So how 'bout that Israeli border?
shit i knew i forgot oneFlaming_Maniac wrote:
So how 'bout that Israeli border?
Africa is a joke. There does need to be warfare on that continent in my view. The line on the map in the case of Africa are indeed utter horseshit. A matter for them, not for us, however.usmarine wrote:
i bet russia would not agree with your first sentance. nor would most of africa.
As for Russia? They ain't going to invade Europe, Iran, China, etc. Their designs, if any, are limited to the Caucasus regions. They recognise their own border. If they wanted South Ossetia and Abkhazia for themselves then they would not have recognised their independence as free states.
The Israeli border is recognised under international law as the 1948 greenline.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So how 'bout that Israeli border?
PS: Read - "have pretty much stabilised"
Also what makes you think the mistakes Hitler did can't be considered as "karma" anyway?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Okay, you let karma try to work things out, I'll do it myself kthx.CameronPoe wrote:
All you can really do is make sure you are acting in a right and just manner yourself. Ultimately karma will bite the shitheads in the ass (e.g. Roman Empire, Nazi Empire, etc.).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
But without going so far as to actually do something about it. Just whine and moan. 'cause its effective.
Also, you realize the Roman Empire rules for nearly 1000 years and you would be speaking German if Hitler wasn't a tactical retard?
What makes you think, if Hitler wasn't a tactical retard that:
a) Germany would've won
b) Germany would've taken over the whole of Europe and forced the German language upon everyone
c) The USA would somehow be spared of all of this, not be attacked by Germany and even if they were, they would have defeated Germany because even though Hitler was awesome enough to take over Europe, he would have never taken over the USA/Other countries outside of Europe
Pretty stupid statements in this topic, if you ask me.
1. You failed to understand that reason is 'the thought process' and there is not 'one true right answer' to every question.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) You failed to understand the point where many others did. It certainly had nothing to do with living in harmony.
2) Stop trying to bring up irrelevant points in your apparent death throes.
3) No shit it sucks morally. The rest of us live in the real world however, where that is pretty much the only rule.
2. Death throes? Not familiar with the 67 page Israel thread that is #2 on Google it would seem.
3. I prefer to aspire to a better world. You can give the immoral elements real world a pass if you must, that is your prerogative.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-08 11:26:03)
no. who the hell would be familiar with that? lulz. grats i guess.CameronPoe wrote:
Not familiar with the 67 page Israel thread that is #2 on Google it would seem.
And that's why it'll never improve and we'll be seeing news reports about massacres in the Congo for a long long time. Sorry but the whole 'sit on the sidelines and see situations get far worse, but complain all the same' is not a good tactic imo.CameronPoe wrote:
A matter for them, not for us, however.
Bullshit. You can't affect social, political and cultural change from without in a matter of years, never mind pay for it. You need to get a reality check. I went to a War Photo exhibition in Sarajevo recently and they had photos of 7 year olds with guns and people holding up severed heads in front of children. They have a lot of maturing to do as peoples and nations.M.O.A.B wrote:
And that's why it'll never improve and we'll be seeing news reports about massacres in the Congo for a long long time. Sorry but the whole 'sit on the sidelines and see situations get far worse, but complain all the same' is not a good tactic imo.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-08 11:29:11)
Africa probably is the most honest portrayal of human nature.CameronPoe wrote:
Africa is a joke. There does need to be warfare on that continent in my view. The line on the map in the case of Africa are indeed utter horseshit. A matter for them, not for us, however.usmarine wrote:
i bet russia would not agree with your first sentance. nor would most of africa.
As for Russia? They ain't going to invade Europe, Iran, China, etc. Their designs, if any, are limited to the Caucasus regions. They recognise their own border. If they wanted South Ossetia and Abkhazia for themselves then they would not have recognised their independence as free states.
"You'll see, I'll show you, that when the chips are down, these uh... civilized people, they'll eat each other."
At our most base attributes, we are animals. When we don't have the trappings of stable government and technology to benefit us, we exhibit our true natures. We get a few glimpses of this with ethnic conflicts in the areas you mentioned.
