View Full Version : Are we headed towards World War III?
Equilibrium
12-21-05, 04:11 PM
Yes, I really think we are. I am starting this thread because I miss debating about Israel and the middle east and politics. So here goes it, and oh we are followwing the Yoda way of debating. Expect every letter you say to be quoted and then responded to with "back it up". and you had better be able to back it up.
I'm not about to tell you that the world is perfect, or that it should be perfct. To have a Right, you must have a wrong. To have a dark you must have a light.
But the troubles in this world have become overwhelming. I can only think of a handful of periods in human history when humans weren't fighting. Why do we fight? Why are there always conflicts?
That was the opening, this is my opinion. I fear that every hundred or so years a new power rises, gains ultimate control and collapses in all its glory. It happenes to the Babylonians, it happened to the Romans, to the Ottomans, to the British, and to many other empires that no one thought would ever fall.
You know what I'm getting at. Why should the great american power be any different. America will notalways be the most influential nation. It is for this reason alone that the US must do what no other super power before it has done. Follow this guideline "Be nice to people on you're way up, because you will meet them again on your way down".
I'm no psychic but something tells me that the next World War will be centered in the Middle East. I feel that the muslim nation, a population of 1 billion people or roughly 20% of this planets total population, has felt too much ignored. but I also think that the allegiances in the next World War will be vastly different from the previous ones. Who knows maybe the US will shed the expense of the costly Israel, and join what I believe to be a more concious path.
Check out this article from AlJazeera:
"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me... and by that time, there was no one to speak up for anyone.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
The world thanks you"
Caitlyn
12-21-05, 04:30 PM
In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me... and by that time, there was no one to speak up for anyone. ~ Martin Niemoeller
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. ~ Dwight David Eisenhower
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. ~ Albert Einstein
I guess AlJazeera isn't too concerned about plagiarism....
John McClane
12-21-05, 04:33 PM
In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me... and by that time, there was no one to speak up for anyone. ~ Martin Niemoeller
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. ~ Dwight David Eisenhower
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. ~ Albert Einstein
I guess AlJazeera isn't too concerned about plagiarism....
Haha, most people that hear those quotes have no idea who said them. So yea he probably ain't concerned. Lol. :)
Anonymous Last
12-21-05, 05:05 PM
previous ones. Who knows maybe the US will shed the expense of the costly Israel, and join what I believe to be a more concious path.
Shhhh! Corporate America is not ready to hear this talk. You have to buy them a drink, trade smiles, a little bit of dancing, maybe some nibbling of the ears and some sexy lingerie before they go to bed with anyone.
I guess AlJazeera isn't too concerned about plagiarism.... Beautiful...just beautiful! Let’s call it simultaneous discovery, multiple years later; they said similar things because they feel similar ways, there’s no plagiarism involved.
I'm not buying it either...
Well I tried...I really did!
Biters!
Unless, of course, that’s your favorite ism.
Haha, most people that hear those quotes have no idea who said them.
Caitlyn is amazing and also heartwarming...just jaw-dropping, that amidst all the lovely chaos and detritus and woeful reality of a wild quote gone mad.
I kicked my shoes off at the front door of MoFo Land, gave up my right to remain silent and found her there... true diamond!
Piddzilla
12-21-05, 05:30 PM
Is AlJazeera claiming that they are the authors of those quotes?
Equilibrium
12-21-05, 05:37 PM
here is exactly where I got that article.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/article_full_story.asp?service_id=10115
Equilibrium
12-21-05, 05:43 PM
Also linked to that site is this, which really hits close to how I feel about the whole Israel situation:
"The international passiveness at the Israeli Annexation Wall doesn’t really surprise me.
Looking at the number of crimes committed against the Palestinian population on a daily basis; the killing of innocent children and women, the continuous land grabs, and civilian houses demolitions, all watched by the world superpowers and international organizations, and of course the United Nations, the disgust at the world silence over the creation of the Annexation wall, which also breaches a previous ruling by the World Court banning Israel from establishing it, only gets more bitter.
How many times have human rights bodies accused the Israeli forces of using civilians as human shields?
How many horrific crimes, admitted by the Israeli Occupation Forces, have been committed against the Palestinian civilians without the UN even considering issuing a threat against the Jewish state?
All the UN Security Council says, repeating U.S. claims, is that both parties, the Palestinians and Israel, have committed serious violations of peace agreements and international laws. Which international law prohibits resistance against occupation? Should the Palestinians just give up and surrender so that not to be viewed by the world as “terrorists”?"
Piddzilla
12-21-05, 05:43 PM
So it's a guy from Brazil writing to Aljazeera and in his email he is using those quotes. Thus, no plagiarism by Aljazeera.
I would have been very surprised if Aljazeera had used quotes by Niemoeller, Eisenhower and Einstein without also mentioning who said it first. It's not like anyone wouldn't notice....
Heheheh, yeah, that's a fairly difuse post Eq. (The quotes are great, but you shoulda checked up and attributed them to the right people really). Nice broad topic you've got yourself there, but coulda done with more specifics (claims and solutions wise)...
I don't think a 3rd World War is imminent by any means. I do think that there are reasons for concern tho when it comes to stability and global peace. Things that are worth paying attention to...
You can take the eventual fall of the US as the superpower as a given, for sure. And guessing that the next big world conflict might centre around the Middle East is a good bet. But this is a highly complex subject, and one with a lot of crossover between the rights and wrongs. I'll try and tackle a few of the topics you've raised...
Global Peace
You talk about the fixation on war, for example, and the poor and defenceless being left to fend for themselves (two huge topics in themselves). We could look at the WTO and UN when considering these things as a unified topic. Both organisations exist, at least in part, to stop and contain wars, and both have been successful to varying degrees in these areas. Yet both also have played roles in protecting greed and tyranny at the expense of the weak as well.
I bring them both up because we are quite definitely living in a peaceful time, comparitively, and these organisations have been involved in that. To maintain the peaceful aspects that are still 'on top' in our new globalised world, we have to address the weakness of global-consensus-'devices' like these for sure. But there are no easy solutions. Just don't forget the good done by such groups when criticising the bad.
And in a similar light, we can't avoid discussing...
The predominance of the US
I'm gonna tackle the cons before the pros...
Colin Powell's loyal deputy, Lawrence Wilkerson, recently made some fascinating attacks on the current Bush admin, having stood down from his position as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State (http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveID=520
- Speech to the New American Foundation - Oct 19 2005).
These attacks summarise some of the core worries about how the US has handled its power over recent years...
Diminshed moral authority - torture
10 years from now or so when it’s really, really put to the acid test, ironed out and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen...
...I don’t think, in our history, we’ve ever had a presidential involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice-presidential involvement, an attorney general involvement in telling our troops essentially carte blanche is the way you should feel...
...we knew that you don’t have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you’ve condoned it – unless you’ve condoned it. And whether you did it explicitly or not is irrelevant. If you did it at all, indirectly, implicitly, tacitly – you pick the word – you’re in trouble because that slippery slope is truly slippery, and it will take years to reverse the situation, and we’ll probably have to grow a new military.
We can also add this...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-johnson11nov11,0,7794527.story
What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust - even with a terrorist, even if it's time-consuming - than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets, who believed that national security always trumped human rights.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. One way or the other, the US has lost a lot of the moral authority (that helped it to act as a force for good) thanks to the insistence of the likes of Cheney on the use of torture over interrogation. (The Israelis, who've got a hell of a lot of experience in this area, use the latter, incidently ;). They don't believe torture provides reliable information).
Hawkish behaviour, both internally and externally
Thanks to the likes of Colin Powell, US behaviour hasn't been quite as unilateralist as it could have been. In his more measured way, he has recently added weight to the assertions of Wilkerson and others that Cheney and Rumsfeld have a lot to answer for though, when it comes to destructively hawkish behaviour...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4538788.stm
"Often maybe Mr Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney would take decisions into the president that the rest of us weren't aware of. That did happen, on a number of occasions."
Asked about post-war planning for Iraq, Gen Powell said his state department staff drew up detailed plans, but they were discarded by Mr Rumsfeld's defence department, which was backed by the White House.
"Mr Rumsfeld and I had some serious discussions, of a not pleasant kind, about the use of individuals who could bring expertise to the issue. And it ultimately went into the White House, and the rest is well known."
Wilkerson, as is his way, goes further...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilkerson25oct25,0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
...many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the traditional NSC process.
Scholars and knowledgeable critics of the U.S. decision-making process may rightly say, so what? Haven't all of our presidents in the last half-century failed to conform to the usual process at one time or another? Isn't it the president's prerogative to make decisions with whomever he pleases? Moreover, can he not ignore whomever he pleases? Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of Defense?
Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe that there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the national embarrassment of Watergate (and the first resignation of a president in our history), the Iran-Contra scandal and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush.
But a second and far more important reason is that the nature of both governance and crisis has changed in the modern age.
From managing the environment to securing sufficient energy resources, from dealing with trafficking in human beings to performing peacekeeping missions abroad, governing is vastly more complicated than ever before in human history.
Further, the crises the U.S. government confronts today are so multifaceted, so complex, so fast-breaking — and almost always with such incredible potential for regional and global ripple effects — that to depart from the systematic decision-making process laid out in the 1947 statute invites disaster.
There's almost too much to list on this count, but it has to be said that there's been some poor decision making going on that has impacted negatively so far on the world scene.
The influence of the 'military-industrial complex'
With his distinguished military, academic and political background, it came as some suprise to hear Wilkerson talk about the continuing and pervasive existence of the 'military-industrial complex' that Eisenhower warned of. Given his lambasting of the behaviour of Rumsfeld and Cheney, you can imagine he probably includes them in this group of individuals... of whom he says...
...and don’t you think they aren’t among us today – in a concentration of power that is just unparalleled. It all happened because of the end of the Cold War. Harlan will tell you how many contractors who did billion dollars or so business with the Defense Department did we have in 1988 and how many do we have now? And they’re always working together.
If one of them is a lead on the satellite program – I hope there’s some Lockheed and Grumman and others here today, Raytheon – if one of them is a lead on satellites, the others are subs. And they’ve learned their lesson; they’re in every state. They’ve got every congressman, every senator. They’ve got it covered. Now, that’s not to say that they aren’t smart businessmen. They are – and women – they are. But it’s something we should be looking at, something we should be looking at.
---
In short, the decision-making process in the US has been operating in a way which is decidely less 'healthy' than it could be.
That is a cause for concern.
What are the pros?
Well, for a start, the US brings a stability to the world by its mere presence that is vital (altho there's been some toying with that too. Just check Greenspan's whispered warnings on deficits etc). Contingently, it's probably the first 'empire' that hasn't extended its range by physical invasion (altho that's partially down to expediency, the nature of the modern world, and 'facts on the ground' ;)). The other reason is - they ain't all bad boys :).
Thankfully, it's still possible for the US to recover from some of the negative paths it has set off down recently. A repair job is still possible. And my last topic is one of the many potent and explosive reasons why it really should get its house in order, and start making some more astute forays into world politics - for everyone's sake...
Israel
There are reasons to be hopeful Eq...
