Jump to content

Love, Peace, and the War on Afganistan


CommanderJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

That's dealing with internal Israel relations. The relationship with Israel to the rest of the Middle East is strained with or without the internal Palestinian situation.

External relations are nowhere near as strained as they used to be. Israel already has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan (two of the three main aggressors of the Arab-Israeli wars) and no Arab state has invaded Israel since the Yom Kippur war of 1973. Apart from the lack of success in negotiations with Syria, the internal situation is the most significant.

quote:

The wars over Israel in the past 50 years were not so the Palestinians could get their homes back, it was because of the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel in the Middle East.

Today, many of the main aggressors of those wars (of which the last occurred over 27 years ago) have officially recognized Israel's right to exist.

quote:

So yes, the only way the terrorists will be happy will be if in the United States actions, we withdraw support for Israel.

I'm not so sure that Israel is the core issue of the recent acts of terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to post this bit here:

--------------------------------------

quote:

El Rushbo's Undeniable Truth : Defeat Ends Conflict

One of my Undeniable Truths of Life, written back in the eighties, is still true today - Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.

For example, we are at peace with Germany, Japan, Russia, and Mexico. Why are we at peace with those countries? There's one reason. It's because we defeated them in war. We didn't negotiate a settlement with one of them. We negotiated terms of surrender after they couldn't take it anymore and we cleaned their clocks. We defeated them by the aggressive use of force.

These negotiated peace deals are not worth the paper they're printed on. They don't stand up because neither side has been eliminated as a viable enemy or fighting force. Until one side is defeated, you are going to continue to have conflict.

Now, anyone that has been involved in domestic or international diplomacy, politics and war, knows this. I know no one from our state department is going to say anything like this about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, but I'm just telling you the facts of life and the truth about it as far as human nature is concerned.

If someone can find me a negotiated peace deal that did not first involve one side being unable to continue militarily because it had been wiped out, please tell me. I think the obvious trend is to support the notion that ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. I know some of you cringe when you hear that, it makes you nervous - "It can't be true!" But it is true. And the only reason we're still around is because we have deigned to be aggressive in the use of force and we did not have any doubts. We had the courage to win and prevail.

You can't start wars and lose them and then demand your land back only to prepare for war another day, which is what the Palestinians are doing. Do the Spanish still have a claim to Florida, for example? Andrew Jackson chased them out of there. Do the Mexicans have a claim to California and Texas and other parts of the west and southwest? There were Mexicans there before we were there, and they were Mexican before they were part of the United States. We could go on and on, domestically and around the world, with these kinds of examples.

Now, one thing is for certain. If your response to terrorism is to treat both parties as moral equals, if your response is to insist that Israel show restraint, and if your response is to propose a Palestinian state, the result is, and is going to continue to be, more terrorism.

If you reward it, that's what you're going to get, and rewarding terrorism is what you do when you call for a Palestinian state. Especially since it has been demonstrated that it's not what the Palestinian leadership wants. It is not their objective and our leadership has to know that. Good grief! If I can figure that out, certainly they can.

It's just beyond me to understand how it is that any rational person expects there to be peace out of the current set of circumstances in the Mideast, and I explain why in the audio link below.
There is ultimately going to be "the final conflict," and one of these sides is going to have to lose, and only then will there be peace. The idea that both sides are equally as guilty is a bottomless pit of a trap that you're never going to get out of.


Bold lettering added for emphasis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, $ilk's article he found is absolutely right and I agree with it. Additionally, in response to Menchise, I think you/he inadvertantly just PROVED MY POINT.

quote:

External relations are nowhere near as strained as they used to be. Israel already has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan (two of the three main aggressors of the Arab-Israeli wars) and no Arab state has invaded Israel since the Yom Kippur war of 1973. Apart from the lack of success in negotiations with Syria, the internal situation is the most significant.

You give no reason why the "internal situation is the most significant" in regards to terrorism, and even if it is, it's virtually impossible to solve it, so we might as well solve the problem with terrorists by bombing them.

However, I'm sure all of you who know World History know that the only reason why Israel won the series of wars with it's neighbors was US military supplies and aid. Israel cleaned their clocks almost every time because of United States aid and support, and thus the neighboring countries formed peace treaties with them (peace THROUGH war, not before). That HUGE amount of US intervention and support in the region toward Israel is the most likely cause of anti-American sentiment in that part of the world, next to maybe our "culture". We can't withdraw or lessen support to Israel (the reasoning i've given many times), so our current course of action is the only practical one.

quote:

Today, many of the main aggressors of those wars (of which the last occurred over 27 years ago) have officially recognized Israel's right to exist.

Maybe because they got their armed forces decimated when they attacked Israel? Or maybe because the United States was directly supporting Israel, as was the UN. That gives an empirical example how our current course of action actually solves problems.

quote:

I'm not so sure that Israel is the core issue of the recent acts of terrorism.

