69 replies to this topic

[niner]

Anyways, I really don't trust any of the possible presidents, they all seem like horrible picks... Obama scares me with how he's going to handle Iran and not knowing his stances, while McCain scares me with how he's going to handle pretty much everything. What would you yourself go for?

Why is simple diplomacy scary? Nixon talked to China, and to Russia. Wars are avoided by diplomacy. America has sure turned weird. I guess the problem is that diplomacy is scary when people who want to have wars make it sound scary.

diplomacy isn't simple. You may have a point at the end, but i still don't see why we trust nations who have went into Iraq to attack us and supplied weaponry. They have an agenda, diplomacy doesn't always solve the problem... especially when time is of the essence.

Diplomacy isn't simple, but it is vastly less dangerous than war. It should be the first option, and war the last. Not the other way around. Diplomacy doesn't mean trusting them. You can talk to people you don't trust. That's a way to build trust. Iran has no reason to trust us, either, when we repeatedly threaten them with bombing. The nature of Iran's involvement in Iraq is not clear cut. We have been presented with information about that by the same people who want diplomacy to sound scary. There have been accusations of manipulation. It could have been (and was)
predicted that taking out the Sunni ruling structure in majority-Shiite Iraq would strengthen Shiite Iran. That was a consequence of an unintelligent, ideologically driven invasion of Iraq.

[Cyberbrain]

We created this mess and we should fix it with diplomacy. We helped shape every country in the middle east. Israel, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc ... we helped develop everyone of these countries. And we can reshape them.

McCain is a right wing religious war mongering bioluddite who failed in school and who failed in combat and will fail to govern this great nation. There is no reason to vote for him. If you want to lower taxes vote for the Libertarian Party. If you want universal health care vote for the Democratic Party. If you want to combat environmental issues, vote for the Green Party. Or if you don't like parties vote for an independent. Or don't vote at all like George Carlin (good man ).

What difference will if make to vote for another neocon. Nothing. It will only make matters worse.

Under Bill the price of oil one time dropped as low a $8. Now its up to $138 under Bush. (Just thought I should plop that in here)

[mentatpsi]

We created this mess and we should fix it with diplomacy. We helped shape every country in the middle east. Israel, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc ... we helped develop everyone of these countries. And we can reshape them.

McCain is a right wing religious war mongering bioluddite who failed in school and who failed in combat and will fail to govern this great nation. There is no reason to vote for him. If you want to lower taxes vote for the Libertarian Party. If you want universal health care vote for the Democratic Party. If you want to combat environmental issues, vote for the Green Party. Or if you don't like parties vote for an independent. Or don't vote at all like George Carlin (good man ).

What difference will if make to vote for another neocon. Nothing. It will only make matters worse.

Under Bill the price of oil one time dropped as low a $8. Now its up to $138 under Bush. (Just thought I should plop that in here)

I know where you're coming from, McCain is strange... i really recommend seeing his Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life page... because that's really something a transhumanist should be concerned with.

On another note, i kind of hope these huge prices of oil will inspire cleaner more sustainable forms of energy especially in the area of transportation demands. People need an emotional shock to realize the errors of certain methods, perhaps this will teach something. Besides, there's always public transportation.

[forever freedom]

We created this mess and we should fix it with diplomacy. We helped shape every country in the middle east. Israel, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc ... we helped develop everyone of these countries. And we can reshape them.

McCain is a right wing religious war mongering bioluddite who failed in school and who failed in combat and will fail to govern this great nation. There is no reason to vote for him. If you want to lower taxes vote for the Libertarian Party. If you want universal health care vote for the Democratic Party. If you want to combat environmental issues, vote for the Green Party. Or if you don't like parties vote for an independent. Or don't vote at all like George Carlin (good man ).

What difference will if make to vote for another neocon. Nothing. It will only make matters worse.

Under Bill the price of oil one time dropped as low a $8. Now its up to $138 under Bush. (Just thought I should plop that in here)

Hey wasn't McCain the one who had the most liberal ideals and the one that would most likely sympathize to the anti aging cause and transhumanism in general?

[mentatpsi]

What would you yourself go for?

