Yes USA won world war two without any help at all. :roll:
Yes USSR won world war two without any help at all. :roll:
Yes England won world war two without any help at all. :roll:
Yes France won world war one without any help at all. :roll:
Yes America won her independance without any help at all. :roll:
and? :wink: :o
@Imperious:
Yes USA won world war two without any help at all. :roll:
Yes USSR won world war two without any help at all. :roll:
Yes England won world war two without any help at all. :roll:
Yes France won world war one without any help at all. :roll:
Yes America won her independance without any help at all. :roll:
and? :wink: :o
well this is all silly.
It’s quite obvious that the Canucks beat the crap out of those sad little German troops quite handily without any help at all.
Don’t mess with a prairie boy!
I’ve been trying to think of something meaningful to say in this thread, and it keeps escaping me. Perhaps the best that can be said is that just because one is pro-Israel doesn’t mean that one has be anti-Palestinian. Certainly the ethno-religious undertones of some of the posts are disturbing, as is the enthusiasm many of the writers appear to have for Israel, since no even-handed account for the Israeli-Arab conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be gung-ho for one side or the other.
Two points: First, the Palestinians and Arabs more generally are not a homogenous group. I would have thought the latest Iraq incursion would have evinced that, but evidently not. Hamas is not Fatah, which is not Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah, or even the PA all together. When dealing with this particular situation, sweeping generalizations about the character of a whole society make careful analysis exceedingly difficult. For example, many (probably most) people in the Gaza Strip support Hamas. Is it because they are violently anti-Israel? To an extent, but don’t forget that Hamas provides critical infrastructure and social services. This is different from Islamic Jihad, which is more generally focused on the military aspect. And, while polling data is sketchy at best, generally it appears that the majority of Palestinians want a negotiated, fair two state solution to the conflict that enables Israeli security but sees Palestinian independence.
Second, religious idealism/fanaticism aside, a hard-nosed look at Israeli policy shows a remarkable amount of restraint, no doubt. But the policy of settlements, the separation barrier, assassination, and the disruption of Palestinian leadership and self-determination – these are not things anyone should be happy about. And, as I’ve written elsewhere, no one should be comfortable in accepting the early Zionist ideas that Palestine was uninhabited. That was patently not the case, and plenty of historical records back that up. See for example, Benny Morris’ Righteous Victims. As such, the Palestinians have a point, although they’ve made political mistakes in trying to actualize it: why should the Arabs, who have a history of tolerance to Judaism probably better than the West, have to give up land to settle Western guilt over what they did to the Jews? I don’t necessarily agree with this statement, but most of the previous commentators have got to be much more careful in their thinking about this issue, as it reveals a decided lack of nuance for the complexities of the situation.
Second, religious idealism/fanaticism aside, a hard-nosed look at Israeli policy shows a remarkable amount of restraint, no doubt. But the policy of settlements, the separation barrier, assassination, and the disruption of Palestinian leadership and self-determination – these are not things anyone should be happy about.
Dude, what do you think those little Palestinians do over there? They murder children, they shoot babies in the heads with sniper rifles, they blow up churches, they kill school children, they kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them. That is the Palestinian people. They are incapable of peace. Their religion, and funding from Iran, will continue to make them a terrorist group.
Israel doens’t attack those Palestinians unless they do something to Israel. You know, tit for tat? No one seems to be giving Israel credit for the amount of restraint they show against those savages that scream “Death to Israel” and then blow up their children. I’m one of those people that is glad that Yassir Arafat is dead. I’m glad he’s burning in hell where he belongs. He was the number one terrorist leader of Palestine who constantly allowed suicide bombings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to kill innocent men, women, and children.
In the end, the Palestinian cause will never win. Yes, their will be peace eventually, according to the book of Ezeikiel in the Bible. But it won’t last long when the enemies of Israel will march against them again (Chapters 38 and 39. I only hope America stays on the right side in this fight.
Rune Blade
"The Master of Debate
First, the Palestinians and Arabs more generally are not a homogenous group
Good post and your correct to point out this reality. We cant blame ALL the people who live in the same area, even though many of them in fact want a world w/o Isreal. They are a homogenous population but come from different backrounds to be sure and any policy doesn’t “blanket” their political dispositions. Thats sounds more like the way you treat school children than nations in conflict.
