeping the Palestinians subject to Israeli rule without granting them any of the civil rights that the Israelis have. Palestinians can't get a decent job in Israel because members of the workforce are required to have served in the Israeli military (being Palestinian makes that almost impossible), thus they are also not allowed to hold public office. They are effectively marginalized by the Israeli government despite its claims of wanting peaceful coexistence. How will there ever be peace between Israel and the Palestinians when the Israeli government treats its own Palestinians so poorly? quote:One time I was passing a city in CA on my vacation trip and ALL the signs in there were in Spanish, made me sick. Is this US of A or is this mexican territory.As I recall, the USA doesn't have a national language, so the people can put Spanish, English, Swahili, or any other language on the signs if they want to. It's called freedom of diversity. quote:If US was a country proud and distinct, with it's borders secure, it's own language and culture then it would be a country with future, right now it's not.That does not make sense! Melting the USA down to a single language and culture is invariably destructive to the whole concept of culture. It encourages racial division and marginalization, not to mention sowing the seeds of xenophobia, which does nothing to contribute to any positive future. I speak from experience here. It is this singular mindset that is currently turning Australia into the most racist country in the Western world. We already put Arab and Asian refugees in concentration camps! Trust me: cultural hegemony does not work. quote:So my point IS, Israel wants to be a country, it doesn't want to merge with arab states and become one of them and be overrun by them, not militarily, not socially. So that's why I called that article idiotic, because it calls for disimination of Israel and creation of socialist state for the whole middle east, while what will happen is a whole arab state in the middle east.I disagree. I think the article calls for an association where Arabs and Jews are equal. Ironically, that was the original goal of the Fatah (Arafat's organization that eventually took over the PLO): to form a democratic secular state of Jews and Arabs. The PLO abandoned that goal after Black September (1970), and shifted to the goal of a neighbouring mini-state.

quote:The Israeli military isnÔÇÖt occupying any territories, they have conquered them. If the US was to invade and conquer Mexico for whatever reason then there would no longer be a Mexico, it would simply be a territory in the US.Not true. For an external territory to be a part of a country it must be annexed. The Occupied Territories have not been annexed (hence the term 'occupied'), thus the Israeli government has no legal authority over them regardless of territorial sovereignty or lack thereof. In fact, the government deliberately avoids annexation in order to maintain a Jewish majority in its population. quote:How dare you uneducated/missinformed fool. The official count from Palestinians themselfs was announced today by the right hand man of Yasa Arafat and it totalled up to 56, 6 of witch were civillians and the rest admitted by Palestinians to be terrorists.Looks like a preliminary count rather than a final count. The estimated deaths at Jenin alone are ten times that figure. quote:Now ANSWER THIS. And ANSWER IT instead of avoiding it. HOW MANY ISRAELI CIVILIANS DID ARABIC TERRORISTS KILL? HOW MANY?I don't know the exact figure. According to an earlier post in this thread, 1260 Palestinians and 410 Israelis were killed between September 2001 and 4 April 2002. quote:You DARE to compare Israeli sweep for terrorists to terrorists themselfs and terrorist activities. This is beyond ludicrous, this is just insane.The idea that Israelis were sweeping for terrorists in Jenin is what's ludicrous! Mass graves are being uncovered, and Israeli troops were trucking dead bodies out of the camp. The body count has been estimated to be 500! Answer this: Why would the Israeli military try to hide the bodies of 500 Palestinian 'terrorists'?! quote:I tried staying out of this thread but reading your earlier posts I just couldn't hold it anymore, especially that idiotic article you posted witch called for dismantlement of "Iron wall" (Israels military).I suggest you read the article again, because you misinterpreted what the Iron Wall is. quote:In my opinion, the only reason the Palestinians called the action a Jenin a "massacre" was to get people to stop talking about the "Passover Massacre" that started the recent incursions.That's some opinion considering the growing body of evidence indicating that a massacre did occur, and that the Israelis are trying to cover it up. [ 05-02-2002, 07:06: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:It seams to me that the Palestinians have yet to reach that point, and if there media continues to preach about the need to kill Jews then I doubt that they will ever get there. Anyway, the use of suicide bombers suggests a general lack of value for human life as well as general paucity of common sense.If anything, the massacre at Jenin suggests that the Israeli military has a lack of value for human life. They are on a retribution spree ("they kill 1 of us, we kill 10 of them"). This is exactly what the Nazis did in the '30s and '40s. Sharon is now suspected of war crimes, which is why the government is trying to bury the issue. The issue of the suicide bombings within Israel's borders is very simple: they lack all common sense and are completely illegitimate acts of desperation. However, in the Occupied Territories, the issue becomes more complicated since the presence of the Israeli military is illegal. A hypothetical analogy would be the US Army occupying Mexico. In that kind of situation, the Palestinians are within their rights to fight the Israeli troops. quote:What both sides need to do is READ THIS THREAD. I swear, most problems in the world could be solved if people just came to this site and read the General Forum threads!LOL! [ 05-01-2002, 23:45: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Dredd: Yes, people get angry when faced with death on that scale, but there comes a time when both sides get so sick of death that they just want it to end. That time is now.

quote:There ARE Israelis who see themselves as equals to the Palestinians. There are Jewish people who strongly belive in a Palestinian state and are very critical of Israeli military activity. Right now they don't have a voice, but they are there.I have absolutely no doubt about that.

