Remarkable State of the Union Speech... - Page 6

Yes the French were too harsh and yes the Versailles treaty crushed the Germany economy. But lets not forget that Europe could have prevented WWII and stopped Hitler instead of appeasing him.

"This has proven historically false. This is not effective deterrent."

Wrong - look at the history of the Americas. Look at the history of Mexico. Look at Manifest Destiny.

Don't you think the constant displacement of the Jews has had something to do with their strong desire to secure their tiny little nation state. I mean they are so small its laughable while their Arabs neighbors have huge land regions. Yet none of them are will to give even the slightest portion of land to their 'fellow Arabs'. Furthermore, the Israelis do not have a policy of ethnic cleansing and displacement - they have continuously been willing to live next to a Palestinian Arab state - it is the Arabs that have refused every chance to determine their own sovereignty. The settlements are the Israelis strongest card in getting the Palestinians to act rationally and to agree to living in peace as neighbors. You keep ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are determined according to stated policy to destroy Israel from the face of the planet.

"Stop bringing my nationality into it. Do I support British policies? "

My point is that you are the beneficiary to everything that they did that you call evil. Even worse is that Britain took such actions out of greed and a thirst for global domination. Israel is simply trying to provide security to its people and to force the Arabs to acknowledge that they have a right to their lands and are not going anywhere. Sharon (that right-winger lol) has made it clear he is willing to give Arabs what is now Jewish lands so that they may have their own state - which means Jews will be displaced or cleansed from that land.

Yes I know you oppose those past British actions but don't you find it a little elitist to be telling others, being a beneficiary, that their actions, which have benevolent motives, are wrong?

I'm glad that you understand the Irish problem correctly!

----

Morally acceptable? Who was the aggressor? What are the Iraqis motives?

"Yes the French were too harsh and yes the Versailles treaty crushed the Germany economy. But lets not forget that Europe could have prevented WWII and stopped Hitler instead of appeasing him."
Just because the mistake could have been fixed is not a reason to make the mistake in the first place.

A lasting peace is one without losers, losers get ethnically cleansed.

"This has proven historically false. This is not effective deterrent."

"Wrong - look at the history of the Americas. Look at the history of Mexico. Look at Manifest Destiny."
That's not a deterrent? It only worked against Indians because it effectively destroyed them completely, unless you want to slaught 300 million arabs, you can't do that this time.

What's more, Mexico is peaceful because America is crushingly superior, not because of the threat of ethnic cleansing (which would be politically impossible). Egypt and Jordan are peaceful for the same reason.

"Don't you think the constant displacement of the Jews has had something to do with their strong desire to secure their tiny little nation state. I mean they are so small its laughable while their Arabs neighbors have huge land regions."
Are you saying Roma (gypsies) should be able to, I don't know, steal a chunk of Northern India (that's where they come from)? Its simple, PEOPLE WERE LIVING THERE ALREADY FOR ONE THOUSAND YEARS. If that doesn't make the land yours I don't know what does.

"You keep ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are determined according to stated policy to destroy Israel from the face of the planet."
And colonization will help you? Only if they plan on anihilating the Palestinian nation completely. Which is, again, evil, they are civilians.

"Israel is simply trying to provide security to its people and to force the Arabs to acknowledge that they have a right to their lands and are not going anywhere."
Egypt and Jordan have recognised that. I understand perfectly the need for a security fence, I do NOT see how pissing off you Palestinians by destroying their homes and cleansing the land of their presence and making a little Bantustan out of Palestine is going to ever lead to peace.

"Yes I know you oppose those past British actions but don't you find it a little elitist to be telling others, being a beneficiary, that their actions, which have benevolent motives, are wrong?"
Racial segregation and ethnic cleansing Serb-style are not benevolent. There is no problem with the wall, there is every problem with it going over land which has been ARab for 1000 years.

"Morally acceptable? Who was the aggressor? What are the Iraqis motives?"
I recall America attacked Iraq, not the other way around. If Iraq had won the war, would it be OK to ethnically cleanse the US?

Of course not! Victory doesn't make you allowed to do anything.

quote:

---

Of course not! Victory doesn't make you allowed to do anything.

---

Right, Europe via Vatacan Decree devided the New World between themselves?
And they had not even seen the land let alone conquered it!

"A lasting peace is one without losers, losers get ethnically cleansed."

What about the US and Mexico? What about the US and Britain? In both there was a clear loser and yet we have had lasting peace.