RB, it is difficult to substantiate what your points, mostly because they are so sweeping and fail in large part to account for the complexities of the situation. First, Hezbollah gets funding from Iran. Hamas and Islamic Jihad…well, that’s a tougher sell. More likely, their sources come from Saudi Arabia.
For your tit-for-tat argument, again, you’re missing a huge amount of pertinent detail. The Palestinians view settlements as inherently a terrorist activity, depriving them not of life certainly, but attempting to make a fait accompli with a view towards final status. This is partly born out by what is happening in the West Bank. Don’t forget, the occupation was frankly quite easy until Gush Emunim and its forbearers decided to establish settlements not for security because of some form of manifest destiny. This provoked resistance because Israel, by tacit if not explicit consent, changed the nature of the occupation. It was no longer temporary, with the ultimate goal of return. As for terrorism more generally, don’t forget it was the Stern Gang that committed the first terrorist act since “Partition†and the start of the 1948 war by killing the UN representative. Indiscriminate attack has a much longer and deeper history in that region than a simple “Arabs are terrorists, Israelis are victims†mentality portrays.
Finally, I find your reliance on religious argumentation objectionable. Not because a religious argument isn’t valid. It most certainly is, although it is an exceedingly poor guide for policy analysis in the manner you have adopted. Rather, your comments about Islam, about how all Palestinians are this way or that, adopting the simple mentality towards Israel I just mentioned – it lends itself to a stubbornness which resists factual challenge, not because the facts aren’t true, but because you are too wedded to an idea to let it go. In short, you’re not thinking critically, and it’s leading you to highly questionable, or derogatory or outright inflammatory, comments.
IL - I’m a little confused by the wording of your post. Are you agreeing with me that the Arabs and Palestinians are not a homogenous community?
Good post and your correct to point out this reality
whats unclear about this?? :o
Sorry, I should have been more specific. :oops:
I was referring to:
They are a homogenous population but come from different backrounds to be sure and any policy doesn’t “blanket” their political dispositions.
The rest of your post sounded in agreement with mine, but I had specifically stated that they’re not a homogenous group, neither in the character of the people nor in the political/civic groups that the congregate in. This of course makes policy planning and prescriptions difficult, to say the least.
Incidentally, again based on poll and anecdotal data, most Palestinians appear okay with Israel’s existence, but not its policies. Of course, you tend to hear more of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.
They are a homogenous population but come from different backrounds to be sure and any policy doesn’t “blanket” their political dispositions
As a whole they are a captive population within Isreal and have to share the same economic pie but with completely different values and ideas on what to do about their situation. So any policy presented against the violent groups within this community should not go against all these peoples.
They joined in an aggressive war against Isreal hoping that they could do a “Holcaust 2” when the arabs won. However, they lost, and as a consequence they lost land. To the victor goes the spoils. Or do you think had the war gone against Isreal that the kindly palastinians would have allowed Isreal to exist?
As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.
@cystic:
@marine36:
I support Israel, because the palestinians are terrorists, and hate the United States. Very simple, its obvious because they burnt our flag and celebrated during september 11th, that the palestinians are our enemies.
two words:
cause
and
effecti’m guessing that if i were Palestinian, i would be hating the US as well. So would you - probably more vehemantly than anyone.
Ahh, I am glad you see things that way. So you condone US military action against the palastinians since we have them on tape celebrating 9-11? They obviously hate us, so that justifies us hating them and taking action against them. Oh, but wait. It is only fashionable to hate the US for the evils that it does. I keep forgetting that one.
@cystic:
@marine36:
I support Israel, because the palestinians are terrorists, and hate the United States. Very simple, its obvious because they burnt our flag and celebrated during september 11th, that the palestinians are our enemies.
two words:
cause
and
effecti’m guessing that if i were Palestinian, i would be hating the US as well. So would you - probably more vehemantly than anyone.
