Forum Index » Chaff » Romney/Ryan 2012


Display Avatars Sort By:
Jeremy B.
(requiem) - F

Locale: Northern California
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 19:19:29 MST Print View

Interesting as to why things imploded after 1948.

Some background, from memory:

- Plenty of tension in the first half of the century, after the British replaced the Ottomans as the major power. Refer to riots in 1920, and more in '36-'39. All three major groups were unhappy with each other, and conditions were slowly deteriorating. When the British left, there was a power vacuum that both sides rushed to fill.

- Back then, the terror bombings were also from the other team (Irgun, Lehi). (Winning means you no longer have incentive to use that tactic, but the Jewish percentage of the population went from very small (11%?) to very large over that time, which also increased tensions.)

- That said, then as now you can thank loud and violent minorities for the continuing mess.

In terms of the modern state of affairs:

- Western sponsorship for Israel ensured a non-Soviet aligned power for the Eastern Mediterranean. (A wedge between Syria and Egypt, and also took pressure off Turkey (a NATO member)).

- Balancing the power of Iran doesn't require Israel as much, as both Turkey and to a lesser extent the Arab countries can provide that role. We may see US support for Israel decline due to this, albeit slowly. (Note: my opinion of the competency of the Arab militaries is quite low.)

- Iran may be attempting to replace loss of influence in Syria by encouraging the Gaza events. They may be supporting other groups besides Hamas, or attempting to gain greater influence over Hamas (which recently was shifting closer to the MB).

- Hamas often uses other groups as fronts, but in this case other (weaker) groups in Gaza may be taking advantage of the situation to weaken Hamas. Once the conflict goes big, Hamas' relationship with the MB risks damage, and Palestinian groups more aligned with Iran gain in relative power.

- Both Israel and Egypt have a tough balancing act; The MB in Egypt can use the situation to shore up popular support, but an actual war with Israel is not in Egypt's interest. Israel wants to weaken Hamas, but too much damage to them and you have a power vacuum with the other jihadist groups fighting for power. (Not to mention urban warfare is messy.)

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 19:22:50 MST Print View

"The solution to the problem is actually very, very simple... accept things on the ground level and let go of the past. Learn to live together."

I agree with what you're saying in principle Miguel, but I have to keep coming back to the question if simple statesmanship, acceptance, and tolerance is enough in the face of religious beliefs that are extremely contrary and exclusionary to one another. This is not a situation created out of a mere difference of opinion, but based on multiple differing accounts of the actual word of GOD as to who is "chosen" or not, who is entitled to what, and who belongs where. Political attempts at reconciliation seem pretty moot so long as religious beliefs continually trump them.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 19:22:58 MST Print View

"Not saying right or wrong, but targeting Christian British military leaders and referencing rapture is just not accurate."

A little outside reading assignment for you, Brad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Valid combatant targets @ Dean on 11/16/2012 19:37:28 MST Print View

"Consent of radical rulers like in Sudan. Uh ok."

Yup, at least as OK as our dealings with the likes of Mubarak, the Saudi royal family, Somoza in Nicaragua, Batista in Cuba, The Shah of Iran, the al Khalifa royal family in Bahrain, Karimov in Uzbekistan, Aliyev in Azerbaijan...charming fellows, the lot of them.

"I say we pull all aid, troops, etc from Iraqi and let them fend for themselves. Same for Pakistan."

Somehow, I think the Iraqis could get along without us. It would just be a question of who they bought their arms from then. They are drowning in oil, so I doubt they would have any trouble paying the bills.

"I think the US thought they could implement a democracy in Iraqi and provide some stability to oil market."

If you truly believe that, Brad, I'll sell you my share of the revenue stream from the Tacoma Narrows Bridge tolls. Oil might have been part of the deal for Bush, Cheney, and their friends in the oil industry, but those who sold them the invasion and architected it had a different agenda, involving Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Funny thing, they're still at it.

"I think a better policy is to let them fight among themselves. In a lot of ways we are doing China's dirty work by protecting ship lanes, etc. They benefit far more than we do."

+1 They will fight among themselves in any case.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn) - M

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 19:39:22 MST Print View

It's general comments like Christian British leaders are the cause of the mess that are inaccurate. Sure their were supporters like him that fit the mold, but the situation is just more complex than off hand comments like that. What's the rapture go to do with anything? IMHO is just Christian bashing.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 19:43:41 MST Print View

"Well it was their territory that's why. However they did a poor job."