I'll likely vote for McCain, though I have to admit his age is a concern for me. If it becomes clear that that is a serious concern then I will either vote 3rd party or just leave it blank. I had some interest in Obama early on, at least as a more palatable alternative to Clinton, but was a little wary of the cult-like quality of his following. However, the whole Reverend Wright/TUCC thing was a deal-breaker for me. I'd never vote for the man. My take would be different if he had grown up in that church - I could understand that. But no, he had to seek out that experience, and apparently found it so much to his liking that he stayed on board for 20+ years, only to drop out in the past few weeks because of political expediency. The man has little character that I can tell, and so I can't trust him. And his poor judgment, backtracking and duplicity on the Trinity UCC issue will make it impossible for him to be the racial healer his supporters hope he will be. If he is elected are large portion of the U.S. population is going to be very suspicious - and with good reason.

McCain is a moderate who has shown repeatedly that he is willing to buck the will of his party. He will also be a good balance to the House and Senate which will almost surely be dominated by the Democrats.

I still think Obama operates in a very political fashion, merely going in with what works in an american idol fashion for his following, as you said his following has a very "cult-like quality". I suppose one could look at the church scandal as weird, i still think he mainly did it for the demographics support (a mostly liberal crowd), it's just networking to me, once it proved non resourceful he destroyed contact, knowing he had attained the support necessary to continue.

I agree McCain may have a more solid stance, but some of that isn't necessarily a good thing; such as trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I don't see why he thinks abortion is a bad idea, raising a baby is no easy matter and the people who often times go for abortions just aren't ready for that type of commitment. As such it falls upon the desire of the family or bearer of the baby with what they/she wants to do, not in the hands of government to take that ability away from the family. In addition, he doesn't seem like someone who will support transhumanism or medical technology towards improving the norm. Who knows, maybe wisdom will reach later on.

Still he is the most democrat republican there is.

[Cyberbrain]

Hey wasn't McCain the one who had the most liberal ideals and the one that would most likely sympathize to the anti aging cause and transhumanism in general?

Well, McCain is considered to be liberal compared to other conservatives, but he's still a neocon. But believe me, no Republican will ever sympathize with transhumanists. As for anti-aging research, its such a small movement that it will take 10-20 more years before any politician will even begin to think seriously about it.

Republicans are usually against science. Take a look at Leon Kass and what he thinks about science and also look at what Bush did to the Presidents Science adviser in 2001 (Bush fired him when he came into office). And let's not forget that 60% of Bush's administration came directly from Bible Colleges. McCain will only continue what Bush was doing. The Libertarian and Democratic Party may not be perfect but they are definitely much more on our side than Republicans.

Also, lets not forget what Bill Clinton said: "We want to live forever, and we're getting there!"

[mentatpsi]

Hey wasn't McCain the one who had the most liberal ideals and the one that would most likely sympathize to the anti aging cause and transhumanism in general?

Well, McCain is considered to be liberal compared to other conservatives, but he's still a neocon. But believe me, no Republican will ever sympathize with transhumanists. As for anti-aging research, its such a small movement that it will take 10-20 more years before any politician will even begin to think seriously about it.

Republicans are usually against science. Take a look at Leon Kass and what he thinks about science and also look at what Bush did to the Presidents Science adviser in 2001 (Bush fired him when he came into office). And let's not forget that 60% of Bush's administration came directly from Bible Colleges. McCain will only continue what Bush was doing. The Libertarian and Democratic Party may not be perfect but they are definitely much more on our side than Republicans.

Also, lets not forget what Bill Clinton said: "We want to live forever, and we're getting there!"

Perhaps one day we'll get a transhumanist president and he'll put a lot of money and attention towards the cause ... one day...

Edited by mysticpsi, 08 June 2008 - 07:32 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

Perhaps one day we'll get a transhumanist president and he'll put a lot of money and attention towards the cause ... one day...

That will be a dream come true

An immortalist, singularitarianist, transhumanist, atheist president who wants to reform the government into a secular democratic technocracy and the military into a peace corp ... one day ...

[mentatpsi]

Anyways, I really don't trust any of the possible presidents, they all seem like horrible picks... Obama scares me with how he's going to handle Iran and not knowing his stances, while McCain scares me with how he's going to handle pretty much everything. What would you yourself go for?

Why is simple diplomacy scary? Nixon talked to China, and to Russia. Wars are avoided by diplomacy. America has sure turned weird. I guess the problem is that diplomacy is scary when people who want to have wars make it sound scary.

diplomacy isn't simple. You may have a point at the end, but i still don't see why we trust nations who have went into Iraq to attack us and supplied weaponry. They have an agenda, diplomacy doesn't always solve the problem... especially when time is of the essence.

