Because apparently poll 1.0 was flawed. Never let it be said I am not merciful!
So where is it?
It posts the message while you type the poll answers. Thus the lag.
Too bad I could only pick one.
Yeah, that’s why I’m not voting in this one either. Too many choices I agree with. Maybe Lum will get it right in The Poll v3.0. :)
Might I suggest, ‘What would you give Israel’s actions on a scale of 1-10?’
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
Shit, bonerz!
-Tom
This is remarkably like trying to patch an MMO.
Until I can vote for a nuanced distinction acknowledging Israel’s right to defend itself and decrying the not-so-smart, self-destructive way Israel has gone about it and declare my love for the ladies little in the middle but got much back, this poll is DOMED!
Anonymity be damned, bring back the butts.
Nerf Mel!
Need a multi-level poll: one from column A, one from column B…
Unless you’re Mel or George, this poll doesn’t work.
Mel Gibson has four accounts? Somebody’s in for a gentle touching…
Anonymity sucks. I voted for the racist one.
Edit: It should be noted that it’s not just neoconservatives nor just Americans who support Israel.
Well still, my choice isn’t there.
I am not just ‘pro war’. I am not kidding either. Yes, you can call me a loony.
I see it like this:
It has been over 50 years and how much progress towards a permanent peace is there?
I would say zero.
I can’t think of anything that Israel could say to the Arabs (beyond surrender) that would create a permanent peace. Some that would end the bombings and create a stable region where the average person isn’t afraid of being killed by a bomb.
Unless some unforeseeable outside influence interferes with the middle east, these two peoples will not get along. How can you justify their hatred just vaporizing when someone signs some document somewhere? What will destroy the murderous hate that no government can legislate away?
How can diplomacy even work? I think everyone who thinks it can is fooling themselves into believing in a reality that can never be.
This situation is NOT like any other one we have had to deal with in recent history. It is NOT the same as two countries at war signing a peace treaty. It is not a State vs State conflict. It is a State vs PEOPLE conflict, or possibly a People vs People Conflict, which is even worse.
I can’t see how the ‘people’ can ever get along.
This is why I choose war. One ‘people’ has to be removed. This does not mean that every Man, Woman, and Child must be put the sword, but it does mean they can’t live near each other. It means that Israel must conquer (not just occupy) all the hostile people around it, OR the hostile people must conquer Israel. Only then can there be peace.
I would really love to be proven wrong. It would be great if in a few years the middle east is a place of peace and tranquility and you could say to me “See! They signed a peace deal in 2008 and it is now 2012 and everyone is happy. No more car bombings, no more suicide attacks, the Palestinians are happy, etc…” I just can’t convince myself that can ever happen.
So war it must be. War is my choice. They need to fight it out and it is winner takes all.
In principle, I agree with DeepT. As I have admitted in the past, I’m fervently pro-Israel. I voted the second choice in this poll because I believe that while Israel is in the right, they are hurting their cause with some of their current actions.
Why are there so many Nazislamic terrorists in this forum?
Yeah, I really need to pick more than one or something. I could just tell you and probably start an argument.
The problem with this is that it would need to be more than just war, it would need to be genocide. Since each side has the popular support of its people, and education and diplomacy doesn’t seem to be doing anything, one side defeating the other militarily means nothing. If diplomacy and building friendship is out of the question, then genocide really is the only “final solution”, and the rest of the world would need to be able to stand aside and let it happen. That’s not quite as easy as saying, “Just let them fight it out.”
Time is the only solution. It took five centuries for the trouble in Ireland to simmer down.
I say remove both sets of people and salt the earth. That region should not be inhabited.
crazies fight over it?
take it away from everyone.
Did I say it was easy? Did I say it would be nice? I did say one people has to be removed, did I not?
MUST it be genocide? I do not know. You can’t put everyone on busses and ship them out. They would come back. I think genocide is how it will come down, though.
Maybe if everyone in the middle east takes their head out of the sand and realizes that diplomacy will never work and think about it, they might come to this very same conclusion.
Facing that, they will then have to make a hard choice. Will it be to perpetuate the genocide or will it be to stop fucking around and decide its not really worth it in the end.
I have a dim view of human nature, especially when you go to the mob mind instead of individuals. I think it will come to genocide. The Arabs will try to sneak nukes into Israel once they get them. Israel will have to totally smash anyone who can pull that off. It is only a matter of time. They can’t keep such an event from happening forever.
If someone wants to kill you and they do not care about the consequences, it is nearly impossible to stop them, especially if you do not even know who they are.
If you have some faction who’s demand is that Israel be Annihilated, how can you bargain with that? It is non-negotiable. This is not like they are saying “Give us money and land OR we will annihilate you.” There is no bargain to be made. To give in to their demands, is to die.
Palestine is just an excuse. If somehow Israel and Palestine totally reconciled, where the average life of a Palestinian was peaceful and prosperous, do you think it would matter? If every Palestinian said they loved Israel and it was the greatest country in the world, do you think Iran or Syria would give a shit? Hell no.
The only way to avoid this is to have some major unforeseen event change the paradigm. If the world got a new energy source to replace oil and suddenly the Arabs had nothing but goats to sell, that might do it. If there was a major global catastrophe, that might do it.
Barring anything big and unforeseen, there is no hope for peace in the middle east until one side is removed from the equation for good. How that will happen, I do not know.
I’m unclear on the difference between options 2 and 3?