The New 50

internationalguy said:
I'm not against immigration. If some people need to immigrate illegally because of their personal situation, it's just a shame, I wish they got dealt a better hand in life. I will not judge them. My problem is with the fact that unlike other immigration waves, this one doesn't seem to be assimilating American culture. One way or another I've overheard conversations of people saying they will take back TX, and CA and what not. That is not the idea and I find that notion very disturbing.

Also... if a restaurant wants to take pesos it shouldn't be illegal, although it's not legal tender. If a Fogo de Chao in Chicago suddenly wants to take Reais then it will be up to them to exchange them back into dollars. I was just trying to point out a parallel. Please don't misinterpret my words.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to do so. It's obviously customary in border zones and small countries to accept multiple currency (see Uruguay). I object to irredentism on principle, since it opens up too many cans of worms - what if Russia wants to reclaim Alaska?
 
Bkentfc said:
Wrong. He was known as one of the only palestine leaders actually willing to agree a peace deal. :)
Click to expand...

#1: Do you mean "Agree to sit down for talks."?

#2: Or are you talking about an actual peace agreement that he signed and abided by?

Because #1 definitely happened at the end of Bill Clinton's time in office, but then after things were agreed upon, Yasser wouldn't sign. (And that's what I'm referring to.) If you're talking about #2, then I'm unaware of it and/or not giving him credit for it.

There were also cases of Palestinian farmers who worked with Israelis having their farms destroyed and perhaps losing their lives. It was better to not work with the enemy and suffer rather than come to an agreement and both prosper. The current Israeli administration isn't interested in abiding by any agreement, so Yasser wasn't the only stubborn one in the region.

Bueno, dale, me voy
 
Napoleon said:
#1: Do you mean "Agree to sit down for talks."?

#2: Or are you talking about an actual peace agreement that he signed and abided by?

Because #1 definitely happened at the end of Bill Clinton's time in office, but then after things were agreed upon, Yasser wouldn't sign. (And that's what I'm referring to.) If you're talking about #2, then I'm unaware of it and/or not giving him credit for it.

There were also cases of Palestinian farmers who worked with Israelis having their farms destroyed and perhaps losing their lives. It was better to not work with the enemy and suffer rather than come to an agreement and both prosper. The current Israeli administration isn't interested in abiding by any agreement, so Yasser wasn't the only stubborn one in the region.

Bueno, dale, me voy
Click to expand...

Not fair. You can argue your side, and slander the Palestinian cause for free. But if I argue the other side, I get called an anti-Semite.
 
Regarding Arafat being stubborn and refusing to accept the famous Clinton "generous offer" in 2000, the facts just don't back that up. The proposal that he rejected, was 4 separate islands all blocked from travel or trade with each other or other countries by "security zones". Take one look at the map of the offer and it's obvious why anyone would have rejected it as state. Here's the map: http://www-tc.pbs.org/pov/i/promises/harpersmap.pdf.

And just preemptively here, I don't agree with calling other posters anti-semites for posting a comment not in favor of something Israel has done in the past.
 
baraka said:
Regarding Arafat being stubborn and refusing to accept the famous Clinton "generous offer" in 2000, the facts just don't back that up. The proposal that he rejected, was 4 separate islands all blocked from travel or trade with each other or other countries by "security zones". Take one look at the map of the offer and it's obvious why anyone would have rejected it as state. Here's the map: http://www-tc.pbs.or...harpersmap.pdf.

And just preemptively here, I don't agree with calling other posters anti-semites for posting a comment not in favor of something Israel has done in the past.
Click to expand...

Exactly - the terms of the US version of peace talks were vastly different to what Arafat and a broad consensus of the international community had been calling for in vain for years before Camp David. Those calls were largely ignored (by Washington and the media) and a very US-centric version of events became the dominant narrative.
 
We've come a long way from a symbolic banknote to Arafat and Clinton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top