Sharon's new attempt at a coalition is the brightest light to shine out of Israel in quite some time. Heart-attacks aside, there's a lot of reasons to believe he and others are in the position, and have the desire, to strive to difuse some of the horrors of the 'facts on the ground'. Also, Arafat is gone and Abbas is in place. These are marvellous steps towards a potential step-down in the strife.
It's a long road tho... and they'll need help...
Bush has sided too blatantly with the Israeli's I would say, it's true. The Palestine side have their own impartial supporters too, for what it's worth. (The UK for example... note this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1651249,00.html)
How everyone outside the Middle East supports any moves for peace is vital. We can only hope that Israel, Iraq, and the other local states are 'handled' with compassion and care. There still is potential for some very decent resolutions between all the 'warring' parties involved.
For the moment tho, much of the warring is taking place with words. Every side should want to keep it that way as much as possible. Anyone who supports peace needs to be applying both their will and their words with care n'all ;) :)
Strummer521
12-21-05, 09:18 PM
Caitlyn is amazing and also heartwarming...just jaw-dropping, that amidst all the lovely chaos and detritus and woeful reality of a wild quote gone mad.
I kicked my shoes off at the front door of MoFo Land, gave up my right to remain silent and found her there... true diamond!
Sorry to be off topic for a second here, but I'd like to nominate Anonymous Last to be the official poet laureate of Mofo.
Anonymous Last
12-22-05, 01:32 PM
Sorry to be off topic for a second here, but I'd like to nominate Anonymous Last to be the official poet laureate of Mofo.
Does this title require me to wear a uniform?
I think women like a guy in uniform?
Caitlyn
12-22-05, 04:03 PM
So it's a guy from Brazil writing to Aljazeera and in his email he is using those quotes. Thus, no plagiarism by Aljazeera.
I would have been very surprised if Aljazeera had used quotes by Niemoeller, Eisenhower and Einstein without also mentioning who said it first. It's not like anyone wouldn't notice....
As is now apparent, Al Jazeera did not claim to be the author/s… but then, neither does it appear Al Jazeera made any effort to alert their readers that Lauro from Brazil was not the original author of those quotes either…
Yeah, it is pretty sloppy journalism/moderating. Or agony-aunting. Or whatever exactly it is. ;)
(Eq, just a little thing, but calling it an article is also what was a bit baffling at first. Post poetry, quotes, whatever gets across what you wanna say - but it's good to make a distinction between stuff like articles, op-eds and prose.
Sorry to get anal, and to knock your source there a bit, but it's easier for us to catch brain flashes when you've narrowed down their route ;)) [and now i'm just being pretentious :)]
Piddzilla
12-22-05, 04:39 PM
As is now apparent, Al Jazeera did not claim to be the author/s… but then, neither does it appear Al Jazeera made any effort to alert their readers that Lauro from Brazil was not the original author of those quotes either…
I had never heard those quotes before. Are they so well known that every journalist should know them when they see them? And I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like Al Jazeera is gaining anything by not printing the author of those quotes. Those quotes aren't exactly very controversial or politically incorrect in any way. What has happened is that a brazilian guy is sending a letter/email to the "Let's Talk" section on Al Jazeera's site, the email is filled with quotes and the Al Jazeera person, Sheika Sajida, doesn't notice it. If there's been any wrongdoings here I think this Lauro guy is the first we should blame.
I had never heard those quotes before. Are they so well known that every journalist should know them when they see them?
I recognised the Einstein one, and the got me searching too. I've always thought of that one as pretty famous.
It does seem a bit odd for an expert/journo to talk about the feasability of WWIII etc without have some sort knowledge of at least one of those old pearls 'o wisdom. I'd expect that of a big and professional news organisation like AL Jazeera anyway - that they'd spot something like that, in their political content.
Equilibrium
12-22-05, 04:52 PM
No, you're right I actually didnt notice the sloppy format until later. I am a bit surprised and dissapointed that they were so loose in not stating where those quotes came from. Also, why would someone from brazil just randomly put quotes in a letter and send it?
Israel
There are reasons to be hopeful Eq...
Sharon's new attempt at a coalition is the brightest light to shine out of Israel in quite some time. Heart-attacks aside, there's a lot of reasons to believe he and others are in the position, and have the desire, to strive to difuse some of the horrors of the 'facts on the ground'. Also, Arafat is gone and Abbas is in place. These are marvellous steps towards a potential step-down in the strife.
It's a long road tho... and they'll need help...
Bush has sided too blatantly with the Israeli's I would say, it's true. The Palestine side have their own impartial supporters too, for what it's worth. (The UK for example... note this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/St...1651249,00.html)
How everyone outside the Middle East supports any moves for peace is vital. We can only hope that Israel, Iraq, and the other local states are 'handled' with compassion and care. There still is potential for some very decent resolutions between all the 'warring' parties involved.
For the moment tho, much of the warring is taking place with words. Every side should want to keep it that way as much as possible. Anyone who supports peace needs to be applying both their will and their words with care n'all
I think the handling of such states as Iraq and Israel/Palestine is far beyond repair. I have Al Jazeera satillite coming directly to my house and most of their programs are translated into english, and I'm telling you, the arabic world has already decreed the liberation of Iraq, a failure. Here's one of my sources, there was a CNN article, a Washington Post article and surprisingly a FOX news article on the same subject but I couldn't locate them, so this will have to do as a point of reference: http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/news/dec/04/04122005ap.htm#A19
These findings are not suprising, in the US alone, Bush's approval rating (though recently rising) is abysmally low, so how do you expect other countries to approve. show me how the Iraqi war has caused stability in the Middle East, in Iraq itself. I know this is probably stretching it a bit but wasn't saddam the lesser of the two evils? More people have died since the US took over Iraq than during any of saddam's years. Bush himself said the unofficial numbers are around 80,000 and you can logically assume its probably a bit higher than that and still ongoing.
This brings me to Israel, in my opinion the single most important reason why there will never be peace in the middle east. You have to understand the way arabs think, they often think with their pride and beliefs. They do not think in relation to the rest of the world. Some of you might say that is very selfish but, think of it this way, a good samaritan would never be a good samaraitan if he thought in reference to the rest of the world. Israel hits the heart of every arab nation, in our times Israel is a jewish place blah blah, but for hundreds of years, it was Palestine, and a place of the arabs. I find it sad that some of the newer generations didn't even know there was something there before Israel.Its saddending the way the media portrays it as a state thats been around since judea and samaria. But in fact, Israel is nothing more than a now 57 year old occupation. And it would be stupid to say that Israel is set firmly in place, for 100 years the crusaders thought they were firmly in place in Jerusalem, and they got kicked out as soon as the arab world was pissed enough. 57 years is nothing, in the course of history 57 years is a footnote. Things will change they always do, the fall of every major power is guranteed. All you need to do is look at the history books for that.
That being said, the next world war in my opinion and in the opinion of Nostradamus (if you care for his predictions http://www.faqs.org/faqs/nostradamus/part6/ , i dont really believe in them i just find them strangly accurate) WWIII will be the complete turn of the state of affairs in the middle east, and israel is that one reason.
Bush has sided too blatantly with the Israeli's I would say, it's true. ;) :)
When you say Bush you mean him and many others because from what I understand: "since the establishment of the state in 1948, the United States has expressed its commitment to Israel's security and well-being and has devoted a considerable share of its world-wide economic and security assistance to Israel”. ~ Am excerpt from Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship by Paul Findley (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Findley%2C%20Paul/103-8108215-8647038).
Equilibrium
12-22-05, 04:57 PM
As is now apparent, Al Jazeera did not claim to be the author/s… but then, neither does it appear Al Jazeera made any effort to alert their readers that Lauro from Brazil was not the original author of those quotes either…
I think changing a letter written to you by someone else is probably not a good idea. Thye left the letter as it was sent, well this is actually a discussion board so technically they left it as it was typed.It appears the guy who responded to the letter did recognize the quotes however.
Equilibrium
12-22-05, 05:02 PM
When you say Bush you mean him and many others because from what I understand: "since the establishment of the state in 1948, the United States has expressed its commitment to Israel's security and well-being and has devoted a considerable share of its world-wide economic and security assistance to Israel”. ~ Am excerpt from Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship by Paul Findley (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Findley%2C%20Paul/103-8108215-8647038).
Thats because Harry Truman was one of our weakest presidents, with alot of new power under his hands. don't get me wrong I don't completely find the Nuclear Bombings wrong, but ask yourself what you would have done in his shoes, obliterate a whole city for 2 manufacturing plants? Surely, if you were a morally concious person that would weigh pretty heavily on you. Anyways, Harry Truman set in place, before he left office, that Israel is in the best intrest of the United states, which for the time being it is. He made sure that he got people's minds wrapped around the idea that defending Israel against all foes was crucial. What if Harry Truman took that stance towards Palestine. would there be an Osama? Would there be a 9/11? I'm just speculating. I mean think of Israel as the US's own personal hand in the middle east, and it all makes sense.
Piddzilla
12-22-05, 05:11 PM
I recognised the Einstein one, and the got me searching too. I've always thought of that one as pretty famous.
It does seem a bit odd for an expert/journo to talk about the feasability of WWIII etc without have some sort knowledge of at least one of those old pearls 'o wisdom. I'd expect that of a big and professional news organisation like AL Jazeera anyway - that they'd spot something like that, in their political content.
Maybe it is famous. I never heard of it, but I'm not your average quote-type-of-guy perhaps. I wonder how many quotes by arab presidents and/or scientists that american/westworld journalists would recognize.
And if you read the reply to the letter, which I am starting to suspect is some prank from our dear brazilian, it is not very balanced, it's actually pretty biased so I don't think we're dealing with an expert here. And it's not exaclty the editorial column and if I understand it correctly, it's not even the journalist who usually repsonds to the letters who's written this respond.
Anyway.... It might be dumb or sloppy but you can't accuse Al Jazeera of plagiarism or for "stealing quotes".
Also, why would someone from brazil just randomly put quotes in a letter and send it?
As I said before, I think it might be a joke...
Equilibrium
12-22-05, 05:26 PM
Maybe it is famous. I never heard of it, but I'm not your average quote-type-of-guy perhaps. I wonder how many quotes by arab presidents and/or scientists that american/westworld journalists would recognize.
Funny you should mention this. Actually almost 60% of all american sayings are actually derived from Arabic lore. for instance at the top off my head are two examples: In english we say, "You reap what you sow" this is actually a very famous metaphor that was coined by an arabic farmer hundreds of years ago. "Seek counsel of him who makes you weep, and not of him who makes you laugh."
Wait I thought of another one: "No cure, no pay." laer derived into "No pain, no gain"
Also, why would someone from brazil just randomly put quotes in a letter and send it? Well, he was just taking a slightly 'poetic' approach to the topic ;) - all of us do that at different times :)
I think the handling of such states as Iraq and Israel/Palestine is far beyond repair.
I'd have to disagree on 'beyond repair'. 'Very badly in need of repair', in both cases, yeah. But not 'definitely doomed to a continuing downward slide'.
Iraq, yes, is a mess. I wouldn't say it's in a totally hopeless situation, or that it can't drag itself into a position that's an improvement on the Saddam regime (altho like you, and many others, i still don't see it as such).