What is the core issue then? And what is the PRACTICAL alternative to solve it, as i've asked many, many, many times on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you expect me to deny that decisive victories in war have led to lasting 'peace agreements', I'm not going to. I know exactly what it can do (if you like, I could post the old essay I wrote on the causes of war, back when I was centre-right), but the idea that it's always going to be like this is rubbish. That article goes on and on about how current circumstances in the world make this system of peace through war inevitable. Well then, change the circumstances! You want an alternative? I'll give you one in time, but I don't think you're going to like it ($iLk, I think we're going to be debating about socialism again soon).

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

($iLk, I think we're going to be debating about socialism again soon).

Good Lord ...

I agree that Socialism as an idea is good, but practically is worthless. You disagree, but I don't see how plainer I can make it than to show you past examples. I know that some of them weren't socialist to a T, but that doesn't matter does it? I mean the ends justifies the means correct? Isn't that a good socialist motto? Kill 10 million of your own people, it's okay as long as the revolution succeeds.

Those people were trying for the ideal, but human nature turned it into what it became. Human nature, and the pessimism of people like me, as well as the immorality of taking from others to justify someone's insatiable desires is enough to cause it to fail.

But enough of Socialism, we'll save that for the continuing the debate thread.

As far as my points - Israel has attempted a cease-fire peace. Palestine doesn't respect it because : the root of the problem is still there - Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Well then, change the circumstances! You want an alternative? I'll give you one in time, but I don't think you're going to like it ($iLk, I think we're going to be debating about socialism again soon).

Umm, yet again, your making these overarching statements/solutions with no practical means. It's like this:

Me: Give an Alternative

You: Peace.

Me: Give a feasible Alternative

You: Socialism

Me: Give a feasible alternative with practical means of implementation

You: One-world government

Me: Ok, I don't think your getting me. Feasible means that there is actually a forseeable way to get it done right now without causing global instability, etc.

You: Rubbish. What's wrong with a one world government?

Ok, now, since the argument has boiled down to the alternative, what exactly is the feasible alternative to our current course of events that would change the "circumstances." Can't go isolationist, can't stop supporting Israel....are we going to declare Bin Laden the dictator of our government? That might work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Umm, yet again, your making these overarching statements/solutions with no practical means. It's like this:

Me: Give an Alternative

You: Peace.

Me: Give a feasible Alternative

You: Socialism

Me: Give a feasible alternative with practical means of implementation

You: One-world government

Me: Ok, I don't think your getting me. Feasible means that there is actually a forseeable way to get it done right now without causing global instability, etc.

You: Rubbish. What's wrong with a one world government?

Me: What one world government?!

You: The one that socialists want.

Me: What socialists?

You: The socialists who want one world government.

Me: Give me an example of a socialist who wants one world government.

You: ...

I'm waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise , Socialism cannot succeed without a one world socialist change.

You've admitted as much, just as has any Socialist, "Socialism cannot compete against a Capitalist society"

That's because Socialism is not competition oriented. Socialism is "do your best i.e. as little as you can get away with doing"

If you feel the need to vent against the unfairness of the Capitalist system (i.e. jealousy of those who succeed) then the Continuting the Debate thread you started is still there. I haven't succeeded yet, and I may not, but that doesn't mean I want a system where I have NO chance to succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Menchise , Socialism cannot succeed without a one world socialist change.

What does that have to do with a one world government?

quote:

If you feel the need to vent against the unfairness of the Capitalist system (i.e. jealousy of those who succeed) then the Continuting the Debate thread you started is still there.

I'll be posting stuff that is relevant to war and peace in this thread. All of the usual banter can go in the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What does that have to do with a one world government?

In case you need that extra leap of logic, a one world system would facillitate the need for one way of life correct?

How are you going to enforce it? Because even if one country chose to go capitalist, and they were sitting on 90% of the goods you need, the socialist countries will fail. There's going to need to be a good suppression of all other ways of life for Socialism to work. In other words - not neccessarily one government, but ONE idea, ONE way of life, and ONE means of government. And a way to prevent any one part of the world from going against that.

The next best thing.

BTW 1000 POSTS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Me: What one world government?!

You: The one that socialists want.

Me: What socialists?

You: The socialists who want one world government.

Me: Give me an example of a socialist who wants one world government.

You: ...

I'm waiting.

Ok, i'll give you a few.

Strobe Talbott (Deputy Secretary of State Under Bill Clinton in 92)

A senate foreign relations subcommitee

Pope John Paul II

But again, my "mock thread" was just to point out the stupidity of solutions without a practical means, not to argue about socialism. As I stated, and was the main purpose of my post:

Ok, now, since the argument has boiled down to the alternative, what exactly is the feasible alternative to our current course of events that would change the "circumstances." Can't go isolationist, can't stop supporting Israel....are we going to declare Bin Laden the dictator of our government? That might work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ravanof,

What a great plan, but some of the more, shall we say, liberal bent, would have a total conniption. How dare we force our way of life on everyone, everywhere. Just because it works so well, and liberty is it's main tenet, and Free Enterprise it's foundation.