You see, the way of life of peaceful countries like Norway and Ireland are only possible due to 3 things:
1)stable government
2)a mostly homogeneous culture
3)wealth created on the backs of Third World citizens
In our natural state, we are nothing more than less hairy cavemen. A lot of Africa is pretty close to that level.
So might doesn't make right, but it's part of how a country rises in standard of living. It's also part of what makes us such a despicable species.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-11-08 11:30:34)
And doing nothing to change that means it'll stop continuing? Yeah right. If people are taught certain values and nothing interferes, whats going to change those values?CameronPoe wrote:
Bullshit. You can't affect social, political and cultural change from without in a matter of years, never mind pay for it. You need to get a reality check. I went to a War Photo exhibition in Sarajevo recently and they had photos for 7 year olds with guns and people holding up severed heads in front of children. They have a lot of maturing to do as peoples and nations.M.O.A.B wrote:
And that's why it'll never improve and we'll be seeing news reports about massacres in the Congo for a long long time. Sorry but the whole 'sit on the sidelines and see situations get far worse, but complain all the same' is not a good tactic imo.
You missed my point completely.CameronPoe wrote:
It's funny that people are actually defending what amounts to imperialism. All I can say to that is: fuck you, imperialism is heinous, morally objectionable and worthy of cruel backlash and punishment.
Europe can choose to take more active role in many things that don't involve used of the military nor does it mean imperialism is a result.
And I believe that would be a very beneficial thing for Europe to do.
Throw some development aid at them maybe but nothing more. How are you going to teach them M.O.A.B.? Specially designed 'repurposing' facilities a la 1984? You need to get real. Just because we are at a certain stage of development doesn't mean everyone else has to be or can be.M.O.A.B wrote:
And doing nothing to change that means it'll stop continuing? Yeah right. If people are taught certain values and nothing interferes, whats going to change those values?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-08 11:31:25)
Development aid does generally bugger all in these places unless its got a guard of troops around it, because the assholes who repress everyone usually take off with it and blow on something to make the situation worse.CameronPoe wrote:
Throw some development aid at them maybe but nothing more. How are you going to teach them M.O.A.B.? Specially designed 'repurposing' facilities a la 1984? You need to get real. Just because we are at a certain stage of development doesn't mean everyone else has to be or can be.M.O.A.B wrote:
And doing nothing to change that means it'll stop continuing? Yeah right. If people are taught certain values and nothing interferes, whats going to change those values?
and where did the, 'make everything fair' argument suddenly go?
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-11-08 11:33:55)
No chance. Two reasons:Pug wrote:
Europe can choose to take more active role in many things that don't involve used of the military nor does it mean imperialism is a result.
Europe is generally, a liberal place. Politicians don't want to do shit like that, we're more concerned about getting rich rather than caring about other crap (and why not, I ask)
Secondly, it is in no way near unified enough to have stances on things strong enough to actually do anything about them. It will (I hope) never be unified enough for that. At the end of the day, everyone still hates everyone else. Not just between countries, but within countries too. Bloody scousers.
So, in summary, the imperialists of the world will likely remain America, Russia, and China. We're in such good company, don't you think?Mek-Stizzle wrote:
No chance. Two reasons:Pug wrote:
Europe can choose to take more active role in many things that don't involve used of the military nor does it mean imperialism is a result.
Europe is generally, a liberal place. Politicians don't want to do shit like that, we're more concerned about getting rich rather than caring about other crap (and why not, I ask)
Secondly, it is in no way near unified enough to have stances on things strong enough to actually do anything about them. It will (I hope) never be unified enough for that. At the end of the day, everyone still hates everyone else. Not just between countries, but within countries too. Bloody scousers.
Targetted development aid - aid that does not go through the government - can help to a small extent.M.O.A.B wrote:
Development aid does generally bugger all in these places unless its got a guard of troops around it, because the assholes who repress everyone usually take off with it and blow on something to make the situation worse.
and where did the, 'make everything fair' argument suddenly go?
You only have a responsibility to be fair in your own 'domain'. You can't enforce 'fairness' amongst others. If that were the case then the US, China, the UK, France and Russia would have had their vetoes at the UN taken off them about 50 years ago.
