Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About GoodGrief

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. It seems to me that unless either side is completely wiped out, there is going to have to be a mutual understanding. The united states and the united nations have created a monster, but for various reasons they can not disband Israel. There are two major factors stopping world intervention. The first was giving Israel this land to call their home in the first place. Legally it wouldn't work to push them out into the sea, and nobody else will take all of them. Second, the guerrilla tactics that Palestinians are using on Israel does in fact hurt Israeli civilians (even if it may be a fraction of Palestine's victims). The latter is something that Palestinians are in control of, crying death to Israel doesn't really garnish international support considering what happened in world war two. They can only play the holocaust card for so long before people begin to realize the hypocrisy, but it won't do Palestine any good unless they take the moral high ground.... Patience and peace are the only weapons really effective against the "zionists". Nobody has an answer for my questions a few posts up?
  2. 1) According to America, we are socialists. 2) I think it's amusing that to add insult to injury, British Colombians pay an extra tax on their gas. 3) Take it up with the oil companies. 4) Cry some more.
  3. What does this remind me of.... *cough*Harper*cough*prorogue*cough
  4. Now now, maybe the lady who bought all the milk was in fact dirty, and potentially smelled a little bit too. Plus the only thing worse than someone double parking in a congested parking lot is a dirty Canadian double parking in a congested parking lot.
  5. I came here because I wanted to pose some questions. I can't really talk about this with my friends because well, for whatever reason, they just don't concern themselves with international affairs. I wanted to start a new thread for this but I guess because I am a new member, I don't have the permission to start a new thread, so I'll ask the question here (sorry for derailing). If someone feels it's worth its own thread, please feel free to start it for me. I'll try to keep this as sterile as possible as to avoid a flame war. 1) Why did Stephen Harper reject Palestine's bid at the UN for statehood? Was it really because he felt that giving Palestine legal statehood would be detrimental to peace talks (which to my understanding, Canada has invested a fair amount of money into facilitating said talks)? 2) Why does Stephen Harper not condemn Israel for violating basic human rights of Palestinians such as denial of freedom of movement? 3) In regards to question one, does Harper have to ask for the input of any other elected member of parliament, or does the decision rest solely on his shoulders? 4) Do all political parties feel the same on this topic, Conservative, Liberal, NDP, lolPQ ? Personally when I found out about this news, I was repulsed: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/11/canada-palestine-state.html It just feels so.. unCanadian to me.. While each side has its own faults, there is a major imbalance here. Israel says they do the things they do to Palestinians in the name of the security of Israeli people. Maybe Israeli security wouldn't be in jeopardy from Palestinian "terrorists" if they didn't treat them like a sub-human (sub-Israeli?) race? There is a stark contrast in the quality of life of Palestinians and Israeli and I don't believe it's just a coincidence. It's clear which side the United States is on, for whatever reasons, some legitimate, some not, I don't really care what they think. Unfortunately for us, it feels like Stephen Harper will have a crush on any American president, be it Democrat or Republican (like there is a difference lol). 5) Is this really the will of the majority of Canadians, or is it just Harper trying to show Obama how far he is willing to go to be his lackey? Rue, NewTeddy's post isn't even worth replying to. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, and if he does than he doesn't have a good enough grasp on the English language to make coherent arguments. This is simply not true. a ) You can't speak for the majority of Palestine b ) There is always the hope of both Palestine and Israel merging, or a fair division of land, with the city of Jerusalem potentially being a third autonomous and neutral state.
  • Create New...