Nope, can't have that, those communists and despots need thier power and we cannot interfere. Who are we to say that our system is the best for everyone.

First step is we annex Canada, send all our liberals and socialists up there, we take all thier conservatives, then let the socialists play god with each other, while we conservatives have a happy life down here. They are close enough to keep an eye on, yet far away enough to keep out of our hair. Or maybe we ought to just send them all to Australia, give them thier own continent to ruin, while we build up a huge and massive Free enterprise, constitutionalist system everywhere else. What a nice dream, but it will never happen. What a wonderful world it would be!!! LOL

OK, have made some changes to my sig, let's see if it works and shortens it up and makes it look better too!!

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

In case you need that extra leap of logic, a one world system would facillitate the need for one way of life correct?

No. What's all this talk about one way of life and imposition of one idea and one means of government? That's fascism, not socialism. In any case, this belongs in the other thread.

quote:

Strobe Talbott (Deputy Secretary of State Under Bill Clinton in 92)

Never heard of him. What else does he want?

quote:

A senate foreign relations subcommitee

Names please.

quote:

Pope John Paul II

The Pope?! What makes you think he's a socialist?

quote:

But again, my "mock thread" was just to point out the stupidity of solutions without a practical means, not to argue about socialism. As I stated, and was the main purpose of my post:

Ok, now, since the argument has boiled down to the alternative, what exactly is the feasible alternative to our current course of events that would change the "circumstances." Can't go isolationist, can't stop supporting Israel....are we going to declare Bin Laden the dictator of our government? That might work...

Under the current system, there is no feasible lasting alternative. That is the circumstance that needs to be changed.

quote:

OK, have made some changes to my sig, let's see if it works and shortens it up and makes it look better too!!

I think the Delta Wing logo has been changed recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, If you don't know, we just chased the Al Quaida out of Tora Bora, called for them to surrender, they didn't, so we are bombing the hell out of them right now!!

THe Taliban and Al Quaida are now toast and pretty much destroyed. I think OUR way worked rather well!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Under the current system, there is no feasible lasting alternative. That is the circumstance that needs to be changed.


[sARCASM on]

By God he must be right. People flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon - by golly that means our whole way of life must be screwed up. I think we should begin, or rather speed up the process of using one part of our population to pay for the other half and maybe no one will hurt us anymore. Lets forget about the terrorists! The problem is obviously with the way we live! I mean, if my neighbor punches me in the nose, holy jeez that means I ought to start wearing the same kinds of clothes he does or something. My "policy" of wearing jeans when he wears khaki pants is obviously the fault, God forbid we actually make him ACCOUNTABLE for his own actions, and instead we should find something to blame his frustrations on. [/sARCASM off]

Any problems we face in the world is obviously our fault because we are greedy "evil" capitalists eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Any problems we face in the world is obviously our fault because we are greedy "evil" capitalists eh?

Heh. I used to say the same thing (not exactly the same, but the same).

Being a capitalist does not make you at fault for problems in the world, but the structure of the global capitalist society in which we live not only makes a real solution to many problems impossible, it also contributes to the problems.

Secondly, the terrorists are not anti-capitalist. Most if not all of the Arab countries (including the harbouring and sponsoring countries) have market economies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Be warned, if you corner and prevent him from using evasive tactics he will dissappear

Boo!

quote:

C'mon, where's the feasible means?

What do you mean by feasible? A solution that doesn't require fundamental change? A solution that doesn't require that the whole concept of states and political/economic hierarchies be abolished? In my opinion, any peace solution that doesn't do those things would be a quick fix, and quick fixes don't solve long term problems. Therefore, any proposal that claims to be a long term peace solution without overturning the status quo is not feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Menchise:

What do you mean by feasible? A solution that doesn't require fundamental change? A solution that doesn't require that the whole concept of states and political/economic hierarchies be abolished? In my opinion, any peace solution that doesn't do those things would be a quick fix, and quick fixes don't solve long term problems. Therefore, any proposal that claims to be a long term peace solution without overturning the status quo is not feasible.

1. How would you carry out this "fundamental change."

2. Your argument is counter-intuitive. You say that the whole system of geopolitics needs to be abolished, but how exactly would you do that?

3. Ok, so your saying right now, the system is evil/wrong. How do you know that any other system, which is untried, would work?

4. Your naming problems with no solutions. Go to Congress, and get them to write a bill stating "the whole concept of states and political/economic hierarchies be abolished". They would laugh you out of their sight so fast it's not even funny. Not because of the geopolitical mindset, because it's a mandate with NO POSSIBLE WAY OF BEING CARRIED OUT.

5. Example of the lunacy: We need world peace in order to advance as a society, otherwise we wont. Ok, great, we need world peace....that's nice.....HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET IT? Sure, the concept may be nice, but it's impossible to achieve, just like the idea of "Abolishing the geopolitical/statist systems of the world"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...