Diplomacy isn't simple, but it is vastly less dangerous than war. It should be the first option, and war the last. Not the other way around. Diplomacy doesn't mean trusting them. You can talk to people you don't trust. That's a way to build trust. Iran has no reason to trust us, either, when we repeatedly threaten them with bombing. The nature of Iran's involvement in Iraq is not clear cut. We have been presented with information about that by the same people who want diplomacy to sound scary. There have been accusations of manipulation. It could have been (and was)
predicted that taking out the Sunni ruling structure in majority-Shiite Iraq would strengthen Shiite Iran. That was a consequence of an unintelligent, ideologically driven invasion of Iraq.

I know, but it has already happened... we now face a nation that will develop nuclear power... that slightly frightens me considering the middle east is already an extremely unstable region.

As far as Iran's involvement in Iraq, i suppose you can say it's not clear cut, but i believe it because it makes sense and there is evidence to support it. There are many countries that while in diplomacy will stab you from behind when you expect it least, they might do it covertly but it happens. I still think there's some reason why we stayed in Iraq and why it was done the way it was, i don't believe it's as clear cut as we're to believe... there's other agendas to be had.

[mentatpsi]

Perhaps one day we'll get a transhumanist president and he'll put a lot of money and attention towards the cause ... one day...

That will be a dream come true

An immortalist, singularitarianist, transhumanist, atheist president who wants to reform the government into a secular democratic technocracy and the military into a peace corp ... one day ...

that does sound like a president i'd go for... i hope not the latter part tho... nations need self defense .

Edited by mysticpsi, 09 June 2008 - 02:22 AM.

[niner]

Anyways, I really don't trust any of the possible presidents, they all seem like horrible picks... Obama scares me with how he's going to handle Iran and not knowing his stances, while McCain scares me with how he's going to handle pretty much everything. What would you yourself go for?

Why is simple diplomacy scary? Nixon talked to China, and to Russia. Wars are avoided by diplomacy. America has sure turned weird. I guess the problem is that diplomacy is scary when people who want to have wars make it sound scary.

diplomacy isn't simple. You may have a point at the end, but i still don't see why we trust nations who have went into Iraq to attack us and supplied weaponry. They have an agenda, diplomacy doesn't always solve the problem... especially when time is of the essence.

Diplomacy isn't simple, but it is vastly less dangerous than war. It should be the first option, and war the last. Not the other way around. Diplomacy doesn't mean trusting them. You can talk to people you don't trust. That's a way to build trust. Iran has no reason to trust us, either, when we repeatedly threaten them with bombing. The nature of Iran's involvement in Iraq is not clear cut. We have been presented with information about that by the same people who want diplomacy to sound scary. There have been accusations of manipulation. It could have been (and was)
predicted that taking out the Sunni ruling structure in majority-Shiite Iraq would strengthen Shiite Iran. That was a consequence of an unintelligent, ideologically driven invasion of Iraq.

I know, but it has already happened... we now face a nation that will develop nuclear power... that slightly frightens me considering the middle east is already an extremely unstable region.

As far as Iran's involvement in Iraq, i suppose you can say it's not clear cut, but i believe it because it makes sense and there is evidence to support it. There are many countries that while in diplomacy will stab you from behind when you expect it least, they might do it covertly but it happens. I still think there's some reason why we stayed in Iraq and why it was done the way it was, i don't believe it's as clear cut as we're to believe... there's other agendas to be had.

Mysticpsi, you still seem to be afraid of diplomacy. If a country is going to stab you while you are talking to them, what do you think they will do if you don't talk? You seem to think that if we talk to them we are going to get lulled into some sort of trance-like sense of security. I'm guessing you're not old enough to remember the Soviet Union. They had the ability to blow our asses off the face of the Earth. For real, right then and there, not off in some imagined future like Iran. We talked to them. If we hadn't, the Cuban Missile Crisis might have had a very different outcome. We have the most well-funded intelligence apparatus in the world. They are capable of keeping an eye on Iran or any other country that could represent a threat to us. In fact, they say that Iran is not the threat that the Neocons say it is. You can see that there are other agendas with respect to Iraq. Maybe the Neocon agenda? The same guys that want to invade Iran? One has to ask who is providing us with the evidence of Iran's involvement in Iraq. Are there agendas there too?

[mike250]

Like niner said, diplomacy is the way to go. we don't need another war with Iran, or with Syria for that matter. To suggest that and keep pushing on the the "threat" issue is really childish.