And what if a country asks you for assistance then? E.g South VietnamCameronPoe wrote:
Targetted development aid - aid that does not go through the government - can help to a small extent.M.O.A.B wrote:
Development aid does generally bugger all in these places unless its got a guard of troops around it, because the assholes who repress everyone usually take off with it and blow on something to make the situation worse.
and where did the, 'make everything fair' argument suddenly go?
You only have a responsibility to be fair in your own 'domain'. You can't enforce 'fairness' amongst others. If that were the case then the US, China, the UK, France and Russia would have had their vetoes at the UN taken off them about 50 years ago.
You did hit on something I'd like to highlight re: Russia. "Shooting yourself in the foot" and apply it to the US. Well, I would think by becoming more influential the US is more apt to do something different. Or alternatively, if there was a "penalty" for the behavior you abhor, perhaps it wouldn't happen as often.CameronPoe wrote:
I disagree Pug. I think all the disparate regions of what should be a wonderfully pluralistic world should develop from within not from without. Patronisingly offering/imposing moral and political 'leadership' on alien peoples is about as arrogant and doomed to failure as you could probably get. I completely disagree with your attitude of spreading your will and being forcefully or aggressively influential. I doesn't have to be via the military, nor does it have to be "aggressive". If you'd rate Europe's aggressivenes from 1-10 I'd want negative numbers currently. Note: I never said "Europe should invade Iran" or something like that, for instance.
On the matters you highlighted:
1. US foreign policy is US foreign policy. It will not bend for anyone external, nor should it. This was strongly in evidence when Bush essentially reneged on all of his promises to Tony Blair to push the Palestine question to the forefront (soon forgotten when the UK were firmly entrenched in Iraq). And why doesn't Europe a new tactic instead? US Foreign Policy is shaped by...foreigners!!! So perhaps a little more resistance will result in a little more understanding.
2. See above. The only arbiter of justice there could be in this matter is the US. Israel is heavily heavily reliant on the US to remain in existence. It ensures this through lobby groups like AIPAC and its machinations in US politics. Let's face it - Obama's first hire: Rahm Emmanuel. If the US could extricate themselves from their unhelpful bias then perhaps, as nearly occurred under Clinton, a solution could be found. Europe will never be listened to on Palestine - not least because Germany has to act sheepish over its own past crimes. See above as well.
3. I see nuclear proliferation as a natural progression. In China in the 9th century gunpowder was invented. This military technology has now spread to every corner of the globe. Nuclear weapons will do likewise. I find it arrogant, patronising and a complete double-standard that the rest of the world must have their military capabilities curtailed in favour of the incumbent military powers. And as for what Europe is doing right now? They're engaged in talks with Iran - but quite frankly Iran have copious amounts of oil and we know what that means. Well, most of the world disagrees. But you missed the point - if this is Europe's stance, why doesn't it do whatever it can to make it happen?
4. There does not need to be any greater leadership demonstrated over Russia. Keep above or on a par with them militarily is about all that can be asked for. Russia are a strategically very important country. Alienating them and treating them as an 'issue that needs to be resolved' is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. And throughly repeating the same problem Europe has with the US. Good plan.
5. Setting the example for everyone else is currently underway in Europe. Ireland for example has a target of energy from renewables of 42% by 2020 and I know from working in the industry that there is at least that amount of wind generation applications in the queue. Carbon taxes are being implemented and there has been no short-sighted whining about how 'this will affect jobs'. If someone wants to follow our example then so be it - it is completely their own prerogativeWith no doubt Europe is succeeding. But my question is what ELSE can it do besides being the example? Well, by providing leadership as well.
Vietnam and Korea were anomalies in that they were actually single nations split up by the world's great powers and not by their own determination. The South Vietnam/North Vietnam and South Korea/North Korea conflicts should be viewed as civil wars and not as wars between two nations. Matters for themselves to self determine.M.O.A.B wrote:
And what if a country asks you for assistance then? E.g South VietnamCameronPoe wrote:
Targetted development aid - aid that does not go through the government - can help to a small extent.M.O.A.B wrote:
Development aid does generally bugger all in these places unless its got a guard of troops around it, because the assholes who repress everyone usually take off with it and blow on something to make the situation worse.
and where did the, 'make everything fair' argument suddenly go?
