This is your original statement. It’s wrong because Egypt did not grant permission to Israel to use the canal. Since that did not in fact happen, how could a non-existent state of affairs be “the real issue”?
We dealt with that previously (see above).
Zionism as a movement started in 1890. So he wants to exclude from the referendum all Jews who moved to Israel after 1890. That would be the vast majority of the Jewish population in Israel. I’m sure that’s unrelated to any agenda he has for the nation, and that he’s only making this suggestion in the interests of fairness to all. 
The Arabs living in Israel in 1948 were offered the opportunity of joining the new state as citizens with full rights and equal standing with the Jewish population, sharing both the land and the political process:
That sounds quite reasonable to me. Unfortunately only a tiny minority agreed. The rest rejected the offer. It’s an offer which Israel needs to extend again, and again, and yet again, until a sufficient number of Palestinians finally see the sense in it. But it’s the Palestinians you’ll have to convince.
I think the population of Israel is getting on fine without his help.
Because my argument was predicated on the right of Israel’s navy to be in the Suez. Whether that right was granted by Egypt (which it clearly wasn’t), or already existed due to Egypt’s obligations (which it did), is irrelevant. Israel’s navy has every right to be in the Suez. The anti-Israel crowd wanted to paint Israel’s presence in the Suez as some kind of insidious crime, when in fact they have every right to be there.
The sophistries are flying thick and fast today. Like the one that if you’re skeptical of paranoid war mongering that makes you a supporter of Islamic fundamentalism.
So it goes.
I’m still wondering if anyone has considered exactly what the fallout will be of blowing nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities out of the ground in the Middle East.
Personally I hope Israel does the wild thang and simultaneously starts World War 3 while nudging the world economy over the cliff. The ensuing doom should separate the sheep from the real goats once and for all.
Here’s another interesting twist which should spice things up if this plot gets off the ground. Will Iran have the right under international law to fight back if the United States of Israel attacks it? That’s bit of a paradox, isn’t it? I can see it now. Something along the lines of the U.S. introducing a Security Council resolution condemning Iran for violating international law by shooting back. It makes my head hurt just thinking how that one is going to be spun.
My guess is the spin meisters will argue that it’s definitely a violation of international law if Iran hits something. Otherwise, not.
No one said that.
A bit of a mess. But a non-volatile and local mess. Not a nuclear expolsion mess. A lot less of a mess than if you let the country develop nuclear weapons and start launching them everywhere.
That sounds unfortunately like what you really want is for Israel to do the absolute worst it can, just to give the rest of the world an excuse to nail it. Which would mean you have zero interest in a peaceful resolution to the conflict, zero interest in the human cost of the conflict, and zero care for anyone involved in the conflict. You just don’t like Israel, and you want to see them pulped.
Haven’t we been here before? What did Iran do when Iraq bombed its earlier nuclear facilities? What did Iraq do when Israel bombed its nuclear facilities? Israel was soundly condemned by the UN for its destruction of Iraq’s nuclear facilities, and their claim of self defense was rejected. The UN does not support such pre-emptive srikes.
They stayed strangely silent when Israel ‘allegedly’ blew up Syria’s nascent nuclear facilities two years ago. Facilities funded by Iran and constructed with the assistance of Iran and most likely the DPRK.
and if they do it again, this time to Iran, they’ll probably stay silent again. Iran is the aggressor here, not Israel, in the eyes of the UN SecCon, by its continued flagrant actions, obfuscations, stalling and subterfuge… And it probably won’t be their more public reactor at Bishkek that will be the target, but their ‘secret’ plutonium breeder reactor. If only they can get bunker busting bombs large enough to drill into the mountainside that covers it: hence the USA developing and selling tungsten hypervelocity rods etc rather than conventional bombs, and reiterating this week that they will continue to supply Israel with their most advanced weapon systems to allow t to defend itself…
This isn’t cool either:
nationalpost.com/news/story. … 818339&p=1
[quote] The Canadian government reports say Hezbollah has been “rearming and recruiting” for another war with Israel, as well as readying to strike Western targets in the event Iran’s nuclear sites are destroyed.
[/quote]
Well color me unhappy. First the Tamils in Toronto and now this. I DO NOT want to see Israeli embassies attacked in Canada. And we have a lot more Muslim Canadians who hate Israel than we have Tamils.
We need a defense shield for Canadian-born Canadians.
