There was a United Nations buffer zone between Syria and Israel, but it was a joke. When Israel protested to the UN about Syrian shelling, the UN did nothing. That and other evidence of the impotence of the UN convinced Israel’s Arab neighbors that the Jewish State could be attacked with impunity.
And so it could, but only if the aggressors failed to reckon on the punitive power of the Israeli military.
Israel was vastly outnumbered and outgunned on all fronts, and yet managed to repel its enemies and occupy extensive portions of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, in just six days.
Once in possession of such an important strategic position, Israel was adamant that it would not give it up. The Israelis have occupied the Golan Heights for more than forty years to make sure that Syria can no longer threaten the heart of the Jewish State.
At various times since 1967, Israel has engaged in tentative discussions with Syria about the status of the Golan Heights. However, until recently there was never any serious indication that the Israelis might actually return the territory to Syria.
The situation has changed in the last few months. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a weak and vacillating leader, has given unmistakable signals that he is willing to exchange the Golan Heights for peace — or rather “peace”, that familiar and ongoing process in which Israel makes major strategic concessions in return for empty Arab promises and cosmetic gestures.
Considering the advances in military technology that have taken place during the past forty years, turning the Heights over to the enemy would seem the height of strategic folly. With Iranian and North Korean assistance, Syria would soon be in a position to threaten virtually the entirety of Israel. Included in the threat would be the frightening possibility of nuclear weapons — which Syria is known to covet — aimed from the mountaintops above Galilee towards the cities of Israel.
Obviously, the IDF could never allow things to go that far. One assumes, however, that Boy Assad — or whatever thug succeeds him — would be unable to resist making the attempt. Hence the return of the Golan Heights all but guarantees that there will be war.
So why would Mr. Olmert even consider it?
Israel Matzav has been considering the issue of the Golan Heights in a recent series of posts. On Thursday he examined the possible reasons why Prime Minister Olmert would do such a self-evidently foolish thing:
- - - - - - - - -
…most Israelis see Olmert’s [problems with criminal investigations into his alleged corruption] as the driving force behind the negotiations on the Israeli side. Here are some reasons why most Israelis don’t believe there could be much else behind our government entering into these talks.
1. Leaving the Golan is immensely unpopular among the general public. While talking about leaving may keep Labor in the government — which is its main goal — actually doing a deal with the Syrians seems most unlikely. Overnight polls indicate that the vast majority of Israelis are unwilling to come down from the Golan, even if it would bring peace with Syria.65 percent of Israelis are against a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights, even if this would bring true peace with Syria, a poll published by the Geo-Cartographic Institute revealed Thursday.
64% of respondents were also against partial withdrawal from the Heights and a similar percentage said it was inappropriate that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was holding negotiations with Syria at a time when his political future was uncertain.
Geo-Cartographic Institute president, professor Avi Dgani, told Army Radio on Thursday that “the people are with the Golan and not with Olmert. A big part of the public is against withdrawing from even a part of the Golan Heights.” Dgani was paraphrasing a bumper sticker with the text “The people are with the Golan,” distributed during Israeli-Syrian talks in the 1990s…
2. The Israeli public has been conditioned to the Golan being part of Israel. Unlike much of Judea and Samaria, which is of little interest to those who are not on the right side of the political map, the Golan is part of Israel’s national consensus. It has a very different image than Judea and Samaria.
[…]
3. Topography. Anyone who hasn’t been to the Golan would find it hard to picture. The Golan sits on the eastern side of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) and rises like a steep cliff all along it (go look at the picture from across the Sea of Galilee in the post I just linked). Roads seem to go straight up or straight down until you hit the plateau. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to feel how Syrian troops could have sat on those heights until 1967 and shot down at the Israeli fields below. The older generation still remembers that shooting. Many people in their 50’s and 60’s grew up sleeping in bunkers every night because of it. The vast majority of Israelis don’t trust the Syrians enough to concede the entire game before the negotiations even open, as the Syrians have always demanded. The topography continues to reinforce that lack of trust and the memories of the shooting.
4. Water. A year ago, I wrote a lengthy post about Israel’s coming water crisis. This came from YNet .The Israeli public should be aware that today whoever controls the areas of Samaria, Judea (which overlie vital ground water supplies) and the Golan (which is a crucial part of the Sea of Galilee’s drainage basin,) also controls of the flow of water to the taps in the nation’s homes and industries.