Ahh, I am glad you see things that way. So you condone US military action against the palastinians since we have them on tape celebrating 9-11?
no, i’m saying "wake the f**k up! There is a reason that they are celebrating, and it’s not your simplistic “they are stupid and can only learn lessons by force” point.
They obviously hate us, so that justifies us hating them and taking action against them. Oh, but wait. It is only fashionable to hate the US for the evils that it does. I keep forgetting that one.
You like quoting The Bible so much - take a lesson from it.
As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.
WTF ?
@F_alk:
As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.
WTF ?
perhaps Zooey=Jen?
They joined in an aggressive war against Isreal hoping that they could do a “Holcaust 2” when the arabs won. However, they lost, and as a consequence they lost land. To the victor goes the spoils. Or do you think had the war gone against Isreal that the kindly palastinians would have allowed Isreal to exist?
As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.
You need to substantiate your points. What aggressive war are you talking about? 1967? Maybe. Certainly not 1956. And 1948 can’t really be called an aggressive war. It was a constitutive war, about whether Israel could exist, whereas an aggressive war runs from the premise that Israel already exists. Significantly different moral and strategic questions between the two. In addition, don’t forget that the Palestinians, rightly or wrongly, did not really participate in the wars until after the 1979 peace accord, or Sadat’s 1977 trip to the Knesset. Only then did the PLO emerge as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians, whereas before the Arab countries acted as caretakers of the Palestinian cause. As for what the Arabs would have done had they won, it’s a little difficult to talk in counterfactuals. You’re relying on the beliefs that Muslims are a blood-thirsty people to justify your argument, and in some sense projecting what European countries have done to their Jewish populations onto the Arabs. Logically and historically, this is all questionable. I remain unconvinced that Arabs in 1948 wanted a genocidal campaign. Even up to the rise of radical Islamic groups, I am unsure if the Arab regimes would have made no provisions for allowing Jews a place in their countries. They are a protected people in the Koran after all.
I am also disturbed by the constant refrain of “might makes right” on this board. While the norm has only been around for 50 years, territorial acquisition by military force is nearly unthinkable now. The remaining problems the world has over occupation pre-date this normative transition (with the possible exception of Cyprus). I would need lots more time to detail why normative values impact foreign policy planning, but let me just say that in all US military planning, the idea of forced acquisition is never considered. Same for most of the rest of the world. Clearly, there is something at work that might does not make right.
Your last point is, to be frank, inane and simplistic. The analogy is difficult to justify, if indeed it can be. The Tibetans talk about how the Chinese took their land, how they would like it back, and how they would okay with autonomy. Perhaps a superficially similar argument to Hitler’s, but certainly minus the racial undertones of lebensraum (spelling?). And they have the balance of history on their side as well. Just because one is militarily weaker, does that therefore mean they are wrong and deserve to have their lives destroyed or limited? Certainly not. Again, you’re not thinking critically. At some point, you must start appreciating the nuance of the particular situation and carefully analyze how that impacts policy decisions and prescriptions.
I dont think that "might makes right " is dead in some parts of the world. Its like you think that we are all so PC that we have took out mans propensity to make war because “its the right thing to do” . Their will allways be nations and leaders who will invade other nations for “Living Space”. Lets not be too superficial in this thinking either. Wars are here to stay, but we can try to avoid them with diplomacy. Wayward nations notwithstanding.
IL - Ah, seems like we’re in classic realism v. liberalism v. constructivism territory.
First, this has nothing to do with being PC. Rather, I give more credence to the impact that international norms have in shaping policy. There are exceptions, certainly, but they are also pretty clearly against global political trends. For more, see Fukuyama (although given my qualification later).
Second, I must contest your idea that people are inherently warlike. Conflict is endemic to human existence, but war, perhaps not. Sociobiological theories have not come up with a convincing explanation that does not assume the antecedent or avoid the either/or fallacy. If war is culturally, socially, or politically based, that’s a different story and that’s exactly what is in contention.