You only have a responsibility to be fair in your own 'domain'. You can't enforce 'fairness' amongst others. If that were the case then the US, China, the UK, France and Russia would have had their vetoes at the UN taken off them about 50 years ago.
Yes, by choice.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
No chance. Two reasons:Pug wrote:
Europe can choose to take more active role in many things that don't involve used of the military nor does it mean imperialism is a result.
Europe is generally, a liberal place. Politicians don't want to do shit like that, we're more concerned about getting rich rather than caring about other crap (and why not, I ask)
Secondly, it is in no way near unified enough to have stances on things strong enough to actually do anything about them. It will (I hope) never be unified enough for that. At the end of the day, everyone still hates everyone else. Not just between countries, but within countries too. Bloody scousers.
That's my point...many excuses not to try.
I always hate it when the EU thinks it can release statements on "behalf of the EU" fucking French Sarkozy or any of those other Euro cunts isn't no representative of nobody and never has been.
You can't go from a continent that's been fighting each other ever since it's existed to suddenly a unified state. I guess, people have always tried to take over the whole of Europe by force and now they've realised you have to do it the other way round, and it's unfortunately working...
You can't go from a continent that's been fighting each other ever since it's existed to suddenly a unified state. I guess, people have always tried to take over the whole of Europe by force and now they've realised you have to do it the other way round, and it's unfortunately working...
Yep Mek, therapy is much needed for everyone...even outside Europe.
I did gather from your OP that you did not necessarily mean military intervention. Although you did very much make it an option with the phrase 'forceful'.Pug wrote:
I doesn't have to be via the military, nor does it have to be "aggressive". If you'd rate Europe's aggressivenes from 1-10 I'd want negative numbers currently. Note: I never said "Europe should invade Iran" or something like that, for instance.
I disagree - US Foreign Policy is shaped by US self interest, which is how it works in most other countries. AIPAC are Americans with votes and money that can be used in US politics. To my knowledge non-American funds are barred from political campaigns.Pug wrote:
And why doesn't Europe a new tactic instead? US Foreign Policy is shaped by...foreigners!!! So perhaps a little more resistance will result in a little more understanding.
Europe generally plays the middle man honest broker party. The 'Mr. Nice' to America's 'Mr. Nasty' in something of a double team. The most effective way of influencing people is by being nice to them, treating them with respect and being honest. To a large (but not total) extent Europe does that. It is not very forthright or imposing but frankly I would prefer it that way. What do I care if Iran gets nukes? Nutball Pakistan already has them. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. They prevented war between capitalism and communism for some 45 years.Pug wrote:
Well, most of the world disagrees. But you missed the point - if this is Europe's stance, why doesn't it do whatever it can to make it happen?
Like I said - why should we hold sway or attempt to hold sway over the US? Neither the US or Russia are compelled or would be compelled to listen to us.Pug wrote:
And throughly repeating the same problem Europe has with the US. Good plan.
I would say 'lead by example' not 'lead by forcing the example'.Pug wrote:
With no doubt Europe is succeeding. But my question is what ELSE can it do besides being the example? Well, by providing leadership as well.
One (admittedly very small) element of why Obama was elected was because the international community had come to view the US as a pariah and some people wanted to restore the US' good name amongst the community of nations. That is an example of passive influence. And Pug, you know fine well, that there is no 'penalty' that can be applied to two of the militarily strongest nations in the world, one of which being on the economically strongest nations in the world. We hold no cards.Pug wrote:
You did hit on something I'd like to highlight re: Russia. "Shooting yourself in the foot" and apply it to the US. Well, I would think by becoming more influential the US is more apt to do something different. Or alternatively, if there was a "penalty" for the behavior you abhor, perhaps it wouldn't happen as often.
Meh, we still have the pound and do what we want. I even get my £30 EMA from the EU. So in reality, Europe is paying me for further educating myself...Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I always hate it when the EU thinks it can release statements on "behalf of the EU" fucking French Sarkozy or any of those other Euro cunts isn't no representative of nobody and never has been.
You can't go from a continent that's been fighting each other ever since it's existed to suddenly a unified state. I guess, people have always tried to take over the whole of Europe by force and now they've realised you have to do it the other way round, and it's unfortunately working...