Also...
Altho its collapse would be pretty catastrophic, i'm not sure it would lead to a 'world war'. More wars possibly, but not a 'world' one, as such. Who knows, maybe we would even get it right, internationally, by interceding to 'fix' any collapse/war that occurs. It's possible.
The bad-blood towards the US etc that the occupation has apparently exacerbated in the Arab world pretty much existed already, i suspect, thanks to...
...Israel...
I think i pretty much understand the Middle-Eastern/Arabic/Islamic hatred of Israel as it is frequently expressed.
I agree that the Israel/Middle-East conundrum is almost certainly the biggest fire-cracker in the world tinderbox.
I stated some strong reasons for hope tho, and i think they're valid.
There are some strong signs that Sharon is prepared to stand up to the orthodox Likud hard-liners. There are strong signs that Abbas pursues a far more moderate, and peace-facilitating line, than Sharon. (Whether he can hold on to power is another matter. But i think both Israeli and Palestinian populations are reaching the end-of-their-tether situation which has driven forward the peace process in N.Ireland, for example. There's a window here in which fierce-pride, the past, and religious differences can be surmounted to an extent, if the goal/outcome is a more peaceful and beneficial situation - one that satisfies the pride of both sides, to some extent).
I'm not expecting miracles. But i sense possiblites. Both politically, and socially.
(I also hope for some positive moves to come from the Bush-camp as he nears the end of his term - a 'place in history' act of facilitation, perhaps. It's a possiblity - altho his personal Evangelical-allegiances does make it a lot less likely.)
At the end of the day tho, i think your view is too bleak. Deterioration is the norm, sure. But that can't go on forever, in this form. So long as certain other norms (equilibriums if you will ;)) stay the same - and they seem to be - the Israel/Palestine peace-process has room to breathe. And potentially, grow.
A wider-war in the region is always possible, but (a) i don't think it would evolve into a 'world war'. To be honest, if it did, i think the Arabic states that would be involved would lose out. And i think they know that. And i think that's why is hasn't, and probably won't happen.
And (b)... the only thing that would upset that equilibrium-of-sorts would be...the 'collapse' of the USA...
Things will change they always do, the fall of every major power is guranteed. All you need to do is look at the history books for that.
I'd say the US ain't gonna fade away just yet. When it does, unless the way the new-world-order works somehow contrives or flukes a smooth 'transition' of some sort, the result'll be carnage all over. It normally is.
And i doubt it'd be split down pro-Israel/anti-Israel lines. It'd more likely be unified by 'i want fossil-fuels'/water/power strivings.
But like you've suggested, a transition of power is inevitable at one point. On one hand, i'd say 'why sweat it til it happens?'. On the other i'd say, seeing what has changed in human societies since the last big transitions (small tho the changes be in comparison to our 'base' natures), it's not unfeasible that world war could be avoided - the a mutual, 'world tribal' desire for stability could be facilitated and achieved. It's quite a long shot, but it is feasible.
But it can only happen if its a hope that is pursued. By as many sides as possible ;):)
Nostradamus...WWIII will be the complete turn of the state of affairs in the middle east, and israel is that one reason.
Yeah, but given the inflammatory nature of the Israel set-up, even back in his time, that's like saying one day the sun will shine on the earth ;).
When you say Bush you mean him and many others because from what I understand: "since the establishment of the state in 1948, the United States has expressed its commitment to Israel's security and well-being and has devoted a considerable share of its world-wide economic and security assistance to Israel”. ~ Am excerpt from Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israeli Relationship by Paul Findley (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Findley%2C%20Paul/103-8108215-8647038).
Sure, i was just talking about recent history. Openly siding with a very-poor, non-negotiating, 'west-bank-securing', 'land-grabbing-wall-supporting' position of the Israelis. That was just plain daft. ;)
I wonder how many quotes by arab presidents and/or scientists that american/westworld journalists would recognize.
Yeah, i was thinking that too. But i was also thinking, if they're a tooled-up, top-notch journo - they'd know a fair few. And Al Jazzeera has journos like that. So, the puzzle is... Why is Al Jazeera running such a sloppy 'service'? Who is this guy? Is he famous? What's his speciality? What's he a Doctor in?
It could be like a Q&A with an author/professor etc, in which case that's cool.
I think Eq shoulda spotted it wasn't an 'article', but more an opinion piece, in the first place, and saved as all a headache ;).
(Oh, and i wasn't accusing Al Jazeera of plagiarism :) - I was just saying it all looked like sloppy journalism, if journalism was what it was)
Funny you should mention this. Actually almost 60% of all american sayings are actually derived from Arabic lore. for instance at the top off my head are two examples: In english we say, "You reap what you sow" this is actually a very famous metaphor that was coined by an arabic farmer hundreds of years ago. "Seek counsel of him who makes you weep, and not of him who makes you laugh."
Wait I thought of another one: "No cure, no pay." laer derived into "No pain, no gain"
Hmm, that's cool (altho 60% seems a tiny bit exact ;)). Are you sure the etymology has been traced tho? The translating/cultural-transfer etc. Those are pretty 'intuitive' ideas for a culture to generate. I wouldn't be surprised if the Native Americans for example had had similar sayings in oral tradition etc (altho of course, we'd never know). And there's always the question of whether all the quotes started out in Arabic lore (i know that's a pretty inflammatory thing to say to a believer - coz i imagine you're talking about lore derived from the Koran - and as such the 'breath'/literal-word of God [i think]. - Prob is, as a non-believer in any faith - i see them as cultural artefacts - and as such, for me they have 'earthly' origins in one form or another)
Anyways, ain't belittling the idea, or the possibility. Just curious is all ;)
Oh bugger, i've gone ballistic again :)
Equilibrium
12-22-05, 05:58 PM
Well, he was just taking a slightly 'poetic' approach to the topic ;) - all of us do that at different times :)
I'd have to disagree on 'beyond repair'. 'Very badly in need of repair', in both cases, yeah. But not 'definitely doomed to a continuing downward slide'.
Iraq, yes, is a mess. I wouldn't say it's in a totally hopeless situation, or that it can't drag itself into a position that's an improvement on the Saddam regime (altho like you, and many others, i still don't see it as such).
Also...
Altho its collapse would be pretty catastrophic, i'm not sure it would lead to a 'world war'. More wars possibly, but not a 'world' one, as such. Who knows, maybe we would even get it right, internationally, by interceding to 'fix' any collapse/war that occurs. It's possible.
When I said beyond repair i meant that should the current situation in the middle east straighten itself out, its going to be at very heavy costs. Its too late for a smooth transition now. In my opinion after 9/11 Bush had a golden opportunity to prove to the world the quality of the United states beliefs. I can't recall any war that was executed so poorly (well I can, when the crusaders attacked Saladin in the middle of the desert at Horns of Hattin). What year are were we in 2002+? It surprises me that he won the 2004 election, even if it was by a close call.I'll admit though, the problems in the middle east are despite Bush. Should the middle east fin d a way back to a peaceful solution its going to be at the cost of a weaker government heavy costs or some sort of major bloodshed. IMHO, its no longer solvable on the papers.
The bad-blood towards the US etc that the occupation has apparently exacerbated in the Arab world pretty much existed already, i suspect, thanks to...
I think i pretty much understand the Middle-Eastern/Arabic/Islamic hatred of Israel as it is frequently expressed.
I agree that the Israel/Middle-East conundrum is almost certainly the biggest fire-cracker in the world tinderbox.
I stated some strong reasons for hope tho, and i think they're valid.
There are some strong signs that Sharon is prepared to stand up to the orthodox Likud hard-liners. There are strong signs that Abbas pursues a far more moderate, and peace-facilitating line, than Sharon. (Whether he can hold on to power is another matter. But i think both Israeli and Palestinian populations are reaching the end-of-their-tether situation which has driven forward the peace process in N.Ireland, for example. There's a window here in which fierce-pride, the past, and religious differences can be surmounted to an extent, if the goal/outcome is a more peaceful and beneficial situation - one that satisfies the pride of both sides, to some extent).
I'm not expecting miracles. But i sense possiblites. Both politically, and socially.
(I also hope for some positive moves to come from the Bush-camp as he nears the end of his term - a 'place in history' act of facilitation, perhaps. It's a possiblity - altho his personal Evangelical-allegiances does make it a lot less likely.)
I sense possibilities too. Abbas does seem like hes got his head in the right place, but for me at least, it is still not good enough. The only Israeli Prime minister to ever allow me to have hope again was Itzack Rabin, to this day I believe he had a genuine desire for peace. Look into Sharon's eyes and tell me he desire's peace. You won't find it, no matter what he does on the outside.
Then you link into a Palestinian's eyes and you see rage and hatred. Is it warranted? In my opinion, absolutely. What really gets me is that the Palestinian's are cornered into a position where they have no weapons, no resources..their only defence is to blow themselves up next to Israelis. So they are faced with a choice...defend themselves ut be viewed as terorrists? Or become one of the manly countless innocents slaughterred by this conflict? Honestly, if you were faced with that decision, don't be so sure that you would be able to control your emotions and anger...and especially pride and love of your family and what you still beleive to be your country.
At the end of the day tho, i think your view is too bleak. Deterioration is the norm, sure. But that can't go on forever, in this form. So long as certain other norms (equilibriums if you will ;)) stay the same - and they seem to be - the Israel/Palestine peace-process has room to breathe. And potentially, grow.
A wider-war in the region is always possible, but (a) i don't think it would evolve into a 'world war'. To be honest, if it did, i think the Arabic states that would be involved would lose out. And i think they know that. And i think that's why is hasn't, and probably won't happen.
And (b)... the only thing that would upset that equilibrium-of-sorts would be...the 'collapse' of the USA...
I agree, whenever a power falls, its space must be filled. This causes a clash, although sometimes I wonder. The thing is that in past history the squabble for power was done by equal powers...today....there are greater and lesser powers. For instance, China..whose to say that as soon as the US's power deteriorates say 100 years from now that China won't take its place immediately. For all we know China could already be the world's most powerful country and no one would know it yet.
I'd say the US ain't gonna fade away just yet. When it does, unless the way the new-world-order works somehow contrives or flukes a smooth 'transition' of some sort, the result'll be carnage all over. It normally is.
And i doubt it'd be split down pro-Israel/anti-Israel lines. It'd more likely be unified by 'i want fossil-fuels'/water/power strivings.
But like you've suggested, a transition of power is inevitable at one point. On one hand, i'd say 'why sweat it til it happens?'. On the other i'd say, seeing what has changed in human societies since the last big transitions (small tho the changes be in comparison to our 'base' natures), it's not unfeasible that world war could be avoided - the a mutual, 'world tribal' desire for stability could be facilitated and achieved. It's quite a long shot, but it is feasible.
But it can only happen if its a hope that is pursued. By as many sides as possible ;):)
I hardly think that the US is just about ready to fade away. I was merely making a point. And I'd like to also point out that although I talk about the US's unquestionable loss of power in the future, I don't necessarily hope for it. I do think the US is a grat place to be, I just wish for once the administration and the people would take a completely different and perhap a bit more isolationist foreign policy.