This dopeaganda we’ve been enduring from Israelophiles since the days of ‘Saddam has the bomb and he’s gonna drop it on us!’ would be amusing if lives weren’t sure to be lost in the process. How anyone could take seriously the thesis that it’s self-defense to attack another country on the basis of mere unsubstantiated suspicions alone just makes you want to shake your head, especially after the recent “self defense” fiasco in Iraq. If every country were to adopt that Orwellian definition the world would be in a constant downward spiral of war towards oblivion.
And it just boggles the mind how anyone could blithely conclude that bombing nuclear reactor facilities would be a “non-volatile, local” mess. Good luck with that prediction Mr. “Iraq Will Pay for Itself and They’ll Welcome Us With Roses.”
Ho-boy. Some folks just never learn.
[quote=“politbureau”]This dopeaganda we’ve been enduring from Israelophiles since the days of ‘Saddam has the bomb and he’s gonna drop it on us!’ would be amusing if lives weren’t sure to be lost in the process. How anyone could take seriously the thesis that it’s self-defense to attack another country on the basis of mere unsubstantiated suspicions alone just makes you want to shake your head, especially after the recent “self defense” fiasco in Iraq. If every country were to adopt that Orwellian definition the world would be in a constant downward spiral of war towards oblivion.
And it just boggles the mind how anyone could blithely conclude that bombing nuclear reactor facilities would be a “non-volatile, local” mess. Good luck with that prediction Mr. :Iraq Will Pay for Itself and They’ll Welcome Us With Roses."
Ho-boy. Some folks just never learn.[/quote]
I’m sure the 200 or so Canadians fighting in Iraq wouldn’t be happy to hear how well their efforts have fought twerrorism at home:
[quote]A follow-up report, titled Hezbollah’s ‘Open War’: Implications for Canada, said Canada had the world’s fourth-largest Jewish population, as well as more than 100 Jewish institutions, including schools and synagogues.[/quote] In other words, it’s a matter of time before the war we’re allegedly fighting “over there” gets fought on our own soil.
It’s time to fight the enemy at home. Fighting them “over there” isn’t working, and accomodating the ones at home is just turning the west into a refuge for people who want to commit honor killings. We should have been fighting them at home all along.
Hey, no problem: prevailing winds will spread any fallout all over Iran, which would be their concern entirely, and maybe a little of Afghanistan, for which we would be sorry. Poor little Afghanis; they never hurt a sol, that mob.
Hey, no problem: prevailing winds will spread any fallout all over Iran, which would be their concern entirely, and maybe a little of Afghanistan, for which we would be sorry. Poor little Afghanis; they never hurt a sol, that mob.[/quote]
There are over 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and nearly 10,000 British troops. Does that matter to you at all of is this yet more proof that you can’t serve two masters?
Serving masters? SERVING? Who’s serving anybody here? Don’t bring me down to your level.
besides, we all know that the US and the British (and the Dutch, for a few more months, and the Australians, and the Canadians, and the Polish, and goodness remembers how many other nationalities) have good access to NBC suits, and are dying for a chance to try them out to tactical advantage. Though I pity any troops wearing them in summer: that would truly suck (speaking from limited experience myself). I guess it’s an attack during autumn/winter then.
[quote=“urodacus”]Serving masters? SERVING? Who’s serving anybody here? Don’t bring me down to your level.
besides, we all know that the US and the British (and the Dutch, for a few more months, and the Australians, and the Canadians, and the Polish, and goodness remembers how many other nationalities) have good access to NBC suits, and are dying for a chance to try them out to tactical advantage. Though I pity any troops wearing them in summer: that would truly suck (speaking from limited experience myself). I guess it’s an attack during autumn/winter then.[/quote]
Now I’ve heard everything. U.S. & British troops can’t wait to be subjected to radioactive fallout so they can see how well their rubber suits protect them against radiation? You’re clearly not concerned about their welfare because your loyalties lie elsewhere.
and yours? your masters are the Council of Ayatollahs, n’est-ce pas?
you certainly don’t recognise internet banter for what it is, though.
No one said that.[/quote]
This is true. They’ve never hurt the sun.
Fucking hell. Pissed off that I have to type all this out again. Thank you, O worthless, treacherous piece of brand spanking new hardware! And I’ll be typing this in Word so I can save it. Hope I get the tags right. /rant
Jolly good. And how many countries have ever threatened Israel with nuclear weapons? Precisely zero. Any how serious was that threat? Given that none of the surrounding countries have nukes, absolutely zero. What’s your point? MY point is that it would be preferable to give Iran defence against nuclear attack and try to persuade them from obtaining nukes than try to physically prevent them.