It was not their territory. They were granted a temporary mandate over the territory after WW I, with the goal of preparing the inhabitants for self government and statehood. They were never ceded the territory, nor were they given the right to cede it to others.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn) - M

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Valid combatant targets @ Dean on 11/16/2012 19:48:47 MST Print View

"Yup, at least as OK as our dealings with the likes of Mubarak, the Saudi royal family, Somoza in Nicaragua, Batista in Cuba, The Shah of Iran, the al Khalifa royal family in Bahrain, Karimov in Uzbekistan, Aliyev in Azerbaijan...charming fellows, the lot of them."

Question wasn't that China deals with shady guys and US doesn't. Not defending US. The question was does China project power outside borders and I used Sudan as an example because they are supporting ruthless guy who is only in power because of genocide, etc. They provide him with weapons, have troops on the ground to protect all in the name of natural resources.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 19:49:14 MST Print View

The British tried to prevent the Jews from occupying Isreal after WWII

Remember the movie "Exodus"

There was a boat full of Jews that the British tried to stop, but they got through


"IMHO is just Christian bashing."

I think it's British bashing, not Christian bashing.

They set up the boundaries of all those countries, like Iraq had Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, so that it would be politically unstable and easier for Britain to control

But whatever - that's history - you can be critical of all countries - time to figure out how to move one as peacefully as possible

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 19:53:20 MST Print View

"And as you say both groups have a long history of inhabiting the area, so how can one group have no right. Don't buy that."

The Jews had not inhabited Palestine in any significant numbers since the Diaspora. Palestinians had been there as long as the Jews before then. By Palestinians, I mean the original inhabitants of the area, going back to ancient times, long before the Arab conquest in the 7th century BCE. the Jews were only one of many groups to inhabit the area, and not the first or most numerous. After an absence of nearly 2000 years, their claim to half of Palestine is dubious at best. They now occupy ~80% of Palestine, BTW.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn) - M

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 19:55:59 MST Print View

The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum[1][2] and which came into effect on 29 September 1923[1] following the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne.[3][4] The mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1]

**** The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5]

***The mandate document formalised the division of the British protectorates - Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.[1]

wiki

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Valid combatant targets @ Dean on 11/16/2012 20:02:05 MST Print View

"Projecting power close or far what is the difference. Taiwan, Japan, South China Sea, North Korea, Africa(Sudan, etc).

Not to the extent of the US for sure, but to say the don't project power beyond borders is not accurate IMHO.

Also, Iran in not supporting economic sanctions,"

I specifically defined projecting power in the sense of using military force or other means of forcing nations to bend to our will, including economic sanctions. China has not done that, with the exception of reluctantly participating in the early, less damaging UN sanctions against Iran. I would say China projects influence, which is a considerably different matter. As for Iran, neither China or Russia consented to the latest round of sanctions and therefore are under no legal obligation to support them. Both countries have expressed their distaste for economic sanctions in principle, and only reluctantly participated in earlier rounds under extreme US pressure. They are unlikely to go any further than they already have, nor are they legally obligated to do so.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 20:12:45 MST Print View

"I was trying to be diplomatic and not step on toes here. For me it is just not worth it getting riled up and starting a flame war.... I'm just tired of arguing with the Jews about Israel. If people aren't going to reasonable in an argument, what's the point of arguing? I also don't want to make people feel terrible just to prove a point. But most of all, it's pointless arguing with people who don't know very much about the subject they are talking about, or who refuse to make the effort to learn the truth, especially if that truth interferes with their unshakeable views on the topic.

I'd prefer to say that the Jews in Israel today do deserve a place to live, than argue about who came from where and who had the right to be somewhere in the past. Sending those people back to wherever they came from is not the answer anymore, and even if that were tried, think of the atrocities that would occur in trying to implement it, as is being done to the Palestinians today."

+1 to your entire post, Miguel. I shouild have known. Let us hope that calmer heads prevail and give what you are talking about a chance. The alternatives are grim, and events are on the verge of spinning out of control, IMO. I vent in the Forum occasionally, mostly in an attempt to relieve my distress and, hopefully, plant an occasional seed in someone's mind. It is slow going and mostly in vain, I suspect.