The "why sweat it until it happens" approach is something I think about all the time. At the end of the day, life is about enjoying yourself, about fullfilling your goals and dreams, and about being a good person. Unfortunately, I always come to the conclusion that happiness will continue to be elusive to millions of people until millions of others sacrifice a bit of theirs to fix it, thus becoming in my opinion good people.
You have to understand that at the heart of political arguments is heart. Does Osama bin Laden have a smaller heart than yours or mine? Maybe he has a bigger one, a bigger love for something he believes in that he is willing to do something about. Just because you think he is wrong, or that the world views him as a terrorist, it does not make him any less humane than you or I. The same goes for Sharon, for Bush, for Hitler,for Arafat, for every human being.
Yeah, but given the inflammatory nature of the Israel set-up, even back in his time, that's like saying one day the sun will shine on the earth ;).
It will?
Wake me up when it does. :o
Equilibrium
12-22-05, 06:11 PM
Hmm, that's cool (altho 60% seems a tiny bit exact ;)). Are you sure the etymology has been traced tho? The translating/cultural-transfer etc. Those are pretty 'intuitive' ideas for a culture to generate. I wouldn't be surprised if the Native Americans for example had had similar sayings in oral tradition etc (altho of course, we'd never know). And there's always the question of whether all the quotes started out in Arabic lore (i know that's a pretty inflammatory thing to say to a believer - coz i imagine you're talking about lore derived from the Koran - and as such the 'breath'/literal-word of God [i think]. - Prob is, as a non-believer in any faith - i see them as cultural artefacts - and as such, for me they have 'earthly' origins in one form or another)
Anyways, ain't belittling the idea, or the possibility. Just curious is all ;)
I'm pretty sure that I once saw a site that traced almost every single American saying Native American and/or Arabic proverbs. I'd like to make a correction, aside from the far east its 60% of the world's metaphors not just the americans, in the US the percentage could be less because of the world distribution.
I'll try and find the site again it was pretty interesting and I remember using for the "Quote of the Day" thread here a couple of times.
However, the quotes are not usually from the Koran. They are almost entirely from old stories tied into culture, no religion. Though some of the quotes come from Hadith, which is the conversations between the prophet and his friends recorded by the friends of the prophet mohammed. That was a messed up sentence but I can't think of a way to fix it lol.
Equilibrium
12-22-05, 06:12 PM
Oh bugger, i've gone ballistic again :)
I'm right behind you, :p.
In my opinion after 9/11 Bush had a golden opportunity to prove to the world the quality of the United states beliefs. I can't recall any war that was executed so poorly (well I can, when the crusaders attacked Saladin in the middle of the desert at Horns of Hattin). What year are were we in 2002+? It surprises me that he won the 2004 election, even if it was by a close call.
March, 2003 will be remembered as the time it all went to hell in a handbasket. The world was behind us when we went to Afghanistan in pursuit of the Taliban and bin Laden. We had every right to do that. Then Bush did a very dumb thing. He invaded Iraq. Granted, I expect Bush to do dumb things but this one had heavy consequences. And we haven't seen the last of them.
I can't really delve into this issue enough to do it justice yet; probably after the New Year. But I do feel compelled to say a few things. I'll break these up to make them easier to read.
Iraqi Casualties
First, I have to correct Equilibrium's claim that life with Saddam wasn't a whole lot worse for Iraqis than it is now. He cites as evidence of this an estimate that 80,000 Iraqis have died, and attributes the estimate to Bush himself. In reality, Bush said 30,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-12-bush-iraq_x.htm). Saddam stands accused of killing 300,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3253783.stm); ten times as many.
Haggling over the specific number, however, misses the point. There's a lot more to this situation than simple body counts. It's not as if Saddam can kill 300,000 people, and the moment we've killed 300,001, the war becomes a mistake. There is a world of difference between dying in the middle of a war fighting a fascist, radical insurgency, and dying at the whim of a dictator. How and why a person dies matters. After all, World War II caused twice as many deaths as Stalin, and it is often hailed as one of the most noble endeavors in human history.
"Failure" In Iraq
I also have to take issue with the lack of perspective here. It's rather staggering. Both Equilibrium and Twain speak as if Iraq has failed already. I see nothing behind this claim other than impatience. Historically, this is not a particularly bloody war, and given the ridiculous difficulties involved in overthrowing a tyrant and forming a democratic government (in ANY part of the world, let alone this one), the strides that have already been taken are nothing short of incredible.
I can only conclude that the assertions that we've somehow failed are the result of a 24-hour cable news culture that is accustomed to measuring things in hours, days, and weeks, when such endeavors obviously take years.
Historically, things are going very well. Iraq has met all of its electoral deadlines and turnout has been high. Casualties of American troops have been relatively low (we're currently at around 2,000. Vietnam took 58,000 American lives), and we're just three years removed from the former regime. I ask, then: under what standard has the war been a failure? Because it seems to me the absolute worst thing a reasonable person could say is that it's too soon to pass judgement.
The Middle East
Also, in response to Equilibrium's lament over the state of the Middle East, I have to say that I think the invasion of Iraq is probably doing more for that area of the world than anything else that has been tried. Have you been following the news? Because it's been remarkably positive:
Saudi Arabia held municipal elections in February.
Eighteen days later, in response to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, 70,000 citizens of Lebanon staged a demonstration, forcing the resignation of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
Citizens in Egypt held demonstrations for democracy. President Mubarak responded by promising the first contested elections in Egypt's history.
And, of course, Afghanistan held free elections for the first time in its history, and Iraq has elected a parliament.
Contrary to being pessimistic, has there ever been a more appropriate time to be optimistic about the future of the Middle East?
Israel
No one here is going to pretend that both sides of the conflict haven't harmed innocent civilians. There is, however, a world of difference between killing them and targetting them.
I once heard the Israeli-Palestinian conflict summarized this way: if the Palestinians put down their weapons today, there would be peace. If the Israelis put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. Given that both sides have acted with anger and irrationality at times, this, I think, is one of the few things we have that seperates the two sides. Israel has made countless concessions to no avail. Their policy has long been one of response/reaction, rather than provocation. Even if you believe that Israel threw the Palestinians off of their own (which I would take issue with) that does not change the fact that their posture has been one of compromise and defense for some time. Notice that the most controversial thing Israel wants to do is only to build a wall to keep enemies out. The most controversial thing Palestinians want to do is eradicate Israel. There is no moral equivalence here.
If none of that compels you, consider this: Israel is surrounded by enemies. It has been under constant siege for every one of the 58 years it has been in existence. It is easy to think of Israel as the bully here, but in reality, it has been under constant attack. The fact that it has so often dominated the conflict is a testament to the persistence and level of freedom Israelis have and enjoy, and their obviously sincere belief that they deserve the land they were given by the British, who owned it at the time. It does not make sense to side with the Palestinians only because their army is inferior. We can admire those Palestinians who stand up to a superior Israeli army as brave, but being compartively underarmed does not necessarily make them the little guy, and being the little guy does not make them right.
I have said it before and I lay my heart out there: Anyone here from Iraq? Anyone here have relatives in Iraq? I have been on the ground there and I know the hatred felt towards Saddam in a direct manner. I can personally say that if I saw Saddam in front of me that I would not hesitate to kill him by any means I could. So many children have had their lives cut short because of one man. The means to this one end are minute, many know what I say because thery have lived it: to my fellow men & women in the muslim world: Hold fast my firiends, your time is here.
Anomaly_X7
12-23-05, 04:48 AM
Yup I would say it's coming soon. Read the Bible it's all in there.
Piddzilla
12-23-05, 09:16 AM
How many weapons of mass destruction did they find again?
How many weapons of mass destruction did they find again?
Yeah I know Bush is such a fool.
How many weapons of mass destruction did they find again?
What? In the bible? I think the Kracken was considered no friend of the masses ;)
(You know that was never the point man. Not really. The whole point was about interfering. The whole point was about getting in on the ground in Iraq - seeing as Saudi Arabia was getting severely itchy feet about all the US presence on its soil [and 'in' its politics] etc ;)).
Wana hit the war-this-way advocates where it hurts? Hit 'em where they continue to fail... (for war-this-way reasons ;))...
---
Like Yods, I'm gonna be a bit time-restricted for a while, but i wanna follow up on a few things while i can...
When I said beyond repair...
Erm... you didn't mean 'beyond repair' then? ;)
Should the middle east find a way back to a peaceful solution its going to be at the cost of a weaker government heavy costs or some sort of major bloodshed. IMHO, its no longer solvable on the papers.
Heavy costs are pretty much a given, i agree - i wouldn't say that a relatively-peaceful 'transition' is impossible tho. (IE You suggest earlier in this quote that a key moment past at the post-9/11 moment)
Personally, i think the major key factor is still here - population fatigue with the whole problem. Add to that that the political will that is necessary to take things in a positive direction - and turn that 'fatigue' to good use - is also showing signs of re-emerging in Israel/Palestine, and things are looking the most promising they've been for a long time...
If by 'weaker government' you mean there's going to have to be some compromise - then yes, inevitably. The 'pride' balance is fraught in these issues. There'll have to be a lot of 'swallowing' ;) (there always is in politics). And there will be blood, of course, there will be more blood spilt.
I also agree it can't just happen 'on the papers'. It'll happen with actions. And that may depend a lot on the direction this guy takes...
Look into Sharon's eyes and tell me he desire's peace. You won't find it, no matter what he does on the outside.
Look into his actions. He's abandoning the hard-liners of Likud. He's setting up a Centrist party. (You liked Rabin. How do you feel about Peres, who looks set to link up with Sharon in the new Centrist party?)
But don't take me word for it. Look at the reactions of some of the key political movers on the scene... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4456998.stm
The thing is that in past history the squabble for power was done by equal powers...today....there are greater and lesser powers. For instance, China..whose to say that as soon as the US's power deteriorates say 100 years from now that China won't take its place immediately. For all we know China could already be the world's most powerful country and no one would know it yet.
Yes, yes. But that has nothing to do with the Middle East. These things happen. (Again, i'd say there is reason to believe major war-based upheaval may be avoided - the world genuinely does work in some distinct ways now. But yes, of all the change-by-war possibilites, i fear a violent rise by China the most).
Whoever ends up on top will still have to deal with the Middle East - if it hasn't settled into a new equilibrium in any case. Might as well focus on that in the meantime.
Unfortunately, I always come to the conclusion that happiness will continue to be elusive to millions of people until millions of others sacrifice a bit of theirs to fix it, thus becoming in my opinion good people...
Absolutely. And there are many forms of sacrifice. Letting your heart beat calmly beneath a thick skin - and tackling the gargantuan task of making best judgements and actions - whether in politics or daily life - that's the challenge (and 'sacrifice'). Part of that pragmatism involves 'not sweating' what can't be changed (now, or at all). It's about doing what you can.
And doing it in such a way that your heart's blood (and that of others - and of the next generations even) isn't just poured uselessly away.
(See Osama etc ;))
Though some of the quotes come from Hadith, which is the conversations between the prophet and his friends recorded by the friends of the prophet mohammed. That was a messed up sentence but I can't think of a way to fix it lol.