I'm back with a long article for a quote. quote: Arabs and Jews can live in peace There is a very simple reason why Arabs and Jews have been unable to live in peace together for the past 100 years, and it is summed up in the phrase "the Iron Wall". The Iron Wall is the title of Professor Avi Shlaim's exhaustive and brilliant history of Zionism. Jabotinsky, a right wing Zionist leader and fan of the Italian fascist Mussolini, coined the phrase in the 1920s. He argued that the European Jewish settlers in Palestine had to develop overwhelming military superiority to break the potential political resistance of the Palestinian Arab majority. This militaristic perspective he called the Iron Wall. Shlaim shows how nearly all of Israel's leaders signed up to the Iron Wall philosophy, not least those who called themselves "socialist", like Israel's first prime minister, Ben Gurion, and the so called peacemaker Rabin. The Iron Wall separates Arab from Jew because it institutionalises Jewish superiority backed by overwhelming military power. Jabotinsky also argued that the Jew was culturally superior to the Arab, because European culture was superior to Arab culture. Peace between the two peoples depends upon dismantling the Iron Wall. The truth of this argument is well illustrated by looking at the West Bank city of Hebron, one of the oldest Arab and Jewish settlements in Palestine. The city is allegedly the burial place of the Old Testament prophet Abraham - from whom the city derives its name - and hence has huge symbolic significance for Muslims, Christians and Jews. Today the city is a permanent military fortress, as thousands of Israeli troops guard a few hundred particularly extreme Jewish religious fanatics. Hebron's Palestinian citizens suffer a virtually permanent curfew. This is not a recent Israeli incursion. Hebron was exempted from Israeli withdrawal in the Oslo peace accords. Hebron was always a flashpoint in Zionism's history, but it is important to understand the difference between the European settlers and the old town's original Jewish inhabitants. The accomplished Israeli journalist Tom Segev has recently described 800 years of good relations between Arabs and Jews in Hebron. In the anti-Zionist riots in 1929 in Hebron, people in the Arab community rescued many of their Jewish neighbours from a pogrom. Segev wrote: "Jewish history records few cases of a mass rescue of this dimension." This brings us to the crucial fact that the virulence of European anti-Semitism, with its roots partly in the medieval Christian conception of the Jew, had no echo in the Arab world. While relations were far from perfect, there was simply not the history of systematic persecution that we find in Christian Europe, which provided the launchpad for Zionism at the end of the 19th century. In her fascinating history of Jerusalem, Karen Armstrong has argued that Islam's almost unbroken 1300-year rule of the city was characterised by its tolerance of both Judaism and Christianity: "Jewish visitors from Europe were struck by the freedom enjoyed by the Jews in Palestine." "In 1535 David dei Rossi, an Italian Jew, noted that Jews even held government positions, something that would be inconceivable in Europe." In the 12th century it had been the great Islamic leader Saladin who had invited the Jews back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders. He was hailed throughout the Jewish world as the new Cyrus (the Persian king of Old Testament fame who let the Jews back into the city to build the second temple). Last month I was in Egypt, where I had the good fortune to spend a morning with the truly remarkable Youssef Darwish, a 91 year old Jewish Communist veteran of the post-war workers' struggles that formed the backcloth to Nasser's coup in 1952. It's standard in these sort of discussions to debate the prominent role Jews played in the Communist movement throughout the Arab world. And of course we did. But what struck me more was something else. It was the long historical Jewish attachment to and involvement in Egypt - one of its greatest medieval synagogues still stands - and the way this blossomed in the early 20th century, with now forgotten cultural expressions in painting, books and later film. As Youssef says, the banner of independence was being raised, and the idea of achieving equality among the different social groups was vigorously pursued. Later Zionism sucked nearly all the Jews out of Egypt and told them they were coming "home". It told the same nonsense to Jews from all over the Arab world, and helped them to forget their long history as it recruited them to build the Iron Wall against their new Palestinian Arab neighbours. Recovering that history someday soon will be an important part of showing just how Arabs and Jews can live together in peace. - John Rose, Socialist Worker (Australian edition), 26 April 2002. [ 04-30-2002, 07:33: Message edited by: Menchise ]

LOL! As a third child, I must warn you that we tend to be stubborn. Happy Fatherhood!!!

I'm a supporter of abandonware, period. The one reservation I had was that admins should seek permission first, but that Underdogs post really blew it out of the water. That CNET article is quite interesting. The writer used the analogy of stealing a car from a parking lot to describe software piracy. I think that in the case of abandonware, the car is being salvaged from a junkyard. However, I do accept that there are some factors that make freewaring impossible for some software (the previously mentioned issue of licensed code), which is why abandonware site admins should always cooperate when asked to remove a title by the owner. The use of a Microsoft representative on the side of the publishers in that article made me laugh under my skin because it contributes to my next point. Apart from the accepted factors, I can only think of two reasons why publishers would be against abandonware, and they're the two reasons that they would never admit (especially the second reason): 1. When their current software is a clone of their old software. 2. When their old software is better than their current software. [ 04-26-2002, 03:42: Message edited by: Menchise ]