RE: Rethinking the rules of war

RE: Rethinking the rules of war (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 4:02:21 AM)
Tweakable, ominously Israel have threatened to oust the leader of the PA if the UN votes in favour of a Palestinian State.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 4:44:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Tweakable, ominously Israel have threatened to oust the leader of the PA if the UN votes in favour of a Palestinian State. That would be another myopic decision by Israeli leaders who have done the cause of Israel a disservice over the decades and why world opinion is steadily moving behind a Palestinian state. Israelis might say so what, their defence is everything, not world opinion but they forget, the USA might not always be able to fund and guarantee Israel's survival. Only peace and recognition by its neighbours can do that in the long term. Brute force is only a short term option. Israel would be better with a statesman as their leader, not a hyena. Palestinians are ill served with their leaders too but that is another story or is it?

Politesub53 -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 4:49:28 AM)
I think both sides have been ill served by their leaders. Palestinians and Israelis all deserve better. Januarys election in Israel will be quite telling.

Moonhead -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 4:56:21 AM)
As far as Palestinian leaders go, Israel's preference for negotiating with PLJ or Abu Nidal rather than Hamas does seem to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the one home rule oriented group who have something resembling a mandate and could maybe keep a lid on the problem if recognised internationally. One could almost think that Israel doesn't want a Palestinian government that the UN might recognise...

meatcleaver -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 5:01:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead As far as Palestinian leaders go, Israel's preference for negotiating with PLJ or Abu Nidal rather than Hamas does seem to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the one home rule oriented group who have something resembling a mandate and could maybe keep a lid on the problem if recognised internationally. One could almost think that Israel doesn't want a Palestinian government that the UN might recognise... Israel's rejection of Fatah led to Hamas, will its rejection of Hamas result in worse? Who knows but with Arab dictators being overthrown and street level support for the Palestinians no longer being suppressed by brutal dictators, worse could result.

Moonhead -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 5:18:23 AM)
I've no idea if rejecting Hamas will lead to worse, but that's obviously what the Israeli government is hoping for, isn't it?

tweakabelle -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 5:29:42 AM)
Isn't the really odd thing that Israel has some how taken it upon itself to decide who the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are? The bottom line is that it isn't up to Israel to decide, no more than it is up to the Palestinians to nominate who the representatives of the Israeli side will be in any negotiations. Not that this has inhibited Israel in the past ....... And as for Israel dumping the PA ... they'd be quite stupid to do this - they're never going to get a more compliant Palestinian leader than Abbas. Not that this has inhibited Israel in the past either .......

meatcleaver -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 6:13:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Isn't the really odd thing that Israel has some how taken it upon itself to decide who the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are? Isn't that the problem of the west in general? The west claims to believe in democracy but only if its the west's version of pliant democracy in the heads of none westerners. You can have any democracy you like as long as it is western consumerist capitalist democracy, any other democracy will not be tolerated.

tweakabelle -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 6:17:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Isn't the really odd thing that Israel has some how taken it upon itself to decide who the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are? Isn't that the problem of the west in general? The west claims to believe in democracy but only if its the west's version of pliant democracy in the heads of none westerners. Indeedies. And there's no better illustration of this than the collective punishment dished out to the people of Gaza for daring to elect a Govt that the West didn't think was suitable for them.

Edwynn -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 10:32:21 AM)
But that is merely your assertion that a locally democratically elected or otherwise non-Israeli or non-Western designated PM or premier or chancellor would have made today's situation better, as it was pointed out to me earlier in the discussion that it was merely my assertion that a democratically elected Mosaddegh being in place until Iranians decided elsewise at some later time would have resulted in a better Iran and Iranian situation today than what has otherwise been obtained by the Western-installed Pahlavi, with subsequent and current mayhem. No conjecture concerning the situation that would contemplate absence of decades-long Western intervention is to be allowed, don't you know.