In order to contend with Israel’s hydrological deficit, estimated at 300-500 million cubic meters per annum, the government has decided, a decade later than it should have, to embark on an ambitious desalination initiative. The objective of this enterprise is to free the country from the fickle whims of the weather in an arid area of the world located on the fringes of a desert, by the large scale artificial generation of water.
The first such plant, sited near Ashkelon, recently began operating, more than five years after the government approved its construction. The plant, which is the biggest and one of the most advanced facilities of its kind in the world, produces 100 million cubic meters annually — i.e. between one fifth and one third of the current hydrological deficit.
This means that even without yielding a single liter of water to any Arab entity, Israel still requires the construction of an additional three to five similar plants — the biggest in the world — to achieve “sustainable management” of the existing hydro-resources i.e. to prevent their over-exploitation and accelerated salting and pollution due to excess extraction.
[…]
If Syria had the Golan, it would be even worse.
See Carl’s post for more details.
Seen from this point of view, the Golan Heights negotiations are an elaborate kabuki dance, and are never intended to result in actual withdrawal. Mr. Olmert is dancing on a precipice, but he is evidently confident that he can avoid actually pitching headlong over the edge.
Dore Gold, in an article written for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has another perspective on the issue. He goes into some detail on the history of the Golan Heights and the role it has played in the defense of Israel since June 1967.
His important point is this:
If Israel were to agree to the June 4, 1967, line, as Syria demands, it would be rewarding Syrian aggression. Moreover, it could compromise Israel’s control of its largest fresh water reservoir. Israel should not have to be arguing with the Syrians over the question of whether a future Israeli-Syrian boundary should correspond to the June 4, 1967, line or to the older international border, for neither of these lines is defensible.
[…]
It would be a cardinal error for Israel to put into jeopardy its own security by agreeing to come down from the Golan Heights. [emphasis added]
He goes on to say:
Just prior to the outbreak of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Syria deployed 1,400 tanks in this area against a total Israeli force of 177 tanks (a force ratio of 8 to 1 in favor of Syria). In the early 1990s, it was estimated that Syria generally deployed a standing force of five to six divisions in this area against an Israeli force of one division.1
It is incorrectly assumed that with the proliferation of ballistic missiles, the initial terrain conditions of conventional warfare are less important. In fact, should Syria’s considerable rocket and missile forces be used to delay Israel’s reserve mobilization, then the importance of the Golan terrain will increase as Israel’s small standing army will have to fight for more extended periods of time without reserve reinforcement.
Mr. Gold points out the strategic differences between the Sinai and the Golan Heights. The Sinai analogy is inappropriate when applied to the very different situation on the Syrian border:
The fundamental security problems between Israel and Syria — the asymmetry of their standing conventional armies — has been a problem Israel once faced with Egypt. But when Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, it compensated for its loss of control of the Sinai with “security arrangements” that fundamentally restricted Egyptian forces through demilitarized areas and limited forces zones that were a part of their Treaty of Peace.
But while these “security arrangements” were instituted in the area of Sinai, which is roughly 220 kilometers wide, the territory of the Golan Heights is largely only 25 kilometers wide and is just 12 kilometers wide at its narrowest point. In order to create sufficient security for Israel, it is necessary to institute force limitations on the Syrian Army beyond the Golan Heights, well into southern Syria.5 Given the proximity of Damascus to the Golan Heights, it is likely that Israel’s security needs for demilitarized zones will require Syria to pull back its armored forces behind its own capital.
This problem is exacerbated by Syria’s massive acquisition of ballistic missiles and rockets, especially after the 2006 Second Lebanon War.
There are further difficulties for Israel — the Syrian entanglement with Lebanon and Iran — in any potential deal with Syria. To expect the Assad regime to negotiate in good faith with the Israelis is the height of wishful thinking, given Syria’s track record of aggressive duplicity.
Mr. Gold’s conclusions:
Entering a negotiation when such broad differences of substance exist is highly problematic. Given the continuing strategic importance of the Golan Heights, it would be a cardinal error for Israel to put into jeopardy its own security by agreeing to come down from this dominant terrain. Finally, such an initiative could also jeopardize Israel’s ties with its most important ally, the United States.
All of this is absolutely true. And so we return to the central question: what is Ehud Olmert really doing?
Is he serious? If not, what does he intend to do if the United States holds his feet to the fire and attempts to make him cut a deal with Bashar al-Assad?
The Carter administration began a tradition among American presidents: before leaving office, they attempt to construct for themselves a “legacy” by brokering that most elusive of conditions, peace in the Middle East.