Are they about to nuke a country so close? Well, they’re the ones calling themselves “Mad dogs”, so I’ll let them answer that one. See below.
Would they really? Do you think they’re complete suicidal? Their nuclear deterrent is exactly that, a deterrent. It has no functional use in the acquisition of territory. [/quote]
As no-one near them has nukes, there’s no need for a deterrent. The fact that they have nukes and no-one else does makes them feel that they can act with impunity, and therefore makes them more aggressive. The power imbalance caused by the very presence of the nukes is part of the problem. I find it seriously hard to argue that with an aggressive, nuclear armed power on their doorstep the neighbouring countries can’t have the right to obtain them too as a deterrent – especially as no major power is guaranteeing their protection. I don’t see any logical ethical way of denying the ability to protect themselves if no-one else is willing to – and hence an arms war. My alternative to an arms war is the US guaranteed regional protection from nuclear weapons by anybody, including Israelis.
Are they completely suicidal? Well, again, they’re the ones calling themselves mad dogs, and anyway from what I’ve seen the whole damn area is pretty whacko.
Correct. They aren’t interested in acquiring territory. Which is precisely why the point is not moot. [/quote]
Are you trying to be idiotic? Nuclear bombs destroy land for quite some period of time. They have absolutely no use in acquiring land, they’re used to destroy stuff permanently or deny land to other people.
[quote=“The Guardian”] Iran can never be threatened in its very existence. Israel can. Indeed, such a threat could even grow out of the current intifada. That, at least, is the pessimistic opinion of Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ‘If it went on much longer,’ he said, ‘the Israeli government [would] lose control of the people. In campaigns like this, the anti-terror forces lose, because they don’t win, and the rebels win by not losing. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We’ll destroy ourselves.’
In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to regard the ‘transfer’ of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing ‘more probable’ with each passing day. Sharon ‘wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed’.
But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? ‘That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.’ [/quote]
guardian.co.uk/world/2003/se … okextracts
Let’s start with “Immoral and unethical” – even by the Jews themselves, if I remember correctly. Don’t they say something in their holy book about not visiting the sins of the father apon the son? Now why is that? Let’s put in context. Let’s say you kill a man. Then you kill the son, because if you don’t he could grow up angry and full of revenge, and kill you in return – or kill your son. Then you have a blood feud on your hands. So, IF you’re going to kill a man, the smart thing is to kill him, then kill his sons and the rest of his family so they can’t kill you. Right? “But no, stay,” say the Elders. “Wait. Maybe you’re right. But maybe he’ll grow up and decide that what happened was a result of his father’s actions, and it was his father’s business and not his own, and that he will choose something different with his life. Leave him that choice: let him live.” And also, once you start killing, somebody is always going to get upset about it, so what should you do, kill just the son, or the whole family? What about the whole extended family, because the wife had brothers, right? Where does it stop? It never stops. And if you kill a man, and his son kills your son, then that continues too, and will never end until some people choose to stop killing. But they need that freedom to make that choice.
It’s also how World War One started, for fuck’s sake! Country A did something, so country B did something, and Country C was allied to A but countries D and E were allied to B and then due to the rationale of warfare one country began mobilizing so then they ALL began mobilizing, and then suddenly they were at war because that was what the rationale was – to mobilize as fast as possible and get in first. And there was no one who said, and there was no system in place allowing anyone to say “Hey guys, you realize that six major countries are about to go to war over a minor incident in the Balkans. I don’t even know where the Balkans are. Let’s stop and think about this.” There was no-one and no way to put the brakes on once the war machine had started moving. That’s why there’s a direct phoneline between the Kremlin and the White House so they can talk. WW1 could have been avoided, but the “pre-emptive strike” mentality was so overpowering that rationality had no chance.
Pre-emptive strikes can be likened to jumping a guy in the park. It’s a hell of a lot easier and safer to do, than to accost him in the street, man to man and face to face. The brave thing to do, if you’ve got an issue with someone, is face him. And if you do face him, then he’s probably going to get angry, and there might be conflict and yelling, but he might not hit you. There might be dialogue. You might find an understanding. It’s worth taking that chance because if you jump him in the park, you’re fighting again. And in order for there to be peace, there must be dialogue.