vincentML -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 11:49:03 AM)
Meatcleaver: quote: The Levant which we are now discussing saw large numbers of locals converting to Islam in the wake of the muslim expansion. I could go on and on. We come to a point of who is a Jew and who isn't and genetically, that is one of perception, you accentuate the similarities or you accentuate the differences, ultimately the choice is cultural. Okay. You present an intriguing point. It is reasonable and somewhat entertaining to assume that modern day Palestinians are off-shoots of the Jews who did not leave after the destruction of the Temple. However, if not genetically far distant the Zionists are politically worlds apart from the Palestinians. The European Jews were a Nation without land while the Palestinains are a land without a Nation. Zionism from the start was a reaction against assimilation into European cultures and citizenship. The question of who is or what is a Jew was a European question before it became a question in the Levant. Assimilation of Jews into European Christian nations was troubled to say the least and reached horrific consequences in 20th C Germany. I can't speak for the Zionist mindset from experience but I can conjecture that there is no room beyond tokenism in Jewish Israel for Palestinians whatever their genetic or cultural connections. Zionism is a reactionary political movement whose goal, I imagine, is one nation from the Jordan to the Sea. The Settlement movement is probably beyond reversal, as Tweak has mentioned in another thread. The two state solution is probably a stall while the indigenous people are being corralled onto reservations much as they were in 19th C America. I would not hold out hope for anything other than the Jacksonian solution. I cannot imagine what pressures could be brought upon Israel to change her presumed "manifest destiny."

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 2:30:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Meatcleaver: quote: The Levant which we are now discussing saw large numbers of locals converting to Islam in the wake of the muslim expansion. I could go on and on. We come to a point of who is a Jew and who isn't and genetically, that is one of perception, you accentuate the similarities or you accentuate the differences, ultimately the choice is cultural. Okay. You present an intriguing point. It is reasonable and somewhat entertaining to assume that modern day Palestinians are off-shoots of the Jews who did not leave after the destruction of the Temple. However, if not genetically far distant the Zionists are politically worlds apart from the Palestinians. The European Jews were a Nation without land while the Palestinains are a land without a Nation. Zionism from the start was a reaction against assimilation into European cultures and citizenship. The question of who is or what is a Jew was a European question before it became a question in the Levant. Assimilation of Jews into European Christian nations was troubled to say the least and reached horrific consequences in 20th C Germany. I can't speak for the Zionist mindset from experience but I can conjecture that there is no room beyond tokenism in Jewish Israel for Palestinians whatever their genetic or cultural connections. Zionism is a reactionary political movement whose goal, I imagine, is one nation from the Jordan to the Sea. The Settlement movement is probably beyond reversal, as Tweak has mentioned in another thread. The two state solution is probably a stall while the indigenous people are being corralled onto reservations much as they were in 19th C America. I would not hold out hope for anything other than the Jacksonian solution. I cannot imagine what pressures could be brought upon Israel to change her presumed "manifest destiny." In an interview on 60 minutes with mike wallace the "dood" from iran with the beard and really long name sugested that since it was the germans who butt phoqued the jews that it was a german problem and that a jewish state ought to be carved out of germany and not out of arab land.

Edwynn -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 2:41:53 PM)
That's cute, in a way, but his particular conception of the problem in fact does show his unawareness of the history of his own region prior to WWII, the Balfour Declaration, etc.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 2:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn That's cute, in a way, but his particular conception of the problem in fact does show his unawareness of the history of his own region prior to WWII, the Balfour Declaration, etc. Perhaps you might avail yourself of the interview and judge for yourself his "ignorance" of the history of that part of the world. The interview was somewhat more involved than the snippit to which I alluded.

BamaD -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 6:32:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Was that the fourth or fifth time we had to retake Fallujah? You seem to forget that the man in charge at My Lai is still in prison. If he had been South Korean ( they fought there) he would have gotten a commendation, if not a promotion. A classic knee jerk response which overlooks anything said in the post replied to. [8\|] Added that your "facts cough cough" are bullshit. the saddest part is your crassness in suggesting that a man ordering civillians to be herded into a ditch and shot would have got a medal if he had been South Korean. To sum up..... WTF. My Lai nwas sop for RoK forces. As you should know.

BamaD -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 6:36:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark General Sherman once said “This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”...Had he not done so, the South may have resisted further and longer than they did. The point being, that war should be horrible, so that we seek ways to end it. Collateral damage and death of civilians bring home the facts that it must end, and brings the parties to the table, if they are civilized enough to do so. Great post tweak... Sherman was a fucking moron with little military talent, making war on women and children is always easier than fighting soldiers with guns. The people of savanah managed to snooker him and nathan bedford forrest scared the living shit out of him. But then forrest scared the living shit out of most of his enemies. No Sherman was one if not the best commander the north had, study his campaign against Johnson in Tenn. He is known for the march through Ga but that is not representative of his ability.