[Cyberbrain]

Mysticpsi don't worry. The last thing Iranians want is war. They are not foolish enough to give nuclear material to Hezbollah or Hamas. And with Diplomacy we can assure that they don't even continue their nuclear program. The Iranians know that if they do something stupid like attack Israel, Iran will disappear in a matter of seconds. America, Europe and Israel would not hesitate to nuke Iran. But diplomacy is the only way. A preemptive military strike on Iran's nuclear sites would have catastrophic consequences.

As for Iraq, I agree with Niner. Neocons have other agenda's for Iraq. Primarily to protect oil and gas pipelines. I know, I know, the phrase "its all about the oil" has appeared so many times that no body takes it seriously anymore. But think about it. Take oil out of the picture and every sector of the economy collapses. We're back to the stone age.

[mentatpsi]

Perhaps i'm misinformed but a lot of their economy comes from the Oil Market... it doesn't scare you guys that if these places lose their economic power out of our attainment of alternative energy, that their nuclear arsenals will likely go into the hands of terrorists out of decaying security? It happened in the soviet union. If they gained more power would they too become an obstacle in the alternative energy race... the last notion is secondary but still important.

I too believe Iraq was for different agendas, i don't think it's as simple as oil reserves, but it's quite possible, call it a stock tip... but still, it might be more complex than that. I seriously don't want a war with Iran either, i just think it would be strange to think they'll be our unconditional buddies. Either or, i wish i could share your thinking Kostas, but i don't think Iran will stop their nuclear program. From their perspective, they'd be able to lower the need to use oil as an energy source, as such increasing their economy and making it more independent... it's a smart move, and it would be very simple to say this in their attempts to attain nuclear power... i just think it can be easily exploited. Still though, one has to wonder what strain America put on their economy with their black-listing.

I am also bothered by the war with Israel that has happened so often in the past, bothered by the desires of the destruction of Israel... not just because I was born there, but because Israel is one of the few areas that prospers so well within the middle east. That really gets to me... there is no point in its destruction, perhaps in a distribution of power to appease people, but it earned a lot of the land it gained. The Iranian president has been quoted with some of his own sentiment against Israel. The fighting needs to end at one point...

Edited by mysticpsi, 09 June 2008 - 10:50 AM.

[AcrAngEL]

Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. As I Look at their most recent speeches, in pollclash what do you think about what you hear?

[Cyberbrain]

Perhaps i'm misinformed but a lot of their economy comes from the Oil Market... it doesn't scare you guys that if these places lose their economic power out of our attainment of alternative energy, that their nuclear arsenals will likely go into the hands of terrorists out of decaying security? It happened in the soviet union. If they gained more power would they too become an obstacle in the alternative energy race... the last notion is secondary but still important.

I too believe Iraq was for different agendas, i don't think it's as simple as oil reserves, but it's quite possible, call it a stock tip... but still, it might be more complex than that. I seriously don't want a war with Iran either, i just think it would be strange to think they'll be our unconditional buddies. Either or, i wish i could share your thinking Kostas, but i don't think Iran will stop their nuclear program. From their perspective, they'd be able to lower the need to use oil as an energy source, as such increasing their economy and making it more independent... it's a smart move, and it would be very simple to say this in their attempts to attain nuclear power... i just think it can be easily exploited. Still though, one has to wonder what strain America put on their economy with their black-listing.

I am also bothered by the war with Israel that has happened so often in the past, bothered by the desires of the destruction of Israel... not just because I was born there, but because Israel is one of the few areas that prospers so well within the middle east. That really gets to me... there is no point in its destruction, perhaps in a distribution of power to appease people, but it earned a lot of the land it gained. The Iranian president has been quoted with some of his own sentiment against Israel. The fighting needs to end at one point...

I totally agree. I doubt Iran will stop their nuclear program, but at least we could be friends with them ... or at least we'll be able to talk with them instead of saying they're the axis of evil (I hate Bush ).

I know many Iranians and the last thing they want is war. Iran is a very secular and modern society, just their politics are a bit extreme (but no different than Bush).

As for Israel, the war can only end when religion ends. It's a very nasty situation, I know. And theres not much we can do about. The best we can hope for is for diplomacy to work and to avoid war at all costs.

And as for McCain, he'll only make matters worse. Being hostile to a nation, placing sanctions on them, calling them names like evil, and threatening to bomb them will only aggravate them.

We only have two weapons against fundamentalism (from both sides). Education and capitalism.