No it isn’t, it’s a standard rule of war. But most of the time, as we both know, they don’t get to strike first. [/quote]
But they’re not at war! They’re in a ridiculous, never ending tit for tat conflict that’s been going on and off for the past fifty years! Isn’t it enough foolishness? Isn’t it time to sit down, start talking, and start looking for reasonable ways to find peace? Because that’s what pre-emptive strikes kill immediately – any dialogue. They just kick the whole thing back to full on violence in order to avoid something that may or may not ever happen.
Rule of war = army. But they’re not at war. The NZ Police force have standing orders to use minimal violence at all times. Never hit someone if speaking will work. Don’t shoot first. There’s damn good reason for that, because if you hit, pepper spray or shoot someone who hasn’t actually done anything, you’re the bad guy and you’re seen to be the bad guy. And the other guy is – rightly - seen as a victim, and will be sympathized with by everybody he speaks to.
[quote]To which countries in the Middle East is Israel being aggressive?
There’s no such country as ‘Palestine’, but anyway. So we have one country to whom Israel is being aggressive. [/quote]
Currently. So we have six countries that you admit Israel has been aggressive to.
[quote] In what way is Israel being ‘aggressive’ to Iran? Threats of invasion? Threats of destruction? [/quote] Apart from the recent navy in the Suez Canal stuff, oh, you know just “pre-emptive strikes (nuclear?)… not ruling anything out” for them potentially having the means to defend themselves. stuff.co.nz/world/middle-eas … ran-nukes/
Done and dusted, see again. [/quote]
So the invasion of Lebanon was not in the slightest bit aggressive. Good for you.
Iraq, obviously, but I don’t see your point. Ok, what the hell, you can have this one. Ok, the US, UK and Australia are more aggressive than Israel. Fine. I’m steadfastly saying Israel is an aggressive, nuclear armed nation, and that it would make sense to offer protection to the surrounding countries if we want their co-operation. Your response is – the UK, US and Oz are more aggressive than Israel. Ok, so now we have
- US number 1 aggressor
2 + 3 UK and OZ nos 2 and 3 warmongers
4 Israel local aggressor
5 everybody else.
So, then Iran surely has MORE need of protection! Damn! Hell, with so many aggressive, war-thirsty countries in the region, somebody better get over there fast! I suggested a regional defence umbrella, it would seem Iran, Syria, Egypt et al need more!
Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but whatever. If this is not your intended point, then I have no idea what the hell you’re trying prove here, other than just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.
Goodness, you’re objective aren’t you? [/quote]
I wish they were, that’s the point.
Funny that, I’ve heard a lot about Israel shooting down peace initiatives left right and center. I’ve heard a few reasons why the US and Israel don’t truly want peace in the area.
As a case in point, any resolution in any conflict requires co-operation and open, honest dialogue. Being arbitrary, one-sided and arrogant is severely counterproductive.
Can we perhaps address this subject in the context of reality rather than this kind of meaningless partisan rhetoric? [/quote]
Speaking from the context of reality, as supported by history, they reached the best agreement in Oslo, which the Israelis then voted to reject. They then arbitrarily decided what they should have, built the wall, built settler camps. Did they discuss with Arafat where exactly the wall should be built? No. Did they discuss the camps? No. They rejected dialogue, rejected compromise, decided they’re better than that, marked lines in the sand and “solved the problem once and for all.”
Arbitrary decisions of this kind and solving problems in this kind of manner where one side has all the power and refuses to discuss the problem have been repeatedly proven useless throughout history. No, the Treaty of Versailles didn’t ensure “this will never happen again.” No, race relations in New Zealand were not solved by offering all the Maori a thousand bucks.
Lasting peace in Germany was only achieved through being fair, empathic and merciful. Good race relations in New Zealand were only arrived at by setting up the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate grievances and make recommendations to the government and by persistent and respectful dialogue with Maori tribes. It’s still an ongoing process, but it is working.
That’s history. That’s reality. What colour’s the sky in your world?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Yes, I’m convinced. 
There’s more. Your link also makes the point that this statement was originally made by Iran, prior to Ahmadinejad’s words:
oops, missed that part 
Well, of course he avoided repudiating it! If he avoids the issue, he gets more journalists asking him about it! This is the same reason as why the DPP politicians started hitting KMT politicians - because they were never given any air time by the media, so they would start shit, and then they would have a few seconds to say something. And as I stated, Israel gets far more preferential treatment by the media than Iran!