Heheheh. Yep, that is a tricky one ;).
But yeah, do some checking on the quotes thing. It'd be good to know :).
I can't really delve into this issue enough to do it justice yet; probably after the New Year. But I do feel compelled to say a few things. I'll break these up to make them easier to read.
Like i did with my latest bit of US 'wrist-slapping' yeah? [You know you wana get back to me about the Wilkerson quotes etc ;)]
Be good to have a decent to-and-fro on some of that stuff at some point :)
I'll just jump in a tiny bit on some Iraq/Israel points in the meantime tho... ;)...
Because it seems to me the absolute worst thing a reasonable person could say is that it's too soon to pass judgement.
I think the worst accusation would be that the whole process may have been undermined (too far) already. (Similar to what you said, but with more of a 'told you so' vibe ;)).
I have to say that I think the invasion of Iraq is probably doing more for that area of the world than anything else that has been tried. Have you been following the news? Because it's been remarkably positive:
Absolutely - but on what grounds are you attributing the positive non-Iraqi changes to Iraq?
I once heard the Israeli-Palestinian conflict summarized this way: if the Palestinians put down their weapons today, there would be peace.
That's clearly ludicrous (both in theory and practice). If the Palestinians weren't 'resisting', then other neighbours would get highly itchy at the internal expansions that Israel would therefore accelerate. Of course, a lot of the contingent 'strife-raising' norms, like heavy-security-checks, and house demolition etc etc etc would cease internally. But, all that would change would be the borders of the strife.
The religious aspect, and the unsolvable 'wound' of Israel's 'invader' status, means that not only is a spontaneous end to violent opposition totally unfeasible in 'human nature' terms - but it would also doubtless exacerbate the core israel-side aggravations that prompt some of the violence anyway (IE expansions and consolidation-of-control in religiously important areas)
Israel has made countless concessions to no avail. Their policy has long been one of response/reaction, rather than provocation.
That is a very kind analysis of what goes on in the ground. Their responses can be deemed excessive to the point of provocation.
Notice that the most controversial thing Israel wants to do is only to build a wall to keep enemies out. The most controversial thing Palestinians want to do is eradicate Israel. There is no moral equivalence here.
No, the most controversial thing that Israel is doing is the wall (which stupidly land-grabs as well - which is an added provocation, and makes it more than just a defensive action. It also has 'divide-and-conquer' uses as well.)
The most controversial thing the hard-liners want to do is have complete control over the region - not only of the religious sites, but of the surrounding areas too, so they can feel safe.
There is a rather distrubing 'moral equivalence' between the hard-liners on both sides i think you'll find.
If none of that compels you, consider this: Israel is surrounded by enemies... and being the little guy does not make them right.
I absolutely loved that paragraph ;). Erm, some irregular logic in there methinks ;).
I'd say both sides are victims. I'd say that both sides are aggressors too.
I think you're being a bit too much of an apologist for the Israelis really.
(And i bet my response has been a whole lot nicer than whatever the Palestine-apologists are gonna throw at ya ;) :rolleyes: )
How many weapons of mass destruction did they find again?
None. Though they did find banned weapons, and I'd be more than glad to provide you with a dozen links illustrating that WMDs were one of several reasons for invasion.
The idea that this invasion was about WMDs and WMDs alone is completely unsupported by the available evidence. It's usually a refrain used by war critics when they're faced with some actual good news coming out of Iraq, and don't know how to respond.
Like i did with my latest bit of US 'wrist-slapping' yeah? [You know you wana get back to me about the Wilkerson quotes etc ;)]
I honestly didn't read it. Which post are you talking about?
Absolutely - but on what grounds are you attributing the positive non-Iraqi changes to Iraq?
I'm not attributing them. At least, not formally. I think there may have been an affect; certainly, the timing for some of the events gives us reason to believe that. But my point wasn't contingent on that. I was taking issue with Equilibrium's assessment that the Middle East is in shambles, rather than showing tremendous signs of progress. Whether Iraq is the cause of any of it or not, it is certainly a part of it.
That's clearly ludicrous (both in theory and practice). If the Palestinians weren't 'resisting', then other neighbours would get highly itchy at the internal expansions that Israel would therefore accelerate. Of course, a lot of the contingent 'strife-raising' norms, like heavy-security-checks, and house demolition etc etc etc would cease internally. But, all that would change would be the borders of the strife.
Yeah, how about that. Six Arabian countries attacked Israel upon its inception, and the Israelis fought back and took some of their land. 20 years and countless scuffles later, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria band together to try again to "drive the Jews into the sea." Again, Israel fights back, and takes more land as a result. That's unfair? That they actually inflict some sort of penalty on neighboring states when they repeatedly band together and try to destory them?
Are there any examples of Israel taking land for no other reason but to have it? Because from what I've seen (though I certainly don't proclaim to be any kind of expert), it has been exclusively a response to repeated attacks. If not, I don't think you can call that genuine provocation.
The religious aspect, and the unsolvable 'wound' of Israel's 'invader' status, means that not only is a spontaneous end to violent opposition totally unfeasible in 'human nature' terms - but it would also doubtless exacerbate the core israel-side aggravations that prompt some of the violence anyway (IE expansions and consolidation-of-control in religiously important areas)
That was not meant to be taken literally. It was intended as a general summary of the motivations and attitudes of the two sides; I'm not actually suggesting anyone just drop their weapons suddenly. I'm saying that, if one of them did, the two sides would clearly have a very different reaction.
That is a very kind analysis of what goes on in the ground. Their responses can be deemed excessive to the point of provocation.
Excessive? The things they respond to often involve the deliberate targetting of civilians. Pretty hard to respond excessively. There is a world of difference between targetting terrorist leaders who have chosen to hide out in apartment complexes, and strapping a bomb to your chest and making for the nearest pizza parlor. If memory serves, the general rules of warfare are such that the attacker is excused for casualties resulting from the enemy's decision to hide among civilians.
No, the most controversial thing that Israel is doing is the wall (which stupidly land-grabs as well - which is an added provocation, and makes it more than just a defensive action. It also has 'divide-and-conquer' uses as well.)
The issue, then, becomes whether or not it's really the Palestinians' land. It was conquered and changed hands a number of times. It was essentially loaned to the Palestinians by the Ottoman empire, which was conquered by Britain, and Britain gave it to the Israelis. Inconvenient to the Palestinians, maybe, but not a terrible crime against humanity, and certainly not reason enough to "wipe Israel from the map."
The most controversial thing the hard-liners want to do is have complete control over the region - not only of the religious sites, but of the surrounding areas too, so they can feel safe.
There is a rather distrubing 'moral equivalence' between the hard-liners on both sides i think you'll find.
Where are these Israeli hardliners? Because if they're out there, they seem to be keeping relatively quiet; at least, compared to their Palestinian counterparts. Perhaps they exist, but that brand of extremism seems far more pervasive on the other side.
I absolutely loved that paragraph ;). Erm, some irregular logic in there methinks ;).
I'd say both sides are victims. I'd say that both sides are aggressors too.
I think you're being a bit too much of an apologist for the Israelis really.
Imagine my surprise. ;)
I stand by that paragraph, and would welcome an explanation as to how the logic is "irregular." I've talked to people who make mention of the fact that Palestinians are using primitive weapons, as if the effectiveness of either side's military had any real bearing on who's more in the right. That's what I was responding to.
(And i bet my response has been a whole lot nicer than whatever the Palestine-apologists are gonna throw at ya ;) :rolleyes: )
Probably.
I honestly didn't read it. Which post are you talking about?
My first ballistic post on this thread uses some recent quotes from the delightful Colonel Wilkerson to 'refresh' certain old accusations about Bush-admin incompetence on the world stage. :)
You might wanna contest some of it ;). (Otherwise - to use some Django-logic for a moment - it will stand as testimoney forever, for the world to see, of my glorious rightness ;))
I'm not attributing them. At least, not formally. I think there may have been an affect; certainly, the timing for some of the events gives us reason to believe that.
Cool. A 'formal' connection would be tenuous ;).
(There are plenty of other internal and external explanations for the changes in those countries really. And a couple of suggestions that the Iraqi democracy-movement is not yet seen as progress by large swathes of the Arabic world).
Yeah, how about that. Six Arabian countries attacked Israel upon its inception...
Are there any examples of Israel taking land for no other reason but to have it? Because from what I've seen (though I certainly don't proclaim to be any kind of expert), it has been exclusively a response to repeated attacks. If not, I don't think you can call that genuine provocation.
My history is sketchy too, but in this case i was talking about the repercussions of their internal expansions (within Israeli borders - IE settlement excurions into 'Palestine'). IE... if Palestinian resistance were to (hypothetically) stop, then:
(a) This practice would most likely increase, and indeed, become of even greater concern to the surrounding countries you mentioned. (Because of the presence of a more consolidated and powerful Israel).
And..
(b) Israel would also be likely to use its new 'peaceful' situation to try and gain a greater hold over the sites of religious import. This would also be provocative to the new line of 'resistance' - the surrounding Islamic states.
That was not meant to be taken literally. It was intended as a general summary of the motivations and attitudes of the two sides; I'm not actually suggesting anyone just drop their weapons suddenly. I'm saying that, if one of them did, the two sides would clearly have a very different reaction.
Yeah, i was calling it out as inaccurate (because it ignored the implications of there being neighbouring Israel-objectors), and dubious in terms of its summary of motivations and attitudes. It tries to suggest that Israel has no 'aggressive' aspects, and is purely defensive - and yet the hard-core Zionist's ultimate agenda is to have priviledged access to the area (notably the religious sites etc. Indeed, i'm sure that 'ideally' many of them would like to control the whole region - for security/defence reasons, you understand ;))
Excessive? The things they respond to often involve the deliberate targetting of civilians. Pretty hard to respond excessively. There is a world of difference between targetting terrorist leaders who have chosen to hide out in apartment complexes, and strapping a bomb to your chest and making for the nearest pizza parlor. If memory serves, the general rules of warfare are such that the attacker is excused for casualties resulting from the enemy's decision to hide among civilians.
Yes, but Israel doesn't just target terrorist leaders. And it is often far from 'precise' when responding with military force, despite its technological superiority (the rocket and artillary attacks on Gaza that destroyed schools and homes were a recent example of this).
On a more 'day to day' basis it bulldozes huge sections of housing and uses control of the water supply as a threat/punishment mechanism - deliberately going for a very 'broad' effect. These are areas where their responses (and i recognise many of these things to be 'responsive') are a bit too close to 'two eyes for an eye'. They have an array of tools that allows for more careful application of force. They don't always chose to use their tools in this manner (tricky tho it is).
The issue, then, becomes whether or not it's really the Palestinians' land. It was conquered and changed hands a number of times. It was essentially loaned to the Palestinians by the Ottoman empire, which was conquered by Britain, and Britain gave it to the Israelis. Inconvenient to the Palestinians, maybe, but not a terrible crime against humanity, and certainly not reason enough to "wipe Israel from the map."