[niner]

As for Israel, the war can only end when religion ends. It's a very nasty situation, I know. And theres not much we can do about. The best we can hope for is for diplomacy to work and to avoid war at all costs.

It's not about religion. To say that the war can only end when religion ends is essentially saying the war can never end. The war, such as it is, will only end when the Palestinians get a fair shake. You can't expect Hamas to go first here, Israel has to be the adult country. They hold all the chips. Without justice for the Palestinians, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

[mike250]

yeah the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to come to an end, unfortunately the USA isn't an honest broker.

Edited by mike250, 10 June 2008 - 06:15 AM.

[niner]

Now that the candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. As I Look at their most recent speeches, in pollclash what do you think about what you hear?

What the hell kind of scam site is pollclash? It compares Obama giving a celebratory speech to his supporters after winning the primary to McCain giving a sober policy speech, then asks people to rate them on several issues. The site is also plastered with McCain ads. This is just an amateurish political site masquerading as an unbiased survey. In other words, it's bullshit.

[Cyberbrain]

As for Israel, the war can only end when religion ends. It's a very nasty situation, I know. And theres not much we can do about. The best we can hope for is for diplomacy to work and to avoid war at all costs.

It's not about religion. To say that the war can only end when religion ends is essentially saying the war can never end. The war, such as it is, will only end when the Palestinians get a fair shake. You can't expect Hamas to go first here, Israel has to be the adult country. They hold all the chips. Without justice for the Palestinians, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

The issue with the Palestinians is no different than the one with the Chechnyians, or the Kurds, or the Tibetans, or with Cyprus, or even Native Americans. Everyone wants their land back or to become an autonomies country. The only reason Muslims sympathize with the Palestinians is just an excuse to get back their holy land. Israel is the capital of the worlds three biggest dessert religions and fundamentalists from all three sides want that small piece of land for themselves. People have been fighting for it for over 2000 years!

OK so Israelis kicked out the Palestinians in 1948. This kind of thing happens all the time in history. People just have to get used to it. I think Palestinians deserve justice, but the fighting has been going for so long that its become ridiculous. There are 5,499,000 Jews and 1,461,000 Palestinians in Israel. So it's too late to kick out six million people. The Palestinians are either going to have to move out to some other country (a quarter of the planet is Muslim so I'm sure theres no shortage of land for them) or they'll have to make a compromise with the Israelis.

But even if the Palestinians make some sort of peaceful compromise, fighting will still continue with either rogue terrorist groups or with terrorist organizations from other countries like Hezbollah. Fundamentalist Muslims will not be happy until all Jews and Christians are kicked out of their holy land and they control the whole territory. And despite what happens in Israel, hate among religions will still exist primarily because each religion thinks they're the right one. So the only sure way, in my opinion, to end most disputes is to end fundamentalism. And the only way I see of ending fundamentalism is through capitalism and education.

Going back to John McCain (so we're not off topic), he umm ... what was the significance of McCain and Israel again? I forgot why we started this debate

Edited by Kostas, 10 June 2008 - 06:24 PM.

[mentatpsi]

Israel:
thank you kostas! i didn't want to say it though i felt i was going to have to at one point... Israel is a highly developed nation, it is a hundred times better off than it was the moment israel gained its independence... i wouldn't be surprised if some of the transhumanism/life extension research gets done over there.

Kostas is 100% right, capitalism and education has the ability to take the place of fundamentalism, and Israel is one of the most secular and capitalistic regions within the middle east. It even has socialized health care. It has many times returned land that it acquired through wars, and acts many times only in self defense (with the exception of the recent attacks of Lebanon, which was done as a retaliation for the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier). Many people who complain about Israel don't know what it's like to live there.

haha kostas, i was even going to mention the Native Americans but you beat me to it .

Relevance:
We got into this debate because of Iran's involvement in both Israel and Iraq. Jimmy Carter, one of Obama's Advisers, is strongly against Israel and recently wrote a book about it. There's also Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is known for his anti-israel sentiments (look up some of his involvements in Afghanistan). One has to wonder how he's going to be going about this Iran ordeal, will he be lenient to Iran and their nuclear program, or will he change his appearance for the debate? McCain however, doesn't seem too strong about Iran (from republican relativism), but i think he will most likely take Bush's position and not engage in diplomacy.

I agree diplomacy is good, but this next presidency will decide many outcomes when it comes to Iran, some will add greatly to the complexity of the Middle East crisis... right now Israel is the only middle east country with Nuclear Capability, and you know Israel has often backed out of fights due to America's Intervention; it's an ally, and has been from the beginning of it's creation.