[quote]Now that sounds suspiciously similar to another quote:
Exodus 17:14-15
The Lord says: “I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
He’s taking the piss! He’s using Jewish and Christian religious books back apon themselves![/quote]
You’ve just ruined your original argument. If the Imam’s original statement was supposed to be a satirical comment on Exodus 17:14-15, it must necessarily have referred to the utter destruction of Israel and its entire population. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim he was only speaking of a regime change and then claim he was hijacking a Judeo-Christian statement of intended annihilation.[/quote]
Fair call.
Really? In what context? What steps has he taken to do this?[/quote]
In response to the Iran quote, of course. It’s ridiculous, one monkey throws mud, another throws it back…
[quote][quote]And then there’s this little gem:
"I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.”
As related in 1 Samuel 15, God instructed the Israelite king Saul to “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=251[/quote]
This is a mismatch. You take a statement about Netanyahu’s anxiety about Amalek, and try to pair it with a statement concerning what Saul was commanded to do to Amalek. It seems you’re trying to encourage people to draw the conclusion that Netanyahu was so concerned about Iran that he wanted to ‘slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass’. But that’s not what he said.[/quote]
It’s not obvious what he said. What he said was “Think Amalek”. Referring to anxiousness. Which could mean ‘slay everybody’ because he’s anxious (Samuel). It could mean “He’s not anxious at all as god will kill them all” (Exodus) It could mean he’s been ordered to blot out their memory, and that will solve his anxiety problem.‘’ (Deuteronomy)
More random quotes from google! But there don’t seem to be many articles on “amalek” which could be taken in a positive spin, there doesn’t appear to be much about forgiveness or seeking dialogue or being reasonable. Most seem to refer directly and irrevocably as divine orders for genocide. So how can you take that as simply depth of anxiety? Genocide does not equal anxiety. So why did he say that? If he was anxious, and mentioned the Holocaust, that could be taken in different ways. But I find it hard to interpret divine orders for the complete genocidal destruction of an ancient Jewish enemy as simple anxiety.
[quote][quote]There are a few more books that may need to be investigated for suspected incitement to hatred of Amalekites, below is a list of the offending books (with the relevant chapters and verses):
- Genesis 14:7; 36:12, 16
- Exodus 17:8-11, 13-14, 16
- Numbers 13:29; 14:25, 43, 45; 24:20; 25:19
- Deuteronomy 25:17
- Judges 3:13; 5:14; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12; 12:15
- 1 Samuel 14:48;15:2-8, 15, 18, 20, 32; 27:8; 28:18; 30:1, 13, 18
- 2 Samuel 1:1, 8, 13; 8:12
- 1 Chronicles 1:36; 4:43; 18:11
- Psalms 83:7
Note that this is pulled off the web, and as I have no bible nor the slightest intention of ever reading one let alone owning one, somebody else will have to do verification [/quote]
Translation, ‘I have Googled for anything I could find which suited my prejudices and appears to substantiate my argument, but I have no intention of verifying it’. Just so we understand. [/quote]
So multiple sources were presented to the self proclaimed religious expert, who chose not to repudiate them, but instead make cheap personal attacks. Guess they obviously don’t agree with the expert’s views then, and it also says something about him.
Israel didn’t develop nuclear weapons because her neighbors did. She did it as a deterrent to her larger neighbors invading her vis a vis a conventional war. Iran doesn’t have much to fear from an invasion from Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan or (now) Iraq. It’s not like Israel is going to be able to blaze a path across Syria and Iraq to open a conventional war in Iran. Iran has more to fear from Pakistan’s nuclear weapons than Israel’s.
Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons because Israel has them. They are developing them so that they can keep the US at arm’s length, aka tell the US to go pound sand. “Don’t like what we are doing? Well fuck off or we’ll drop the bomb on Israel” is an effective threat unless you can wipe out all their missiles in an alpha strike. That’s a large gamble to take when civilians are at risk. That would make Iran a regional hegemon, which is a worse scenario than the present.
[quote][quote]Would they really? Do you think they’re complete suicidal? Their nuclear deterrent is exactly that, a deterrent. It has no functional use in the acquisition of territory.
[/quote]
As no-one near them has nukes, there’s no need for a deterrent. The fact that they have nukes and no-one else does makes them feel that they can act with impunity, and therefore makes them more aggressive. The power imbalance caused by the very presence of the nukes is part of the problem. I find it seriously hard to argue that with an aggressive, nuclear armed power on their doorstep the neighbouring countries can’t have the right to obtain them too as a deterrent – especially as no major power is guaranteeing their protection. I don’t see any logical ethical way of denying the ability to protect themselves if no-one else is willing to – and hence an arms war. My alternative to an arms war is the US guaranteed regional protection from nuclear weapons by anybody, including Israelis.