"It only worked against Indians because it effectively destroyed them completely"

There are more Indians in North America living today than when Columbus touched American soil. I live in Arizona, you honestly want to tell me that they were completely destroyed? lol

"What's more, Mexico is peaceful because America is crushingly superior, not because of the threat of ethnic cleansing "

That may be now but that was not the case in the 19th century. In fact at the time of the Mexican-American war Mexico was viewed as the superior - Britain's own Duke of Wellington on a number of occasions predicted Mexico's victory.

"Are you saying Roma (gypsies) should be able to, I don't know, steal a chunk of Northern India (that's where they come from)? "

No - nor did the Israelis steal a chunk of Arab lands - you really are too ignorant regarding Jewish history in the region over the last 200 years. Read up on it and then we can discuss this more rationally. BTW, who was sovereign over that land in 1947?

"And colonization will help you? Only if they plan on anihilating the Palestinian nation completely. Which is, again, evil, they are civilians."

It sure seems to be working, how can you deny?

"Egypt and Jordan have recognised that. I understand perfectly the need for a security fence, I do NOT see how pissing off you Palestinians by destroying their homes and cleansing the land of their presence and making a little Bantustan out of Palestine is going to ever lead to peace."

I know you don't. But the Palestinians do which is why they are more willing today to reach an agreement for peace.

"Racial segregation and ethnic cleansing Serb-style are not benevolent"

Never said it was.

"There is no problem with the wall, there is every problem with it going over land which has been ARab for 1000 years."

Which Arabs? lol Like I said, their motive is benevolent - the point is that its the only card they have to force the Arabs to act fairly and rationally. And the Israelis should keep their word and return the land once the Palestinians agree to live as peaceful neighbors.

"I recall America attacked Iraq, not the other way around. If Iraq had won the war, would it be OK to ethnically cleanse the US?"

Ok - you were laying out a hypothetical - I wanted to know the context. But you are wrong - Iraq attacked the US and UK first not the other way around. Iraq fired missiles at our aircrafts patrolling the no-fly zone which was an aggressive military provocation and a violation of the cease fire agreement. Also, by ethnically cleanse are you meaning genocide? Or do you mean deportation?

"No - nor did the Israelis steal a chunk of Arab lands - you really are too ignorant regarding Jewish history in the region over the last 200 years. Read up on it and then we can discuss this more rationally. BTW, who was sovereign over that land in 1947?"
I know it was Britain. The Israelis can legitimately claim everything behing the green line. That was earned by purchase and through the attempts of Arab states to destroy Israel.

Everything beyond the Green line (I suppose Israel can have the Golan heights as I can't see any point in returning it Syria) and all that land (including a small piece of Jerusalem) must be returned as a soon as a Palestinian state forms.

OK now we are getting somewhere. The only thing I would dispute is Jerusalem because I believe it would be too dangerous to either State. Jerusalem has had a majority Jewish population since the American Civil War. It is also the capitol of Israel. There are so many historical and religious sites that are meaningful to the whole world - I would hate to see any part of it in Arab hands - look what they did in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem a while back. I also think the Israelis have proven that they can better protect sacred Islamic sites.

You know, I think we two argue too much about principle, when we agree for the most part

Practical problems may emerge from Jerusalem being part of the Palestinian state. I can certainly problems emerging from a split city, like Berlin during the Cold War.

However, I see nothing wrong with eventually giving them a peace, or at least promising to give it back if they behave in the not-so-near future. If they behave.

The new Palestinian state must be given lots of food/housing etc so that there is no resentment for the still quasi-refugee Palestinians. The new Palestinian state must be completely Finlandized, deballed militarily and serving as a buffer for Israel in case things in Jordan and Iraq don't go well.

quote:

---

However, I see nothing wrong with eventually giving them a peace, or at least promising to give it back if they behave in the not-so-near future. If they behave.

---

Hmm . . . who has such authority?

"You know, I think we two argue too much about principle, when we agree for the most part "

I was just thinking the same thing a few days back. lol

"However, I see nothing wrong with eventually giving them a peace, or at least promising to give it back if they behave in the not-so-near future. If they behave. "

Yeah that would at lest be reasonable and a good incentive to live as peaceful neighbors.

"The new Palestinian state must be given lots of food/housing etc so that there is no resentment for the still quasi-refugee Palestinians. The new Palestinian state must be completely Finlandized, deballed militarily and serving as a buffer for Israel in case things in Jordan and Iraq don't go well."

Yeah I would agree - the Israelis would have a huge responsibility to show their willingness to put the past behind them and to create a positive long-lasting relationship.

However, to go off an a new and crazy tangent - if I am reading the Bible correctly the Jerusalem problem will never be settled which will lead to the intervention of some European or American coalition that will make it an international (one-worldesque) capitol.

Yes, isn't Israel supposed to be the West's proxy?