Edited by mysticpsi, 10 June 2008 - 09:57 PM.

[mike250]

a nuclear-free middle east (Iran and Israel) would be a good idea. Diplomacy with Iran is the best way to go, unless you guys would like to start another war. The biggest threats are the words coming out of the mouth of the US government and all their puppet regimes in the Arab world.

Edited by mike250, 10 June 2008 - 10:03 PM.

[mike250]

As for Israel, the war can only end when religion ends. It's a very nasty situation, I know. And theres not much we can do about. The best we can hope for is for diplomacy to work and to avoid war at all costs.

It's not about religion. To say that the war can only end when religion ends is essentially saying the war can never end. The war, such as it is, will only end when the Palestinians get a fair shake. You can't expect Hamas to go first here, Israel has to be the adult country. They hold all the chips. Without justice for the Palestinians, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

The issue with the Palestinians is no different than the one with the Chechnyians, or the Kurds, or the Tibetans, or with Cyprus, or even Native Americans. Everyone wants their land back or to become an autonomies country. The only reason Muslims sympathize with the Palestinians is just an excuse to get back their holy land. Israel is the capital of the worlds three biggest dessert religions and fundamentalists from all three sides want that small piece of land for themselves. People have been fighting for it for over 2000 years!

OK so Israelis kicked out the Palestinians in 1948. This kind of thing happens all the time in history. People just have to get used to it. I think Palestinians deserve justice, but the fighting has been going for so long that its become ridiculous. There are 5,499,000 Jews and 1,461,000 Palestinians in Israel. So it's too late to kick out six million people. The Palestinians are either going to have to move out to some other country (a quarter of the planet is Muslim so I'm sure theres no shortage of land for them) or they'll have to make a compromise with the Israelis.

But even if the Palestinians make some sort of peaceful compromise, fighting will still continue with either rogue terrorist groups or with terrorist organizations from other countries like Hezbollah. Fundamentalist Muslims will not be happy until all Jews and Christians are kicked out of their holy land and they control the whole territory. And despite what happens in Israel, hate among religions will still exist primarily because each religion thinks they're the right one. So the only sure way, in my opinion, to end most disputes is to end fundamentalism. And the only way I see of ending fundamentalism is through capitalism and education.

Going back to John McCain (so we're not off topic), he umm ... what was the significance of McCain and Israel again? I forgot why we started this debate

Tying the issue to muslim fundemantalism is really naive.

[mike250]

Israel:
thank you kostas! i didn't want to say it though i felt i was going to have to at one point... Israel is a highly developed nation, it is a hundred times better off than it was the moment israel gained its independence... i wouldn't be surprised if some of the transhumanism/life extension research gets done over there.

Kostas is 100% right, capitalism and education has the ability to take the place of fundamentalism, and Israel is one of the most secular and capitalistic regions within the middle east. It even has socialized health care. It has many times returned land that it acquired through wars, and acts many times only in self defense (with the exception of the recent attacks of Lebanon, which was done as a retaliation for the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier). Many people who complain about Israel don't know what it's like to live there.

haha kostas, i was even going to mention the Native Americans but you beat me to it .

Relevance:
We got into this debate because of Iran's involvement in both Israel and Iraq. Jimmy Carter, one of Obama's Advisers, is strongly against Israel and recently wrote a book about it. There's also Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is known for his anti-israel sentiments (look up some of his involvements in Afghanistan). One has to wonder how he's going to be going about this Iran ordeal, will he be lenient to Iran and their nuclear program, or will he change his appearance for the debate? McCain however, doesn't seem too strong about Iran (from republican relativism), but i think he will most likely take Bush's position and not engage in diplomacy.

I agree diplomacy is good, but this next presidency will decide many outcomes when it comes to Iran, some will add greatly to the complexity of the Middle East crisis... right now Israel is the only middle east country with Nuclear Capability, and you know Israel has often backed out of fights due to America's Intervention; it's an ally, and has been from the beginning of it's creation.

Iran's involvment in Iraq is a direct consequence of the American Invasion, so if you want to really blame someone you can blame the US government and their constructive chaos, which didn't turn out to be very constructive after all, unless you want to talk about the 1 billion 'embassy' (governers palace) the size of Vatican city. The US is very good at creating enemies and hyping up danger, much like they did with Saddam and recently Syria.

Edited by mike250, 10 June 2008 - 10:18 PM.

