52nd State

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Right, I did research that one.
Taken from the communist manifesto:

Did marx right this, what would have happened if communism was already extablished. Death happens when imposing democracy - our own civil war proves that.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Is that apologism(?sp) for suicide bombers?!

In many respects I don`t see a great difference between their actions and ours in these matters, just that we don`t send our bombs in strapped to people, we drop them from a great height by planes.

[basa]

Just as a slight *aside*.... does anybody know where the Jewish peoples lived prior to the annexing of Palestine in 1948 to start all this sh*t off ?????

Originally Posted by graham

In a little while I'm probably going to be leaving for London to go to the Erotica Show, [...]So please don't think I'm not willing to reply to you, it's just that I'm not able to!

Gosh! Thanks!

(I think...!!!)

you're welcome

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

In many respects I don`t see a great difference between their actions and ours in these matters, just that we don`t send our bombs in strapped to people, we drop them from a great height by planes.

You what?! The west does it's damndest not to target civilians deliberatly. The terrorists do the exact opposite!

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You what?! The west does it's damndest not to target civilians deliberatly. The terrorists do the exact opposite!

Either way people get killed. Plus, given the track record of the Western armies when it comes to collateral damage it forces one to wonder some times how much effort is actually put into avoiding civilian targets.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

In many respects I don`t see a great difference between their actions and ours in these matters, just that we don`t send our bombs in strapped to people, we drop them from a great height by planes.

As I said, there's creating a theoretical 'moral vacuum' in which to debate competing worldviews, and then there's apologism for terrorist activity. This, IMO, falls firmly in the latter category.

No matter how obnoxious you believe the motives of the Coalition to be, there is a clear and obvious difference between a strategy that seeks to minimise or avoid civilian casualties, and a strategy that relies on maximum civilian casualties in order to press home a dogma by means of terror.

Originally Posted by basa

Just as a slight *aside*.... does anybody know where the Jewish peoples lived prior to the annexing of Palestine in 1948 to start all this sh*t off ?????

I think you are unaware that there has always been historically a Jewish presence in the Middle East region, where Jews have lived for centuries. Israel is in fact historically the birthplace of the Jewish people. As far as the modern state of Israel is concerned it is the result of the foundation of Zionism in the late 1890s from the activities of Theodore Herzl, though the tradition reaches much further back in history, which in itself was due to widespread anti-semitism in Europe as seen in Tsarist Russia and even in supposedly enlightened countries like France. The idea became reality in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. During the inter-war years many European Jews migrated to begin a new life in what was then British ruled Palestine.

It was agreed by the UN that two states, Israel and Palestine should replace the British mandate. Jewish survivors from the Holocaust decided to settle in Israel as they had lost relatives and their livelihoods in Europe as a result of the Nazi German regime. The Arab leaders including the Grand Mufti, chose to destroy Israel rather than allow the the UN proposed two state solution.

Israel did not annex Palestine in 1948, you have been misinformed.

Originally Posted by Gogogo

I think you are unaware that there has always been historically a Jewish presence in the Middle East region, where Jews have lived for centuries. As far as the modern state of Israel is concerned it is the result of the foundation of Zionism in the late 1890s from the activities of Theodore Herzl, though the tradition reaches much further back in history, which in itself was due to widespread anti-semitism in Europe as seen in Tsarist Russia and even in supposedly enlightened countries like France. The idea became reality in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. During the inter-war years many European Jews migrated to begin a new life in what was then British ruled Palestine.

It was agreed by the UN that two states, Israel and Palestine should replace the British mandate. Jewish survivors from the Holocaust decided to settle in Israel as they had lost relatives and their livelihoods in Europe as a result of the Nazi German regime. The Arab leaders including the Grand Mufti, chose to destroy Israel rather than allow the the UN proposed two state solution.

Israel did not annex Palestine in 1948, you have been misinformed.

Indeed, the UN proposal was put to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians calculated that they could get a better deal and rejected the plan; the Israelis agreed to it and went ahead with setting up their state even though it could not officialy be put in place without the Palestinians on board. Hard-line Arabs to this day refuse to accept Israel's right to exist for this very reason.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Did marx right this, what would have happened if communism was already extablished. Death happens when imposing democracy - our own civil war proves that.

Karl Marx & Frederick Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto early 1848 the year Europe exploded in revolutions. Democracy has not been imposed in the UK, here it came largely by peaceful protests and reform. Our own civil war? Which one, the War of the Roses a feudal squabble, or the one in 1640s associated with Parliamentary struggles against the monarchy. The Civil War in the 1640s did not bring democracy. It resulted in representative government after 1660, not democracy.

Originally Posted by towny

No matter how obnoxious you believe the motives of the Coalition to be, there is a clear and obvious difference between a strategy that seeks to minimise or avoid civilian casualties, and a strategy that relies on maximum civilian casualties in order to press home a dogma by means of terror.

That is true, but as I said, people die regardless. Therefore, the difference is only really relevant if you believe that some people have a greater right to live than others. It's not as though the coalition are innocent of waging a campaign deliberately designed to inspire fear and terror, "shock and awe".

The effort to minimise civilian casualties doesn`t stop when you stop firing weaponry. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the coalitions comical attempts to rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed in the first instance. So what if they don`t deliberately target civilian areas, if you take out parts of the infrastructure that result in civilian deaths then the end result is the same.

All you've described are different gameplans, the end result is the same.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

That is true, but as I said, people die regardless. Therefore, the difference is only really relevant if you believe that some people have a greater right to live than others. It's not as though the coalition are innocent of waging a campaign deliberately designed to inspire fear and terror, "shock and awe".

The effort to minimise civilian casualties doesn`t stop when you stop firing weaponry. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the coalitions comical attempts to rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed in the first instance. So what if they don`t deliberately target civilian areas, if you take out parts of the infrastructure that result in civilian deaths then the end result is the same.

All you've described are different gameplans, the end result is the same.

So what you are saying is that everybody should stop figting and killing?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

So what you are saying is that everybody should stop figting and killing?

I'd take that for a start. The problem is it probably is never going to happen for one reason or another.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

That is true, but as I said, people die regardless. Therefore, the difference is only really relevant if you believe that some people have a greater right to live than others. It's not as though the coalition are innocent of waging a campaign deliberately designed to inspire fear and terror, "shock and awe".

The effort to minimise civilian casualties doesn`t stop when you stop firing weaponry. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the coalitions comical attempts to rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed in the first instance. So what if they don`t deliberately target civilian areas, if you take out parts of the infrastructure that result in civilian deaths then the end result is the same.

All you've described are different gameplans, the end result is the same.

I certainly wouldn't deny that the Coalition strategy has resulted in civilian deaths, but I would contest the rate at which those deaths have occurred - on 9/11, about 3,000 people died in the space of a couple of hours. In Iraq ... well, withot having figures to hand, I can say I need to be convinced it has been anything like this bad.

And I think you give too little credence to the intent behind these people's actions. This isn't a laboratory experiment demonstrating two ways of achieving the same result, this is real life and real people are involved. And in an ideal world, according to Martin Luther King, people should be judged by the content of their character.

Sure, the road to hell might be paved with good intentions, but if were on the road to hell I would rather have George Dubya Bush along for the ride than Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.