Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
You talking to someone? Oh yes, no matter, one less dictator in the world.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
You talking to someone? Oh yes, no matter, one less dictator in the world.
:) Yes, that is cause for celebration whenever it happens! Come on down, Mark, I'll buy you a Sam Adams, the best beer in the world!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
:beer:
The point has been, and always been, that there are some that some nations have more rights than others. There are some, who defend nation states right to do whatever they want within their own borders, as if this is sacrosanct.
The reality is, the world is full of grays. It is not full of black and white's. No nation is always wrong, no nation is always right. The US, the biggest whipping boy of late has made errors. The UK has made errors. Israel has made errors, Russia has made Errors, China has made errors. Iraq has made errors. Dig a little a deeper though, and you start to see where the errors come from. In the Western World, in democracies, the errors are those of reacting badly to threats to their security, whether it be economical or directly. The Russia's, China's are sometimes legitimate mistakes, and often are very cynical attempts to get their own way when they maybe shouldn't.
Then we reach the bottom. The Iran's, Iraq's, North Korea, Zimbabwye, Cambodia when Pol Pot was around, Japan in the 1930's, Germany in the 1930's. Nations that have greater ambitions, and threaten or outright attack their neighbours. Anyone with half a brain knows who these nations are, it just becomes obvious to me that there is more evil, carnivore nations out there than the world can deal with. So they do their own thing until they reach a point where someone takes care of them. It isn't always the US that does it either, contrary to popular opinion. Often it is an uprising or the regime collapses under its own corruption.
Nation states are not perfect, but as I have just outlined, some are more worthy of respect and trust than others.
I trust the US for the most part to try and do the right thing. When they don't, I say so. I suspect any American would respect that freedom of thought and expression. How many people were allowed that luxury in Iraq? Not with Saddam running it they were not. You either were there for his greater glory, or you were for his amusement in a rape room, torture chamber or other horrific fate he could devise. Amnesity International has documented this and more. For anyone to advocate that the US invasion of Iraq was un provoked or not worthy, is using a flawed argument. Iraq invaded two other nations in less than 20 years, and refused to be a member of the world community and comply with the resolutions of the UN. You may not like the US, but the UN either is backed by the use of force, or it is useless. It really is useless anyhow, for it turned around and chastised the Americans for enforcing the mandate of the UN, but hey, that is the logic of libreals for you.
It isn't the results that count with a libreal, it is being in the right moral mindset....theirs of course.
point has been, and always been, that there are some that some nations have more rights than others. There are some, who defend nation states right to do whatever they want within their own borders, as if this is sacrosanct.
The reality is, the world is full of grays. It is not full of black and white's. No nation is always wrong, no nation is always right. The US, the biggest whipping boy of late has made errors. The UK has made errors. Israel has made errors, Russia has made Errors, China has made errors. Iraq has made errors. Dig a little a deeper though, and you start to see where the errors come from. In the Western World, in democracies, the errors are those of reacting badly to threats to their security, whether it be economical or directly. The Russia's, China's are sometimes legitimate mistakes, and often are very cynical attempts to get their own way when they maybe shouldn't.
Then we reach the bottom. The Iran's, Iraq's, North Korea, Zimbabwye, Cambodia when Pol Pot was around, Japan in the 1930's, Germany in the 1930's. Nations that have greater ambitions, and threaten or outright attack their neighbours. Anyone with half a brain knows who these nations are, it just becomes obvious to me that there is more evil, carnivore nations out there than the world can deal with. So they do their own thing until they reach a point where someone takes care of them. It isn't always the US that does it either, contrary to popular opinion. Often it is an uprising or the regime collapses under its own corruption.
Nation states are not perfect, but as I have just outlined, some are more worthy of respect and trust than others.