[niner]

As for Israel, the war can only end when religion ends. It's a very nasty situation, I know. And theres not much we can do about. The best we can hope for is for diplomacy to work and to avoid war at all costs.

It's not about religion. To say that the war can only end when religion ends is essentially saying the war can never end. The war, such as it is, will only end when the Palestinians get a fair shake. You can't expect Hamas to go first here, Israel has to be the adult country. They hold all the chips. Without justice for the Palestinians, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

The issue with the Palestinians is no different than the one with the Chechnyians, or the Kurds, or the Tibetans, or with Cyprus, or even Native Americans. Everyone wants their land back or to become an autonomies country. The only reason Muslims sympathize with the Palestinians is just an excuse to get back their holy land. Israel is the capital of the worlds three biggest dessert religions and fundamentalists from all three sides want that small piece of land for themselves. People have been fighting for it for over 2000 years!

On Jerusalem, if three major world religions are fighting over it, doesn't that suggest that it should have some special status? How exactly did it become the sole possession of Israel, anyway? Who decided that, and by what right? If you want peace in the Middle East, Jerusalem has to be shared. That's just the reality.

The Indians. Oh My God. Like that was ok. There is a big difference between the Palestinians and the Indians, Tibetans, and probably the rest of the groups you mention. The Palestinians were chased off their land within the lifetime of many people alive today. The Palestinians have a very large cohort of co-religionists and fellow Arabs who feel a significant degree of empathy for them. The Indians did not have anyone outside of their immediate sphere who felt a strong bond with them. The Tibetans are pretty distinct from any groups that are not oppressing them. Aside from the ethical problem of the Palestinian situation, there is a large practical problem: it inflames a large fraction of the world.

OK so Israelis kicked out the Palestinians in 1948. This kind of thing happens all the time in history. People just have to get used to it. I think Palestinians deserve justice, but the fighting has been going for so long that its become ridiculous. There are 5,499,000 Jews and 1,461,000 Palestinians in Israel. So it's too late to kick out six million people. The Palestinians are either going to have to move out to some other country (a quarter of the planet is Muslim so I'm sure theres no shortage of land for them) or they'll have to make a compromise with the Israelis.

"This kind of thing happens all the time"? Are you saying that it's OK to take another culture's land? Exchange "Israelis kicked out the Palestinians in 1948" with any other horrible genocidal activity of the 20th century, then how does that paragraph sound?

But even if the Palestinians make some sort of peaceful compromise, fighting will still continue with either rogue terrorist groups or with terrorist organizations from other countries like Hezbollah. Fundamentalist Muslims will not be happy until all Jews and Christians are kicked out of their holy land and they control the whole territory. And despite what happens in Israel, hate among religions will still exist primarily because each religion thinks they're the right one. So the only sure way, in my opinion, to end most disputes is to end fundamentalism. And the only way I see of ending fundamentalism is through capitalism and education.

I don't like fundamentalism any better than you do, so we're on the same page on that. However, I think that the number of Muslims that would not be satisfied with a fair solution is very small. It sounds like you are trying to say that the Muslims will never be happy, so there's no point in a fair solution. Many feel that the unfair treatment of the Palestinians is the very oxygen that feeds the Jihadist flame. If the Palestinian issue were solved fairly, and the US ended its occupation of Iraq, they wouldn't have much ammunition left with which to recruit new Jihadis.

Relevance to the thread: Mysticpsi touched on this, but I will as well. We are in a three trillion dollar war in the Middle East, and some want to widen it to include Iran. (And Syria, for that matter, all considered enemies of Israel.) We continue to fund Israel to the tune of about ten billion dollars a year in direct payments, goods and services. No presidential candidate can get elected without the blessing of (or at least acceptance of) AIPAC. The solution of the Palestinian issue is vital to America's well being, and is very much in John McCain's (and Obama's) purview.

[mentatpsi]

In reference to mike250's post:
Israel having Nuclear weaponry doesn't mean it'll use it. Given all the previous wars, the nuclear capabilities of Israel is a self defense mechanism, it won't use it but it sends a message that the time for senseless wars is over. Israel is a democratic country like America. People just want the easy way out of this mess, yet talk about the ethics of it.

What of the people living there? What of the quality of their lives? Does it matter that they can live long prosperous lives and can enjoy life because Israel has prospered?