All you can really say, taking the long view, is that it doesn't 'belong' to either side. Both have 'owned' it historically, and not owned it. The idea of 'invasion rights' conferring 'moral justification' for their presence holds no water with me.
Also, don't forget that Israeli radicals themselves used terrorist bombing campaigns [EDIT - but not suicide bombing, as i put initially] to help wrest control of Israel from the British.
The creation of the Israeli state is not a terrible crime against humanity, for sure. And nothing justifies either side's antipathy towards the other to my mind. But i think saying 'we've got the paper work, it's ours, back off with the hate' gets us nowhere. The hate is religious in nature - far far more than it's 'nationalistic'.
The religion is where the problem is - and where the compromise has to be reached. (At the end of the day, i can't see how either side can ever 'own' it - peacefully).
Where are these Israeli hardliners? Because if they're out there, they seem to be keeping relatively quiet; at least, compared to their Palestinian counterparts. Perhaps they exist, but that brand of extremism seems far more pervasive on the other side.
Well, in the Likud party for a start ;). But the politically ensconsed tend to be a bit more subtle with their pronouncements.
I assume that they have similar views to the type of people who support them tho - IE the hard-line Israelis who you can see interviewed in docs etc - whose regular standpoint is "Israel for the Israelis"/This-is-our-promised land kind of stuff. Not necessarily 'death to Palestine' - but 'Get rid of Palestine' (which ain't an objective that can really be achieved peacefully)
I stand by that paragraph, and would welcome an explanation as to how the logic is "irregular."
Well, you started by pointing out that Israel is the little guy surrounded on all sides by a superior enemy, and so is within its rights to do what 'needs must' - but then you asserted that the 'out-gunned little-guy' argument shouldn't be applied to the Palestinians and their actions.
Just intriguing is all. I'm sure it's coz you see the Palestinians as the 'aggressors' and the Israelis as the 'defenders'.
(You also bizarrely attributed the Israelis' military successes to their superior 'freedom'. Most perplexing).
I just didn't find either point particularly convincing is all :)
Equilibrium
12-23-05, 09:12 PM
Iraqi Casualties
First, I have to correct Equilibrium's claim that life with Saddam wasn't a whole lot worse for Iraqis than it is now. He cites as evidence of this an estimate that 80,000 Iraqis have died, and attributes the estimate to Bush himself. In reality, Bush said 30,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-12-bush-iraq_x.htm). Saddam stands accused of killing 300,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3253783.stm); ten times as many.
I don't have time tonight to respond to everyone's comments but I have started preparing a laundry list of things I am replying to, probably sometime tomorrow.
But for now I'd like to say that I stand corrected, I thought Bush said 80,000 but upon revisiting my memory I think I may have misheard. Thanks for the corrextion.
Get back to you later.
linespalsy
12-23-05, 11:36 PM
Where are these Israeli hardliners? Because if they're out there, they seem to be keeping relatively quiet; at least, compared to their Palestinian counterparts. Perhaps they exist, but that brand of extremism seems far more pervasive on the other side.
All the Israeli's I know (yeah, yeah, all I've got to go on here is a plurality of anecdotes, so won't pretend to be an expert either) grew up in secular urban households, and they often complain about a strong ultra-orthodox minority presence in the settlements. I don't remember the name of this sect, but these are the guys who consider settling a holy war to establish their God-blessed right to the promised land (or whatever), and for sectarian reasons are one of the few groups exempt from Israel's universal conscription. Not sure what sort of political power they wield, but I know all the Israeli's I've talked to are quite resentful of them, and it's not something I've seen mentioned in any of the domestic (or European for that matter) press.
Piddzilla
12-24-05, 07:31 AM
Perhaps it's just in Sweden but here the fact that Sharon left Likud and formed his own new moderate party Kadima (meaning: "Forward") and Benyamin Netanyahu was elected the new Likud leader is a big news story in the media.
What caused this schism within Likud was the fact that Sharon, unlike Netanyahu and the hardliners, wants to proceed with the withdrawal from settlements and the peace process. Those who are left in the Likud leadership (Sharon took his sympathizers with him) don't want to withdraw from anything or negotiate at all. Those are the right-wing, the hardliners, and they've got the ultra orthodox fractions and the settlers behind them. These fractions are basically equal to the people of the militant sections of Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and Hezbollah, only instead of using the tactics of suicidal bombings etcetera they historically have had the Israeli army to often back them up. With that kind of army you really don't need to recent to what we traditionally would call terrorism. Still, the Israeli Prime Minister, Labour Party leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yitzhak Rabin, was murdered by Yigal Amir, a Israeli right wing extremist - so let's be honest about from where the various threats to peace in Israel and Palestine come frome.
Fortunately Kadima and Sharon will probably win a landslide vicotry in future elections against Likud since, as Lines said, most Israelis actually want the negotiations to go on.
I get pissed off when during discussions Palestines - all Palestines - are referred to as bloodthirsty terrorists who all share the views of i.e. Hamas, while Israel is being portraited as a peaceloving force who only defends itself against aggressors and that is constantly reaching out its hand to the Palestines, who refuse to grab it. That's a fantastically one-sided analysis by you there, Chris. The truth is that the Palestines have for a very long time been occupied and stateless without any possible chance to solve this politically. Instead they've had the option between terrorism or doing nothing at all. And it's pretty obvious that when you spend your whole life living in a refugee camp watching how wealthy Israelis are enjoying the land you regard as your own, it is very easy to get sucked into hate and violence. Then when political progress actually is successfull, the snowball is allready too big and rolls too fast for some people who see no turning back ("Why should we give up anything at all? They took everything - now we'll take everything back!") . And this goes for all kinds of religious (and geographical) fundamentalists, both arabs and Israelis. How do you make these people stop when they all got God and history on their side?
And, Chris.... You said something about Israel being all alone in the Middle East. It doesn't matter much when you've got the most powerful military force of the world 100% behind you. As well as nuclear weapons although they are technically not allowed too have any, but they still do. And this wall, which is allready up in many places, is not buing built on Israeli ground. It is being built on Palestinian domains sometimes running through property of Palestinian families. Provocative? I would think so, yes.
There are a number of things I would like to get into further. But it's Christmas Eve here, the big day in Sweden, and I'm off to mom and dad's. I'm in a hurry and in a holiday spirit and don't want to fight too much. :D
But let's open up the old "War in Iraq" threads, Chris. I've been searching for them now and then but I've never found them. I don't know if they're too old or if I'm incapable of using the search function correctly..... But I would love to go deeper into the subject on how the threat of WMD:s were not the absolutely top decisive reason for USA to go to war with Iraq. Of course it wasn't the top real reason (as Golgot pointed out), but in order to win the support of the american public, the Congress and UN (which went with Blix and against USA) it was absolutely crucial.
Equilibrium
12-24-05, 04:37 PM
And, Chris.... You said something about Israel being all alone in the Middle East. It doesn't matter much when you've got the most powerful military force of the world 100% behind you. As well as nuclear weapons although they are technically not allowed too have any, but they still do. And this wall, which is allready up in many places, is not buing built on Israeli ground. It is being built on Palestinian domains sometimes running through property of Palestinian families. Provocative? I would think so, yes.
Again I wish I had the time but it seems that I don't. But I have everything typed into a word document. The truth of the matter is that the wall is not just on Palestinian grounds, but also on some of the mot fertile grounds in the regions. I wish I could locate a video showing the soldiers walking down the middle of a FARM telling the palestinian there that his land was to be divivded in two by a giant wall. Everytime he needed to go to the other side he had to have verification and it was such a long process, that today half of his land is absolutely dead, and the other half is like it used to be.
This translatres into half his income. This is the Israeli "plan" for limiting terrorist activities. This is but one of many stories. And like I said I'll try and find all these videos and sites I always refer to.
[QUOTE=Equilibrium]
Looking at the number of crimes committed against the Palestinian population on a daily basis; the killing of innocent children and women, the continuous land grabs, and civilian houses demolitions, all watched by the world superpowers and international organizations,
This could be a description of South Africa before the downfall of apartheid. :yup:
How many horrific crimes, admitted by the Israeli Occupation Forces, have been committed against the Palestinian civilians without the UN even considering issuing a threat against the Jewish state?
That maybe so, but what about all the suicide bombers that kill Jews, is that right. :eek:
there are so many times that the palestinians have been offered statehood and they have refused preferring violence instead...
israel is fighting for its life right now trying to appease not just the palestinians but all arabs..there is iran too threatening to wipe out the jewish state...
everyone is entitled to a homeland...all you need is a compromise....
Caitlyn
12-28-05, 10:22 AM
I had never heard those quotes before. Are they so well known that every journalist should know them when they see them? And I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like Al Jazeera is gaining anything by not printing the author of those quotes. Those quotes aren't exactly very controversial or politically incorrect in any way. What has happened is that a brazilian guy is sending a letter/email to the "Let's Talk" section on Al Jazeera's site, the email is filled with quotes and the Al Jazeera person, Sheika Sajida, doesn't notice it. If there's been any wrongdoings here I think this Lauro guy is the first we should blame.
Actually, Eq (sorry E.) is to blame for stating his original post was an article from Al Jazeera… :p
Also, when I first read the quote by Niemoeller I thought something didn't look right and I finally had time to look it up… and the one posted is one of the corrupted forms of his original quote that has been circulating for several years… Here is the original quote:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me. ~ Martin Niemoeller
Equilibrium
12-28-05, 09:12 PM
there are so many times that the palestinians have been offered statehood and they have refused preferring violence instead...
everyone is entitled to a homeland...all you need is a compromise....
She me these offers for statehood and I'll hand you 1 million dollars.
Also, everyone is entitled to a homeland...but that does not mean you take someone elses if you don't have one. And also, a homeland for a religion? The americans have a homeland, but there is no such thing as a cathloic homeland. The saudi's have a homeland, but there is no such thing as a muslim homeland...
you see my point?
Israel was a FORCED homeland, its not actually where the ancestors of current jews used to live...that would be egypt, iran, iraq...
Also, everyone is entitled to a homeland...but that does not mean you take someone elses if you don't have one. And also, a homeland for a religion? The americans have a homeland, but there is no such thing as a cathloic homeland. The saudi's have a homeland, but there is no such thing as a muslim homeland.....
For some Jews being Jewish is not about religion completley, is about a race of people called Jews, :yup: as I am Australian. :yup:
She me these offers for statehood and I'll hand you 1 million dollars.
Also, everyone is entitled to a homeland...but that does not mean you take someone elses if you don't have one. And also, a homeland for a religion? The americans have a homeland, but there is no such thing as a cathloic homeland. The saudi's have a homeland, but there is no such thing as a muslim homeland...
you see my point?
Israel was a FORCED homeland, its not actually where the ancestors of current jews used to live...that would be egypt, iran, iraq...
the problem with israel is that it is home to three major religious groups....
as far as forced? the jews and palastinians were living together side by side until israel gained it's independence in 48...
as far as ancesters go? all jews are descended from abraham...besides which it was promised to the jews from biblical times...
and just how do you think that the 13 british colonies became 13 independent states...
by the way...the native americans had this country first...
oh and nebbit is right...judaism is a race first, not completely a religion...