George W. Bush is no exception. Like his predecessor, he has instructed his Secretary of State to engineer a deal that will bring peace — or whatever passes for it in the region — between Israel and “Palestine”.
And, also like his predecessor, the intransigence of the Arabs requires twisting the screws on the Jews. Israel, after all, has proved almost infinitely flexible in the past — why not try one more time?
So the big question still remains: what will happen when the United States calls Mr. Olmert’s bluff and makes him an offer that he can’t refuse?
Will he come down from the Heights?
81 comments:
Sounds like things are gonna get even uglier over there. How can they continue to elect such idiots?
Thunder Pig,
We are able to continue to elect "such idiots," as you so correctly put it, because we have an electoral system that has no personal accountability. There are no districts and one votes only for parties and not for individuals. MK's owe loyalty only to the party and the party determines which from among their number will be the Prime Minister in the event that the party is asked to form a government.
One other statistic that was given tonight on the radio: If Israel comes down from the Golan, it forfeits control over more than 50% of its water supply. And Syria has never abided by a single agreement it signed.
Thanks for the link Baron. I look forward to a fruitful discussion.
To me the question isn't why is Israel electing such idiots... but why is Israel, United States, the United Kingdom, etc.. electing such idiots.
Even the Mullahs in Iran have to be amazed at how rapidly our nations are basically becoming empty shells... all leadership collapsing .. no courage.. no intigrity
Ugh I dont even want to think about 2009
Since Syria has never actually obeyed its agreements, why would Olmert believe this time is different?
Israel has lost the will to survive as has the rest of the West. Sure, there are large numbers in the West who still are willing to fight and hunger for survival, but their numbers are fast dwindling as the toxic ideology of multiculturalism has taken root and sapped our resolve.
The various Utopian ideologies of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries have culminated in the most pernicious of all - multiculturalism - Hitler's last laugh. Israel is the canary in the mine shaft. As she goes, so goes the West.
Carl in Jerusalem:
I first read the "Israel-has-Lost- the-Will-to-Live" meme at Shrinkwrapped's blog.
Of course, I remonstrated that his assertion was wrong, and used some small details to back up my contention that underneath it all, Israel was strong and would prevail.
However, as VinceP1974 said...
the question isn't why is Israel electing such idiots... but why is Israel, United States, the United Kingdom, etc.. electing such idiots.
And why did the EU come into existence? It is good for no one in Europe except the corrupt politico-plutocrats -- now Socialist Europe's new nomenklatura -- who will profit hugely and obscenely from its lack of accountability.
And why is Northern Europe in the dhimmified shape it has assumed, laying its own head on the chopping block to make it easier for radical Islam to take over its cultural institutions?
I wish some sociological psychiatrist like Karen Horney (Jewish of course. Landed in NYC in the '30's) were around to suss out the reasons for this horrific crumble of the foundations of Western culture.
Not that she, or one like her, could cure what ails us, but at least we would know how/why we were being obliterated and the lesson might be metabolized by some future remnant that we can only hope will survive.
This is worse than the Holocaust because our eyes are open and yet our will is paralyzed. And the destruction is not aimed just at the Jews -- the eternal scapegoats -- but also at the cultural inheritors of Judaism, Hellenism, Romanity, and all that followed after those three were woven together into a coherent tapestry.
The tapestry is so eaten by moths that the scene it portrayed is no longer discernible.
Perhaps this is a massive price the hubristic West is paying, and ironically the Jews are, too, for our passive blindness to the punitive measures coming out of Versailles (thank you, France) and the appeasements cloaked in "diplomacy" that America and England practiced during the 20's and '30's.
Not to mention our long history of perverse blindness re Stalin's reign of terror, and now our eager desire to do business with China, no matter what cost the Chinese pay for their nationalism...which is the only tattered badge the average Chinese person possesses.
__________________
By the way, a small comfort in all this is the question of water, which is germane re control of the Golan Heights, and also to the worldwide awakening to the crisis of having enough to drink:
Two architects (Israelis, of course) have devised a simple but ingenious way to collect the water in the air:
Making Water from Thin Air
These little miracles will continue to flow out of the Israeli character, aiding the world at large...right up until the very last moment.
Don't believe everything about the Golan yet. Olmert is fighting for his political life and doesn't have the political clout to push this through the Knesset. Let him talk to Syria all he wants, just like letting him talk to the PA. Nothing will come of it.
70% of Israelis do not want to return the Golan Heights. And 65% do not want to return any part of the West Bank. The same number want Israel to recapture Gaza. The Arabs have played out their hand and it has caused the nation to shift violently to the right. And none too soon.