The instability of the middle east was a part of the world way before America's Invasion of Iraq. I know your stance, logical jumps of a desire to maintain stability, locating threats that needs to be controlled. What we see is but little ripples of the turmoil that boils underneath the surface of these countries. Kostas is right to say that a lot of it is caused by fundamentalism, it provides a lot of the fuel for the activity (along with quality of life). If religion can bring people to terms with death, imagine what it can do for killing people...

You don't see Israel blowing up the Dome of the Rock (1948 to present) after it was built on top of the original temple, nor do you see it trying to destroy any other religious statues; that would be fundamentalism. The desire to destroy Israel and rebuild it as Palestine is the same as wanting to destroy the Dome of the Rock, the only difference is that while the Dome of the Rock is kept up and given to manage by Waqf, Israel got attacked constantly by surrounding nations. Luckily the religious jews still require for a messianic age to destroy it, which would require religion to be correct in order to happen, so i think we're safe.

I don't mean to insult or offend, just stating my opinion.

Edited by mysticpsi, 10 June 2008 - 11:55 PM.

[niner]

In reference to mike250's post:
Israel having Nuclear weaponry doesn't mean it'll use it. Given all the previous wars, the nuclear capabilities of Israel is a self defense mechanism, it won't use it but it sends a message that the time for senseless wars is over. Israel is a democratic country like America. People just want the easy way out of this mess, yet talk about the ethics of it.

What of the people living there? What of the quality of their lives? Does it matter that they can live long prosperous lives and can enjoy life because Israel has prospered?

Ethics. Ha Ha. pretty silly of me to bring up a triviality like that. I think the easy way out would probably involve boxcars and Zyclon. There's only 1.5 million Palestinians, how long could it take? Before everybody flies off the handle, I use this offensive example to show what happens when you throw ethics out the window. Without being ethical, anything is possible. What of the people trapped in the Palestinian refugee camps? What of the quality of their lives?

I don't mean to insult or offend, just stating my opinion.

Umm, yeah, likewise.

[mentatpsi]

heh, you misunderstood niner.

I merely meant that the people who talk about just removing Israel are not thinking with ethics and operating in a very hypocritical fashion. I really have to work on clarity. I knew that area would be difficult to convey given the tone of the previous paragraph... hence my separation of the questions from the beginning paragraph... didn't work though.

I never said the Palestinians should suffer though, they have full right to enjoy the benefits of the prosperity if they want. I do believe in equal opportunities, and i understand where you're coming from. Just because it's called Israel doesn't mean they can't participate in it, they have full right to be heard as a democratic country should give. The end result though should be increasing their quality of life, not removing Israel.

Plus i never said we should move them all out, just that it should exist and we should find peace with that being a term. I think with Israel, the region has the highest probability of being a democratic country, and that's what we should be working towards. So that everyone there can enjoy the benefits.

I do enjoy your humor however.

Edited by mysticpsi, 11 June 2008 - 12:56 AM.

[niner]

heh, you misunderstood niner.

I merely meant that the people who talk about just removing Israel are not thinking with ethics and operating in a very hypocritical fashion. I really have to work on clarity. I knew that area would be difficult to convey given the tone of the previous paragraph... hence my separation of the questions from the beginning paragraph... didn't work though.

I never said the Palestinians should suffer though, they have full right to enjoy the benefits of the prosperity if they want. I do believe in equal opportunities, and i understand where you're coming from. Just because it's called Israel doesn't mean they can't participate in it, they have full right to be heard as a democratic country should give. The end result though should be increasing their quality of life, not removing Israel.

Plus i never said we should move them all out, just that it should exist and we should find peace with that being a term. I think with Israel, the region has the highest probability of being a democratic country, and that's what we should be working towards. So that everyone there can enjoy the benefits.

I do enjoy your humor however.

I'm sorry I misunderstood, mysticpsi. I'm glad that it was a misunderstanding, and not your actual feelings on the matter. Do you mean that Palestinians should be able to participate in Israel as in living there? Like "Right of Return"? That usually seems like it's off the table due to the demographic threat. I know there's a spectrum of views inside Israel, not everyone is Likud, but it seems like there's a large focus on the relatively small percentage of Muslims who want to remove Israel. Like I said, I think that a fair settlement for the Palestinians would probably cause the "remove Israel" contingent of the Muslim world to gradually dry up. This would especially be the case if Israel were to develop mutually beneficial relationships with its Arab neighbors, as in trade, culture, and defense pacts. Such a relationship would at first be more beneficial for the neighbors than for Israel, but it would be an investment in a better future. This probably sounds like dreamland, but people like us have to think big...