Piddzilla
12-29-05, 07:05 AM
there are so many times that the palestinians have been offered statehood and they have refused preferring violence instead...
I think that is to simplify matters. For instance, during the negotiations in Camp David (I think it was) overseen by President Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Barak at one moment offered Arafat and the Palestinians just about all the land the Palestinians wanted. Except for the one thing that Arafat could not go home without: the Temple Mount where the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Wailing Wall are situated. Israel demanded to keep its supremacy in that area. That is something that Barak and the Israelis knew Arafat would not accept.
And that is how it goes. Both parties want to look like peacemongers in the eyes of the world at the same time as they don't back down one inch in the negoatiations regarding the crucial issues. Because that would not look good in the eyes of their own people at home. By doing what Barak did it makes him look like he's offering the Palestinians everything they need and want while Arafat comes out as a stubborn fanatic when not accepting what appears to be a very generous offer.
History, Religion, Traditions and Politics in a wonderful mix....
the problem with israel is that it is home to three major religious groups....
Indeed.
as far as forced? the jews and palastinians were living together side by side until israel gained it's independence in 48...
The Palestinian argument would be the 'We were there first (in greater numbers)' one.
(NB the increased influx of Jews prior to independence -prompted mainly by persecution in Europe i believe- was the catalyst for a slew of tit-for-tat assassinations, massacres and battles. That should have been a hint of what was to come.
A better solution would have been for international countries to have opened their borders to Jewish refugees. We didn't. That really didn't help.)
But... recent history aside, this has been brewing for a long time, seeing as it's written in certain religious texts that can't agree with each other.
Funny isn't it. Both groups believe they know best how God wishes us to behave. Given the last 70 years of killing, you'd have to hope they've got it wrong. (Altho of course, it's always possible that God wants us to massacre each other in the Middle East. And hey, that's exactly what the Rapturists believe. Thank goodness, it looks like we're following God's plan after all :rolleyes: )
as far as ancesters go? all jews are descended from abraham...besides which it was promised to the jews from biblical times...
Well, this is where madness begins and ends. The bible also 'promises' death by stoning to adulteresses. Wanna use that as a precedent too?
and just how do you think that the 13 british colonies became 13 independent states...
Violently, in a few key cases. Although i can't honestly say us Brits were taxing the Israelis to death, or pillaging the land, or anything so rapacious as to deserve the IRA-style actions of the Irgun group etc.
by the way...the native americans had this country first...
Yes, and many still live on reservations to this day. I can't imagine what you were trying to justify with this statement.
oh and nebbit is right...judaism is a race first, not completely a religion...
Yup. And fortunately, the historic persecution of that particular race/religion is now basically extinct in most of the lands where it was originally practised. Which begs the question - why do people continue to emigrate to Israel?
The answer lies in the religion. Religious discord and 'self-righteousness' are what drive and sustain the Israeli-Palestine conflict more than any other aspects.
As far as i'm concerned, all sides are 'in the wrong' in this situation.
Anonymous Last
12-29-05, 11:21 AM
Israel was a FORCED homeland, its not actually where the ancestors of current jews used to live...that would be egypt, iran, iraq...
I think God forgot to give them the title to the land when they packed up the bags and moved to Beverly.
Equilibrium
12-29-05, 10:30 PM
I think God forgot to give them the title to the land when they packed up the bags and moved to Beverly.
LOL.
No but seriously does anyone see my point? If the british chose india as the Jewish homeland then Israel would be in india and no doubt we would be talking about the 60 year old "israeli/indian" conflict.
Equilibrium
12-29-05, 10:32 PM
As far as i'm concerned, all sides are 'in the wrong' in this situation.
What kind of solution do you propose then?
Who is to back down first? Or rather who is more wrong than the other.
Ask yourself this, who is richer...who is more powerful, who has tanks, planes, ulimited military supplies and the backing of the worlds strongest country....
Who is to back down first? Or rather who is more wrong than the other.....
Both :yup:
:yup: as I am Australian. :yup:
Hmmmm I heard Australian women can cook, please their man, play Rugby, and be cute all at the same time. True?;) :D
Hmmmm I heard Australian women can cook, please their man, play Rugby, and be cute all at the same time. True?;) :D
Thats me ;D :yup:
Piddzilla
12-30-05, 05:13 PM
LOL.
No but seriously does anyone see my point? If the british chose india as the Jewish homeland then Israel would be in india and no doubt we would be talking about the 60 year old "israeli/indian" conflict.
Well, now.... It's not just a coincidence that they "picked" that specific piece of land. The Semites do come from that part of the world. And Semites include both Jews and Arabs since they both speak Semitic languages.
i was using the native americans as an example to show that all people do not use violence to get what they want...there are other means...maybe it's not a good example, but there it is...
the reason that people do emigrate is because it is the promised jewish homeland, the land of milk and honey....once you have gone, even for a visit, it leaves a lasting impression.....
the reason that people do emigrate is because it is the promised jewish homeland, the land of milk and honey....once you have gone, even for a visit, it leaves a lasting impression.....
That is for sure :yup:
Iraqi Casualties
First, I have to correct Equilibrium's claim that life with Saddam wasn't a whole lot worse for Iraqis than it is now. He cites as evidence of this an estimate that 80,000 Iraqis have died, and attributes the estimate to Bush himself. In reality, Bush said 30,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-12-bush-iraq_x.htm). Saddam stands accused of killing 300,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3253783.stm); ten times as many.
The impact of the 30,000 casualties attributed to the US invasion is lessened because Saddam was worse? And let's not forget that serious injuries probably number far more than 100,000. And the nearly 2,200 American casualties and over 15,000 serious injuries. The point is, none of those casualties and injuries would have occurred if we hadn't launched an unnecessary invasion. Against a country that had no WMD, no nuclear capability, no ties with al Qaeda and no involvment in the 911 attack.
"Failure" In Iraq
I also have to take issue with the lack of perspective here. It's rather staggering. Both Equilibrium and Twain speak as if Iraq has failed already. I see nothing behind this claim other than impatience. Historically, this is not a particularly bloody war, and given the ridiculous difficulties involved in overthrowing a tyrant and forming a democratic government (in ANY part of the world, let alone this one), the strides that have already been taken are nothing short of incredible.
It's interesting that you think over 32,000 deaths and probably over 150,000 serious injuries isn't a particularly bloody war. It's the bloodiest encounter we've had since Vietnam.
Granted, Hussein was a tyrant. But are we in the business of nation building? Do we overthrow every tyrant on the planet and "liberate" his people at the point of a bayonette? Or only those nations with huge oil reserves and strategic military locations?
Historically, things are going very well. Iraq has met all of its electoral deadlines and turnout has been high. Casualties of American troops have been relatively low (we're currently at around 2,000. Vietnam took 58,000 American lives), and we're just three years removed from the former regime. I ask, then: under what standard has the war been a failure? Because it seems to me the absolute worst thing a reasonable person could say is that it's too soon to pass judgement.
Casualties are approaching 2200. How many casualties in the first three years of Vietnam after they exceeded 100...about 2200. And they rose sharply after that. In Vietnam, we began as "military advisors." In Iraq, we're going to "step down" as the Iraqi military becomes more capable. Let's hope we're not still stepping down 58,000 casualties later.
The Middle East
Also, in response to Equilibrium's lament over the state of the Middle East, I have to say that I think the invasion of Iraq is probably doing more for that area of the world than anything else that has been tried.
But what else is it doing? Our objective after 911 should have been to go to Afghanistan, dismantle the Taliban and pursue, capture or kill bin Laden. After that, it should have been to improve Middle East/U.S. relations through diplomacy and lessen the threat of continued terrorism.
Instead, Bush invades Iraq, stirs up a hornets nest of insurgency and potential civil war, turns much of the world against us and fans the flames of fundamentalist Islam. It was the biggest blunder in 40 years.
i was using the native americans as an example to show that all people do not use violence to get what they want...there are other means...maybe it's not a good example, but there it is...
Erm, the Europeans used violence and deception by the bucketload to take possession of the US from the Native Indians. (I'm assuming you were talking about the 'take-over' of the Americas with your example)
I think you'll struggle to find an example of a land take-over that was conducted without violence, or had a satisfactory outcome for the losers (and in some cases, the 'winners' too).
the reason that people do emigrate is because it is the promised jewish homeland, the land of milk and honey....once you have gone, even for a visit, it leaves a lasting impression.....
Suz, you're a lovely person, and the last person i'd want to offend, but i'm afraid -as a secularist- i have to 'take a stand' against this type of thinking.
As far as i'm concerned, religious believers can believe nigh on whatever they like, so long as it doesn't impinge too strongly on others. Whenever certain beliefs overstep that line, it's every human's duty to intercede, to my mind.
You're basically saying the Jewish race has a land-ownership certificate signed by God. I say 'prove it'. And you can't. You can't prove that God has given this land to anyone. All you can do is assert that you believe it.
Well i say that's not enough. This belief brings guaranteed bloodshed in its wake.
In this case, the bloodshed is guaranteed not only because of the contingent 'immigrant/native' clashes - but because the other side believe God says something different too. (With respect to having 'priority' to places like Jerusalem, Hebron etc).
These types of belief make peace basically impossible. That's not the intent, but it is the effect. To me, these beliefs, and those who espouse them, are quite literally enemies of peace.
It's worth noting that extreme claims written in monotheistic religious texts have played a fundamental role in the 'Terror' phenomenon that we are experiencing now. (To add to the lavish amounts of destruction and distress caused in the past).
The only solution, and hope for peace, in these cases is for the religious to ignore the more extreme tracts in their holy books. Moderates already do this. (I'm sure you wouldn't stone an adulteress for example).
Not likely to happen, i know, but there you go. In the meantime, it's up to those of us who question how much God's mind can/could be known to counter these unbridled and extreme claims wherever we find them. For what it's worth. (I think 'reasonable' people should value peace over needless bloodshed. That doesn't always seem to be the case though. That's a shame. A bloody shame, no less).
What kind of solution do you propose then?
There's a type of a solution in my 'enemies of peace' post above - but it's not all that likely to happen ;). (I do think it's at least partially, and progressively, attainable though :)).
On a more practical level, i'm just gonna follow the experts who best understand the 'facts on the ground' and see where they go with it. I can't honestly see any practical geographical solution that will bring a cessation to the violence though. It's possible that only another generation of horror will finally 'win out' over the fanaticism that exists on both sides - and lead to a civilian-empowered rejection of violence, as has happened in Northern Ireland.
Who is to back down first? Or rather who is more wrong than the other.
Nebs answered this as best as it can be answered ;). (There are details which weigh more in favour of one side or the other, but as a whole, both sides perpetuate key sources of their own suffering. Both are severely in the wrong, to my mind.)
Ask yourself this, who is richer...who is more powerful, who has tanks, planes, ulimited military supplies and the backing of the worlds strongest country....
But in fairness to them, they don't deliberately kill civilians. You know who does that.
I feel i understand the key circumstances and motivations affecting both sides. Both sides truly are underdogs in their own way. But only when both admit to the various wrongs that they have done will peace finally come. At the moment, both sides are very hesitant to even recognise their own destructive actions as 'wrong'.