Third and finally, national interest does drive the policies of the major state actors (US and China being the most realist in pursuit of their interests). Yet even they are constrained by international norms, particularly towards occupation, non-intervention, and humanitarian action. I cannot in good judgment envision the US willingfully annexing territory. Nor can I see China violating its on five principles of peaceful coexistence. These are fundamentally normative decisions about how the structure of international society should be. Military and economic power really can’t stop the US from annexing Iraq, for example, but it does not do so. China’s overwhelming power in Tibet and Xinjiang hasn’t dulled criticism of its actions in either of those areas, and in many ways, it’s spurred it on. Here, the exception may prove the rule. Israel is condemned for any moves towards annexation, and not just by Arab or Muslim countries.
It is of course the outliers that complicate this picture, but even they are not held up as models of development. I don’t think any country seriously wants to emulate North Korea, Burma, or Iran. Undoubtedly, the structure of the international system can change such that these norms no longer hold as much power in themselves, and I think it troubling that China and Russia are hurtling down the path of order over liberalization. But as it currently stands, international action by states must be couched in a language of response to aggression, cooperation, and order. That, supported by the restraint on action, evinces just how much norms frame policy discussion, even in the absence of an international enforcer.
Obviously much more can be written about this very complex topic, but it’s probably best to leave it here for now. But I’m looking forward to your response!
Good post!!! Excellent writing style as well!!
I find contention with only this :
I must contest your idea that people are inherently warlike
I didnt really expouse this idea. I only point out that conflict cannot be pulled out of the human experience over any period of time and under my conception of Human nature is should never be so (I refer to nietzsche and Hegels ideas on this and is best saved for another topic). Their will be another war eventually and still more after that. In fact nobody can point out any trends to prove otherwise.
But clearly the intentions to cause war stem from our nature but is rather a discourse of Epistemology to solve it rather than some “global political order” which should be imposed as a leviation of thought in the current “state of nature”.
First off, knowing I am posting on a world war 2 board I took for granted you would see what I was relating to.
Germany lost land in world war 1. It (argueably) waged an aggressive war and lost. As a consequence it lost territory, and that territory still had Germans on it. Hitler took Austria and the sudetenland with the same kind of reasoning that the palastinians have. It was ours, you stole it, blah blah blah. The only differenece between the 2 situations is that Germany was a mitlary threat, where the Palastinians are only a terrorist threat. We will negotiate with other countries, we won’t with terrorist (who also hold no real power outside terrorism).
Mexican American war, niether side was comepletly right… but I would say the US was more wrong than mexico was. To this day Mexicans complain about how the west was stolen from them, and that may be true. But I’m not giving it back (any more than they would give the land back they stole from the indians that they wiped out that lived there before them).
As to “might making right”, you are being naive to say it does not work that way. It works that way in a school playground all the way up to the superpower of the world. It has many forms, but it all accomplishes the same thing. In its basic form lets say one man is born smarter than another man. Because of his intelegence he gets a better education, and has a higher standard of living because of it. In this case intelegence is the “might” and in the end, it is proven right because that is the reality of the world.
You are confusing lack of there being a world war 3 as being “we don’t wage wars of conquest any more”. Very very naive. Because there are no foot soldiers shooting people? Why do you think that the British colonial empire collapsed (or all colonial empires for that matter). The romantic notion is that the colonies “had had enough” and “forced” England to give them independence. Not the case at all. England was in economic ruin after WW2, they needed the US. The help did not come free. Pressure from our government forced the english (and everyone else) to let thier colonies go. Very nice of us eh? Not really. We knew we could make better cheaper products than the rest of the world. So an open market was to our advantage. And, like a loan shark we loaned $ out to 3rd world countries (and so did USSR). These countries for the most part were not going to be able to repay these loans, hence we have taken over the part of the British. Where they held these countries “in place” with a gun, we do it with a check book. And to be honest, I don’t see anything wrong with that. No one forced them to take the $. They did it on thier own. It is like a person who runs up credit cards putting himself in a hopeless situation, than complains that the credit card industry is “oppressing him”.
I have gotten off track. My point is that the power that we hold now in the world is a war of $ instead of with troops. After 911 troops were needed again (whole different conversation). But the “might is right” aspect of how human society works has not changed at all.