What you say about people over there at the grass roots level is oh so true. I have seen it up close, and it is the basis for my feeling that the only lasting solution is for a non denominational state open to all. Were it achieved, it could truly be a beacon for the rest of the world. Probably sounds corny, or naive, but I believe it is possible, desirable, and most of all necessary. Ilan Pappe, a noted Israeli historian also believes this is the solution, so I don't feel I am totally out in left field. Gotta hang onto something, I guess.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn) - M

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 20:17:03 MST Print View

"What you say about people over there at the grass roots level is oh so true. I have seen it up close, and it is the basis for my feeling that the only lasting solution is for a non denominational state open to all. Were it achieved, it could truly be a beacon for the rest of the world. Probably sounds corny, or naive, but I believe it is possible, desirable, and most of all necessary. Ilan Pappe, a noted Israeli historian also believes this is the solution, so I don't feel I am totally out in left field. Gotta hang onto something, I guess."


+1

My head hurts from all this good conversation. Think I need a Woodford Reserve.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 20:26:53 MST Print View

"This is not a situation created out of a mere difference of opinion, but based on multiple differing accounts of the actual word of GOD as to who is "chosen" or not, who is entitled to what, and who belongs where. Political attempts at reconciliation seem pretty moot so long as religious beliefs continually trump them."

The fact that most Israelis are secular gives me hope that the current right wing religious phenomenon in Israel is temporary, Craig. Most Palestinians are not fanatically religious either, but they do have their religious fanatics as well. The toughest nut to crack, as I see it, is the Palestinian attitudes that have arisen and solidified as a result of being humilated and forced to live like animals
for so long now. This is difficult to change overnight. I think we are looking at a staged solution that plays out over several generations, beginning with a Palestinian state based on the 1967 Line, with a Marshall Plan to get it on its feet and a massive effort to train a decent civil service, perhaps run by Singapore. While this is taking place, an armed to the teeth international force enforcing the border between the two nations and programs focusing on the children of both nations to raise them in an atmosphere of peace and tolerance of each other, with gradually increasing levels of interaction. Let a generation, or two, pass in peace without hatred being passed down from generation to generation, and eventually those who cannot forget will pass from the scene. At that point there will no longer be the need for a "Jewish" state and the two could become one nation. This is my hope and a possible way to make it reality.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Valid combatant targets @ Dean on 11/16/2012 20:31:58 MST Print View

"They provide him with weapons, have troops on the ground to protect all in the name of natural resources"

Of course. But they are not invading Sudan to get at the resources, merely doing business with the existing government. They are much too clever and wise to go that route. Would that we could do the same, which we do in many cases, and let it go at that, which we don't in many other cases to our detriment.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 20:47:55 MST Print View

"...the only lasting solution is for a non denominational state open to all."

"...programs focusing on the children of both nations to raise them in an atmosphere of peace and tolerance of each other, with gradually increasing levels of interaction. Let a generation, or two, pass in peace without hatred being passed down from generation to generation, and eventually those who cannot forget will pass from the scene. At that point there will no longer be the need for a "Jewish" state and the two could become one nation."

I like how you think Tom.

I'm not speaking from a standpoint of trying to deny people their religion, but so long as statehood and national identities center so heavy on religion and hard-liners have such a say in things...well, we'll have what we see happening right now.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 20:52:48 MST Print View

"The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5]"

As I said.

"***The mandate document formalised the division of the British protectorates - Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.[1]"

But not a state. No boundaries for the Jewish homeland were established, and the mandated territory included non Jewish Palestinians as well, who were a vast majority. Partition came after WW II. The mandated area was envisioned to become independent at some point and presumably be governed as one state comprising both populations. There was no provision for an independent Jewish state. But beyond that, what right did a League of Nations dominated by Western powers have to force a European population on an indigenous one, with all the territorial consequences that resulted? Not to mention the suffering that resulted when they rightly resisted?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not anti on 11/16/2012 20:57:10 MST Print View

"I'm not speaking from a standpoint of trying to deny people their religion, but so long as statehood and national identities center so heavy on religion and hard-liners have such a say in things...well, we'll have what we see happening right now"

+1 Unfortunately. :( Very unfortunately, when one considers the problems facing all of humanity, which require a unified response and all of our collective talents if we are not to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Diplomatic Mike
(MikefaeDundee)

Locale: Under a bush in Scotland
Re on 11/17/2012 08:44:35 MST Print View

Good discussion guys. Folk need to start thinking about what is reality, and what your home media tells you is reality. Start looking for alternative sources for your information.
I'm not Christian bashing Brad. My parents are Christians.
Defining your outlook on life by ANY religious belief leads to the problems we have today.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn) - M

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re on 11/17/2012 11:56:52 MST Print View

"Defining your outlook on life by ANY religious belief leads to the problems we have today."

Agree but they haven't cornered the market. Greed and power also play a big factor in these problems.