That's a big problem.
golgot
you haven't offended me, everyone is entitled to an opinion..
i agree with everything you have said and you're right, i can't prove it..it's just something that's been written about in the old testament and something that the jews fiercely believe in and hold on to for they have been kicked out from every single country that they have been in...
so a homeland is very important to them, just as it is to the palestinians...
what i am talking about was that lately, there are some tribes out on the island who want the local gov't to recognize their existence as a tribe...
without going into too much detail, they want to build a casino on land that they claim is theirs, but other people own the property...what i meant is that they have not resorted to violence (no indian raids or suicide bombers)
now i know it's a silly example...
it's just... something that the jews fiercely believe in and hold on to for they have been kicked out from every single country that they have been in...
Sure. I do find it crazy though that, given their tormented history, contemporary Jewish believers and Zionists would want to put themselves in harms way yet again.
so a homeland is very important to them, just as it is to the palestinians...
Ay. And there's the nub of the problem. And there are generations there on both sides for whom this region is definitively 'home'.
The idea of religious-homeland though, in this case, is still a recipe for far more 'death' than 'salvation'. I'd say 'on their heads be it', but the world's a small place, and we all get affected one way or the other.
In an ideal world, i'd like to see all the religious sites made into a unified 'international land', owned by no-one and inhabited by no-one (IE the land equivilent of 'international waters'). It could form a multi-faith Mecca of sorts. (They'd just have to put a security ring around the whole lot that would form part of the 'purification' of the pilgrims' journey ;)).
without going into too much detail, they want to build a casino on land that they claim is theirs, but other people own the property...what i meant is that they have not resorted to violence (no indian raids or suicide bombers)
now i know it's a silly example...
Heh. Nah, it's intriguing. I guess the key difference (from Israel/Palestine etc) is that they're in charge of their own lives as they stand, and haven't lived in times of local conflict for numerous generations. That's always gonna help them take more peaceful routes ;).
Glad we're still on talking terms :).
Piddzilla
01-02-06, 08:40 PM
Sure. I do find it crazy though that, given their tormented history, contemporary Jewish believers and Zionists would want to put themselves in harms way yet again.
Even though we're mostly "on the same side" on this matter and I know that you don't mean anything naughty with that comment I still have to ..eh.. comment on it.
I think that the idea that Jews should be "extra careful" because of their history as a people is a bit backwards. I don't see why any kind of people, Jews or Arabs, should apologize for their background or ask for less because of what other peoples think or have thought of them. It's like saying "Didn't the Holocaust teach you a lesson??". On the contrary, I think it's a rather natural thing that militant Zionism - even though I certainly don't always agree with it - develops after tragedies like the Holocaust. I understand very well that the Israelis want their own piece of land where they can be left alone and in peace. That, of course, does not give them the right to take those privileges and rights away from the Palestinians.
I once read a book about orthodox Jews living in New York. They believed that it was the fate of the Jews to be tormented, it was a test from God designed to make them stronger. Something to keep in mind when wondering why the Israeli hardliners put themselves in harm's way again perhaps.
I think that the idea that Jews should be "extra careful" because of their history as a people is a bit backwards.
Frankly, i'd say anyone should be 'extra careful' not to emigrate to a state where blood and strife are part of the daily routine. On those grounds, i don't give a damn what anyone's history is - i'd say they'd be a fool to choose that course. I'd say that's 'forward-looking' :p ;)
What i was actually trying to do with that comment was re-emphasise one of my main 'themes': IE that religions require their adherents to believe some crazy things - and therefore to act in some crazy ways too. That's a historical and modern fact ;)
I don't see why any kind of people, Jews or Arabs, should apologize for their background or ask for less because of what other peoples think or have thought of them.
Me neither. And i didn't say they should :nope:. (How people go about getting what others have is another matter tho ;))
I understand very well that the Israelis want their own piece of land where they can be left alone and in peace.
I understand that too. Just don't think it's going to happen in Israel.
I once read a book about orthodox Jews living in New York. They believed that it was the fate of the Jews to be tormented, it was a test from God designed to make them stronger. Something to keep in mind when wondering why the Israeli hardliners put themselves in harm's way again perhaps.
I'm sure orthodox Israelis have a similar perspective (especially given the unsettled history of the Jewish race, even during their brief spells in Canaan). It's interesting though that two of their own prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekial, both asserted in different ways that a state was not necessary to carry out of the will of God - states are transitory, but man must endure.
It's also interesting to note just how strong and vital the Jewish race has become during its prolonged 'diaspora'. Personally, i'm glad my Jewish mates don't feel the need to ship off to Israel anytime soon ;).
Equilibrium
01-03-06, 01:41 AM
What i was actually trying to do with that comment was re-emphasise one of my main 'themes': IE that religions require their adherents to believe some crazy things - and therefore to act in some crazy ways too. That's a historical and modern fact ;)
No. Religion are not in and of themselves crazy. First off, crazy is a relative term. If 5.5 billion people on this planet believed that poking urself in the arm with a needle twice daily would be condisered praying...then it isn't crazy. Its only crazy when its different. To the people you refer to as "crazy" YOU are the crazy one. and who are you to judge them wrong? Their brain is just as big as yours, and they have the same ability as you to think. So who are you to decide right and wrong?
I think you are an atheist and im not sure if you so if you aren't forgive me. To an atheist im sure every religion is crazy.
No. Religion are not in and of themselves crazy.
I didn't say they were entirely crazy ;).
(I think it's totally sane to try and create safe societies that look after themselves and their environment, for example. I think it's totally understandable, and rational, to seek certainty in an uncertain world too. There are numerous positive and rational intentions enshrined in the various religions)
However, i still stand by this statement: "religions require their adherents to believe some crazy things".
The fundamental one is the idea that anyone can definitively know the will of God.
Believing you have the definitive take on God's will (and indeed the nature of His universe) is the root from which all the trouble grows...
(I am truly sorry that this argument, and the accusations of 'craziness' that follow it, cause offence, but i'm interested in what's best for the most number of people possible - IE pursuing the most global 'peace' possible. The varying religious claims to knowing God's will are frequently at odds with that aim. These ideas are 'enemies of peace', as i put it before.)
If 5.5 billion people on this planet believed that poking urself in the arm with a needle twice daily would be condisered praying...then it isn't crazy. Its only crazy when its different.
Well, look at it like this...
If a single guy came up to you in the street and said he knew what God intended, that his relatives had written down God's words (he had them there in the family book), and that God had told him that he owned Manhattan Island (and had the right to kill anyone who opposed him) - and also that he didn't mind dying, coz when he died he was going to live on a bed of jelly and be tickled by angels for eternity - ... you'd say he was crazy, yes? Deranged. A madman who should be locked up.
Or not? Seriously. Is this guy 'crazy', or not?
Just coz a lot of people share the same belief doesn't make them right. It just means there's a lot of them. (Check historical texts for numerous examples of large numbers of people believing unfounded and 'detrimental' things ;)).
To the people you refer to as "crazy" YOU are the crazy one. and who are you to judge them wrong? Their brain is just as big as yours, and they have the same ability as you to think. So who are you to decide right and wrong?
I have the right to criticise the beliefs and actions i've mentioned for two mains reasons.
They cause unnecessary suffering and death. (If mine do as well, they do so to a far lesser extent. That puts me in the moral high ground :p).
The logic which underpins them is fundamentally flawed (IE based on unproveable conceits)
When i want to get someone's attention concerning this, i'll call those ideas and actions crazy. Sorry, but that's the way it's got to be.
I think you are an atheist and im not sure if you so if you aren't forgive me.
The short answer is that i'm an 'agnostic-of-sorts' ;). One of the many 'unaffiliated' but moral-led beings floating around this world. :)
Its only crazy when its different.
I think you are an atheist and im not sure if you so if you aren't forgive me. To an atheist im sure every religion is crazy.
No, I don't think "different" is necessarily crazy. And I don't think the norm is necessarily sane. A single person can have an extraordinary idea and the multitude thinks he's crazy. Millions of people believe some pretty strange things and don't think it odd at all... because it's the norm.
I'm an atheist and while I think religion can be dangerous, I don't think it's crazy. Believers are products of tradition, indoctrination and emotional need. Had my personal history been different, I could have been a believer too. And if that were the case, I wouldn't want to think I was nuts. :D
The real danger in religion is fundamentalism. Those who know they are right and want you to know it too. Sometimes by force. The battle isn't between religion and secularism. It's between diversity and conformity. Fundamentalism demands conformity.
The battle isn't between religion and secularism. It's between diversity and conformity. Fundamentalism demands conformity.
EDIT:
Interesting 'balance of power' you've got going there :yup:
Some belief systems demand more conformity than others tho...
If you take religions at face value, they demand a hell of a lot. It's only thanks to centuries of 'moderation' that even 'Fundamentalist' Christians don't try to enact the Bible's orders to kill those who work on Sunday, for example.
Unfortunately, some people are still conforming rigidly to those types of beliefs.
I'd say [i]what we believe can be just as important as the degree of conformity that surrounds those beliefs.
limboslam
06-10-06, 11:12 PM
This is late into this discussion, and I just skimmed my way through it, but here's my 2 cents: We're IN World War 3.
Equilibrium
06-10-06, 11:25 PM
in many ways i agree with you.....
My own life is World War III. That's good enough for me. Everything else I could care less.
Equilibrium
06-11-06, 03:40 PM
My own life is World War III. That's good enough for me. Everything else I could care less.
didn't you dissapear somewhere???
glad to see you're back
gl with your war.
"Are we headed towards Wolrd War III?" Do you mean like right now, in the next few years? Because seriously eventually there may be a WWIII, no matter what we all think. What exactly is the definition of a World War? It is a bit confusing to me. If we define it in terms of current day issues then we should be at like WWXV or so. I am not trying to trvialize things going on today because yes they are defnitely "all encompassing", but no not like the last two World wars they arent. Will they lead to a WWIII? Yes they might , and they probally will if things do not change, but no we are not now in the throes of WWIII. To say so is an insult to those who went through either WWI or WWII. Least thats just my opinion on a grand scale.
Equilibrium
06-13-06, 12:00 AM
"Are we headed towards Wolrd War III?" Do you mean like right now, in the next few years? Because seriously eventually there may be a WWIII, no matter what we all think. What exactly is the definition of a World War? It is a bit confusing to me. If we define it in terms of current day issues then we should be at like WWXV or so. I am not trying to trvialize things going on today because yes they are defnitely "all encompassing", but no not like the last two World wars they arent. Will they lead to a WWIII? Yes they might , and they probally will if things do not change, but no we are not now in the throes of WWIII. To say so is an insult to those who went through either WWI or WWII. Least thats just my opinion on a grand scale.
To answer your question, I would define WWIII as an all inclusive OPEN war in which many nations battle each other. Not everyone versus the same nation, but literally almost two equal opposing forces spanning the entire globe.
To answer your question, I would define WWIII as an all inclusive OPEN war in which many nations battle each other. Not everyone versus the same nation, but literally almost two equal opposing forces spanning the entire globe.
Lets hope that never happens :eek:
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.