I apply darwin (and in evolution, might does make right) to all aspects of human society/life (someone suggested I quote the bible a lot here… although i do know it, I don’t ever remember quoting it or saying I was anywhere close to being a christian). This will not be popular, but I will say it anyway. The idea all human life is equal is total nonsense. If that were true than that would make both anne frank and Jeffery dalmer equals. And they aren’t. More “value” is placed on anne frank’s life than that of Jeffery Dalmer. If you recognize that as being true… the only arguement you can have with me is one of degree.
Human life is also not equal to the individual. This one should be a no brainer. Typicaly you hold more “worth” for people who first share the same genes, second the same society, third the same values. 1st one meaning, if your mother or my mother had to die of cancer… and you got to choose which one died, you obviously would say my mother should. As I would say yours should. Why, because we both have a genetic link to our mothers. 2nd point, who here would of rather that 911 happened in a different country? Lets say the planes crashed into the eifel tower instead. Now there would have still been an outcry in the US, but nowhere near as loud. Do you think the people of Paris would rather the planes hit them instead? Of course not, because they put more value (as do we) in people of thier own society. The last part is “values” is a hard one to explain comepletly. Using the middle east as an the example versus western values. Many people in the west have become desenitized to human rights violations in that region of the world. The sheer number of them is staggering, and adds to this. Thier cultural norms are not the same as ours (husbands having the right to hit thier wives, etc etc). So when people hear of these things in this part of the world they have a “that figures” kind of attitude. Now, if in England a new government was formed that had the same exact record of human rights violations and what not, we would all be up in arms. A better example might be Japan. Because before WW2 they were seen as the “that figures” group, now they have become very much like us culturaly and we can empathize more with them than we could 70 years ago.
I have been all over the place with this, sorry. But my general point is that might does make right. People/culturs/values are not all equal (unless you think the nazi government was the equal to ours) and the best will rise to the top. And best is defined by “might makes right”. The good guys never lost a war in the history of the world, beacuse they were the ones who wrote the history books :-?
Well, we’ve strayed rather considerably from the original focus of this thread, but as long as no one minds, I’m happy to continue here rather than start a new thread.
Anyway, notice that I said conflict is endemic to the human condition. War though is something entirely different. It is social aggression, and that certainly sets it apart from, say, an argument you may have with someone, or even criminality. I myself am skeptical of idealists claiming that all wars will end at some point. However, I am not skeptical that international norms and institutions can effectively channel conflict to avoid war.
But this points more closely to my conception of the state of nature, if indeed anything like this exists. Don’t forget that Hobbes posited only one form of this state. Locke and Rousseau gave two other famous examples. And ultimately, you don’t really see a Hobbesian state of nature in nature itself. Yes, life can be nasty, brutish, and short. But, I tend to think that Americans and to an extent the English see only the competitive side of natural selection because it is more in line with the competitive philosophies of economics, etc. After all, one of Darwin’s major influences was Adam Smith and spontaneous order.
However, this overlooks the enormous amount of cooperative behavior that exists as well, more than just in pair-bonding and genetic proximity, but also in things like symbiotic relationships. And while, yes, there may be genetically selfish reasons for the rise of altruism (see Matt Ridley’s 1993 to that effect), I find those ideas…interesting at best. Mostly because the genetic evidence really isn’t there. (but that’s a much larger topic)
In the end, my ideas on the international system and institutions stem from the fact that war and conflict are inherently a part of this system, but that institutions and the ideas that undergird them can fundamentally alter both the interest calculations that states make, and the overall environment in which states can act. It’s a much more complex idea than a simple “power trumps all” analysis can provide.
Incidentally, I’m glad to see that, Zooey, you recognize that the shift between economic and military power. However, the pursuit of economic power poses much different norms and challenges than military power. If you maintain that “might makes right”, one critical problem that you must face is the type of might you are talking about. Nye talks a lot about this, in that economic power requires cooperation. Military power doesn’t necessarily, unless you are thinking of collective security. That however really only gained traction through international institutions, where democratic norms were fairly firmly embedded. Again, a complex mixing of norms and power, and that is what a genuine analysis must contend with.