BamaD -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 6:42:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Calley was under house arrest for a couple years, and the Army (who really didn't want to prosecute him anyway) let him walk after the newspaper headlines had died down. I stand corrected on this point I remembered that he had been given life but did not know he had been released.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/28/2012 12:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Okay. You present an intriguing point. It is reasonable and somewhat entertaining to assume that modern day Palestinians are off-shoots of the Jews who did not leave after the destruction of the Temple. However, if not genetically far distant the Zionists are politically worlds apart from the Palestinians. The European Jews were a Nation without land while the Palestinains are a land without a Nation. You mean a nation without a state? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Zionism from the start was a reaction against assimilation into European cultures and citizenship. The question of who is or what is a Jew was a European question before it became a question in the Levant. Assimilation of Jews into European Christian nations was troubled to say the least and reached horrific consequences in 20th C Germany. I can't speak for the Zionist mindset from experience but I can conjecture that there is no room beyond tokenism in Jewish Israel for Palestinians whatever their genetic or cultural connections. I accept anti-semiticism is an ingrained attitude which is religious and economic in origin, caused through the powers that be in Europe. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Zionism is a reactionary political movement whose goal, I imagine, is one nation from the Jordan to the Sea. The Settlement movement is probably beyond reversal, as Tweak has mentioned in another thread. The two state solution is probably a stall while the indigenous people are being corralled onto reservations much as they were in 19th C America. I would not hold out hope for anything other than the Jacksonian solution. I cannot imagine what pressures could be brought upon Israel to change her presumed "manifest destiny." Fortunately for American ´manifest destiny´many indians died of European introduced deseases and-or were happily slaughtered and starved with no international community to worry about. The dilemma for Israel is that it has a population time bomb on its hands. The Palestinian population is growing faster than the Jewish population. In Israel proper and the occupied territories together, Jews are 50% of the population, Palestinians 46% of the problem. There are no deseases wiping out Palestinians, they cannot be starved or murdered in numbers that can change the situation and there is an international community watching. Sooner or later Israel will be forced into a decision by circumstance, to assimilate the Palestinians into a greater Israel which would mean the end of a Jewish state or acquiesque on the two state solution. Oh and an interesting point. Because of the population time bomb, the Israeli state hasn´t been paying too much attention as to whether immigrants are Jews or not. It is claimed many Russian Jewish immigrants weren´t Jewish at all but Russians seeking a better life, which is somewhat backed up by the fact some admitted the fact and have gone back to Russia now life has improved there.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/28/2012 5:52:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn No conjecture concerning the situation that would contemplate absence of decades-long Western intervention is to be allowed, don't you know. The problem with conjecture that contemplates what the ME would be like without Western intervention, is that it would be nothing more than conjecture and not provable. Personally, I'd like to see what the ME would be like without Western intervention, starting... now. Wait. No. Can't start yet. Have to make sure Israel doesn't start a war or anything. Maybe we could be more akin to babysitters, letting the Nations self-determine, but prevent/stop them from harming one another.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/28/2012 6:12:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark General Sherman once said “This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”...Had he not done so, the South may have resisted further and longer than they did. The point being, that war should be horrible, so that we seek ways to end it. Collateral damage and death of civilians bring home the facts that it must end, and brings the parties to the table, if they are civilized enough to do so. Great post tweak... Sherman was a fucking moron with little military talent, making war on women and children is always easier than fighting soldiers with guns. The people of savanah managed to snooker him and nathan bedford forrest scared the living shit out of him. But then forrest scared the living shit out of most of his enemies. No Sherman was one if not the best commander the north had, study his campaign against Johnson in Tenn. He is known for the march through Ga but that is not representative of his ability. I have read all about the little punk ass motherfucker...he was emenently successful against women and children but only marginally effective against inferior forces. of armed men...perhaps you should read more about his thoughts on forrest and his ineffective efforts to stop him.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125