I trust the US for the most part to try and do the right thing. When they don't, I say so. I suspect any American would respect that freedom of thought and expression. How many people were allowed that luxury in Iraq? Not with Saddam running it they were not. You either were there for his greater glory, or you were for his amusement in a rape room, torture chamber or other horrific fate he could devise. Amnesity International has documented this and more. For anyone to advocate that the US invasion of Iraq was un provoked or not worthy, is using a flawed argument. Iraq invaded two other nations in less than 20 years, and refused to be a member of the world community and comply with the resolutions of the UN. You may not like the US, but the UN either is backed by the use of force, or it is useless. It really is useless anyhow, for it turned around and chastised the Americans for enforcing the mandate of the UN, but hey, that is the logic of libreals for you.
It isn't the results that count with a libreal, it is being in the right moral mindset....theirs of course.
mmm Beer, this thread has driven me to drink....hey I notice your smilie is drinking Guinness agwii....you should be drinking THAT..as good as Sam Adams is...nice Yankee beer...
I believe I missed a factoid back there, I forgot to add that the Arab states attacked Israel in the 50's did they not? If not, I stand corrected. The scary part is, the Arab's had Russian armor and jets, a significant manpower advantage, and often had strategic advantages, and yet Israel still sticks around to annoy smug people who don't get why they still exist.
I guess having guts, fortitude and ingenuity in war still counts for something. That and being willing to die willingly for a cause, as opposed to the armies of those Arab nations being asked to kill Jews so that Palestinians could have all of the land there instead of their part of it.....
Free men win wars, oppressed men eventually lose them....
Actually, that is a Sam Adams "Cream Stout." This is jet black, and is a type of ale (top fermenting yeast).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Guinness is excellent,
there is no doubt,
but best of all
is Sam Adams cream stout.
:beer:
They were the minority at the time of declaring Israel independent but the governance and control of the new state was given to jews and it was declared as a Jewish state, where is the democracy in there? No wonder some Arabs felt a bit pissed about it... And when you say Jews were living there all along so were Arabs which of over 700000 where thrown out or escaped from Israel after 1948 but that does not seem to be any concern to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Don, really? I do realize that it was imposed. Never said Israel's creation wasn't a little ugly. I don't deny history. I just know after 60 years, the Arab world has not exactly bathed themselves in glory.
As for me not being concerned for Arabs, I am very concerned they keep biting the bait of those who would use them to fight in pointless wars against the Israelis, or pay their children to strap explosives to themselves and blow up buses full of civilians in Jerusalem. I think it is also wrong for Islamic believers to be wiped out In Chechnya. I believe it was wrong for Saddam to oppress his Shiite citizens and gas his Kurdish citizens.
In Israel, arab citizens are part of the country. They have a role and vote in Israel. Both arab and jew have lived in the area for years. Why they cannot get along is often a mystery to me. But I do know that Israel as a nation has met the Palestinians and Arabs more than once half way. Camp David Accord with Egypt in the late 70's. They have made the effort again in the Oslo negotiations, but Arafat decided to let the Intifada go on, and retreated to count his money.
Israel has made mistakes. God knows that they are a little over zealous on the ground at times in dealing with things in Gaza and on the West Bank, but there doesn't seem to be any logic in their opposition. At some point, a Palestinian has to decide, do I want to sacrifice my children's lives in a never ending cycle of violence? Or do I want my leaders to put a society together that provides a future, and then I can then in the future hope my children's children can live in a society that can deal with Israel through a more civilized fashion?
Instead, you have terrorists funded by Iran launching rockets into the northern city of Haifa, while Gaza and the West Bank are under the control of Hamas, who up until now, have not even recognized in the slightest that maybe the Jews have as much right to live there as they do.
I wont dispute that Israel's place in this part of the world is highly contentious, but fighting a cowardly war of using children as combantants removes yourself from having any credability whatsover.
I have come to the conclusion that the only people arguing with me are Finn's....is there some sort of school in Finland that teaches moral equivalency as a major? There has to be.....
I do commend you for your Argument so far DonJippo, you have made a good point but I still feel it is far to simple to paint one side as the bad guy here when the other side has used terrorist tactics to win a war they couldn't win nation to nation.