[/quote]
With or without nuclear weapons, Iran will still be supporting taking up the cause as the lead Muslim nation against those infidel Jews. No one else has. While it is true that Israel has been aggressive towards her immediate neighbors, under the auspice of destroying terrorist training camps, Iran has nothing to fear from them as long as the Iranians don’t pursue nuclear weapons. Iran doesn’t share a common border with Israel and I haven’t been able to find any quotes about Israel’s right to wipe Iran off the face of the map. Perhaps you can help me find them?
The power imbalance isn’t the nuclear lead, it’s that Shia Iran is greatly outnumbered by the rest of the Sunni Middle East. The Sunni’s may not like the Israelis, but they hate the Shias. Iran getting the bomb will result in Saudi Arabia and other countries frantically pursing nuclear weapons themselves to protect themselves from Iranian aggression. Iran wants to be the regional hegimon who controls the Middle East, and the oil, thereby controlling the world’s supply of energy.
Right now the UN Security Council, and the US, are guaranteeing that there won’t be any more nuclear powers in the region. They can’t take away the weapons that Israel already has, but Israel isn’t going to launch a nuclear strike against populated Iranian cities. Who can say the same about Iran? So long as Iran pursues nuclear weapons, they make themselves a target for the UN Security Council, the US and Israel. If they stop pursuing them, what reason would there be for Israel to strike at Iran?
[quote]
Pre-emptive strikes can be likened to jumping a guy in the park. It’s a hell of a lot easier and safer to do, than to accost him in the street, man to man and face to face. The brave thing to do, if you’ve got an issue with someone, is face him. And if you do face him, then he’s probably going to get angry, and there might be conflict and yelling, but he might not hit you. There might be dialogue. You might find an understanding. It’s worth taking that chance because if you jump him in the park, you’re fighting again. And in order for there to be peace, there must be dialogue. [/quote]
Your scenario sounds more like an innocent guy in the park who gets jumped from behind for the purpose of being mugged/murdered. In war you don’t give the other guy a fair shot. You employ snipers, camouflage, fighter pilots go behind another aircraft where they can’t defend themselves and fire a missile. That’s the point. The point is to win with as few casualties on your side and as many as necessary on the other side to get them to stop fighting. You make it too costly for them to continue on the path they have chosen.
A better example would be this. You see the guy in the park walking. You know he’s been shooting at your house when he gets drunk and its a matter of time before he hits one of your kids. You tried reasoning with him when he’s sober but he denies doing it. You try talking to the police, but they are ineffective at preventing him. You are at your wits ends after digging out bullets out of your kitchen, the bedroom where your children sleep and ducking every time you hear a car backfire. You have a chance to stop him by sneaking up behind him and bonking him on the head with a bat. His house doesn’t get destroyed, his neighbors aren’t harmed and his kids won’t be in the cross fire. Would you prefer instead to confront him in front of his door with you, your three best buddies and enough ammo to start WW3 because that’s braver?
[quote]
Lasting peace in Germany was only achieved through being fair, empathic and merciful. Good race relations in New Zealand were only arrived at by setting up the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate grievances and make recommendations to the government and by persistent and respectful dialogue with Maori tribes. It’s still an ongoing process, but it is working.
That’s history. That’s reality. What colour’s the sky in your world?[/quote]
Lasting peace in Germany was achieved through rebuilding the destroyed economy, throwing lots of money around via the Marshal plan and not imposing a war debt for starting the whole thing (like you pointed out for WW1). It wasn’t exactly fair, empathic or merciful. It was one side dictating the terms to the other, without German input on it.
I don’t know enough about the situation with the Maori tribe to comment on it, but I’ll ask you a hypothetical question. Lets say that Australia was full of tribal cousins to the Maori tribes and were incensed that non Maori were in NZ and how they treated the Maori there. Would peace be possible if the cousins continually funded, trained and supplied a resistance movement who said “No non-Maori’s in New Zealand”?
The people who are blithely claiming now without any evidence that “Iran is developing nuclear weapons” are the same people who repeatedly plucked the claim out of thin air in 2002 that “Iraq is developing nuclear weapons.”
It’s difficult to understand how intelligent, educated people could repeatedly engage in such acts of bone-headedness without the slightest sense that something might be amiss or that reality doesn’t completely reinvent itself from scratch every six months. One can only hope they represent a minority of Homo sapiens or the species is indeed doomed.