What Israel needs is for Olmert to step down and the next PM to be a person of strong will and character. Someone who will finally teach the PA and Hamas the lesson it needs to learn.
Don't mess with Israel. We are not a "paper tiger", we have real fangs and will use them. Until then, expect to see more of these stories.
Charles Martel,
Multiculturalism and Utopian ideologies surely are toxic. And looking at things from a provincial aspect, treating your home country as it was the whole world, they surely look like the real problem. But looking at things from a planetary perspective it becomes clear that it's basic untwisted Christianity that is the problem (in the context of the Industrial Age).
Mass immigration is just a projection of a much larger problem seen from the perspective of a single nation. The problem is how we are fast dwindling into insignificance on this planet. Here are some figures. From 1950 to 1999 Europe dropped from 21,7% to 12.8% of the world population. And according to the article "Europe's share of the global population will shrink to about 6.8 percent in 2050". But this figure of 6.8% is based on the UN's fantasy estimates using the premise that the fertility rate of nations such as Somalia, Nigeria and Pakistan will drop to 2.1 until 2050. And since this is clearly not going to happen, Europe's share of the world population in 2050 will have dropped to a substantially lower number.
And an increasing share of Europe's population (15-20%) are not original Europeans. And in this respect America is ahead of us with more than 30% of non-European background.
All in all, from a world with close to 30% people of European background (in Europe, America, Australia, etc.) in 1950, it will have dropped to something like 5% in 2050.
How did this happen?
Well, the decreasing birth rates in the West just made a minor contribution to this. It's the population explosion in the Third World, mainly in the Muslim world and in sub-Sahara Africa, that does it. And how did that come to happen? Well, Western medicine and Western methods for better agriculture made the majority of the children survive instead of most of them dying.
Why do Westerners act like that? Because Christian ethics commands them to do so. It's a core doctrine of Christianity that every life is sacred. The Christian God loves every human soul equally much. This is the seed of Western egalitarianism and individualism. The Catholics Church's ban on contraceptives is just one expression of this theme. Mostly it comes in the form of doing the utmost to save every human life on the planet. This is a dogma and is never questioned. Thus the result I describe above.
Right-winger or left-winger have no difference here. Believing or atheist Christians do no difference here. The agenda of the Christian right-wingers is to fight the left at home so that they can go back to the agenda of better saving every human life on this planet, making sure we drop below 5% of the world population by mid-century.
Whatever good Christianity did in the past, it's simply not fit for the Industrial Age. It's a recipe for civilizational suicide. Once the European population drop to a number of percentage that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, the whole system will collapse, and billions of people around the world will fall into starvation and warfare. Very irresponsible, isn't it? I would like to see China responsible for population control on this planet. Westerners should be put in quarantine until they are deprogrammed from Christian ethics.
This is a serious and urgent problem, and it's time to take it seriously.
Dymphna:
I think I've said it here before... I'm convinced we're eschatological times... though not with the scernio that has become the "consesus" End time plot in Americn Christian circles, which is the Roman Empire Paradigm.. I hold to the Islamic Paradigm.
Here's a good podcast with Joel Richardson (editor of the just released "Why We Left Islam", and author of "AntiChrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah") explaining the difference
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=1265
Putting aside my crazy religious views.. I'm noticing that many people are beginning to notice and publically muse about the rot in the West..
Mark Steyn:
"I had a similar feeling on the TV Ontario show. At one point I looked across at the Sock Puppet Three and thought: It's not about who wins the argument. They're the future of this country, and that's that"
Deborah Gyapong:
"I feel like a coup d'etat has taken place and I have awakened to the aftermath.
And this egregious affront to civil rights and to the freedom to speak the truth in Canada is being perpetuated now by the Conservative government.
Woe is us. I have this awful, awful feeling that we're too late. The war has been won by the other side and there are just mopping up operations left... "
Kathy Shaidle :
"What a difference twenty years makes. And we have liberal self-aggrandizing bathroom Nazi hunters and cowardly, careerist Conservative hacks to thank for this, not just arrogant, ignorant Muslim belligerents.
Those of you who've been placing your trust and hope in electoral party politics -- and not just on this issue -- are deluded. By all means continue to write letters and sign petitions, but bear in mind that they will mostly be either ignored or will not be able to change the minds of a sufficient number of time serving cowards. "
Link is here
Why are Israeli leaders going to hand over the Golan (which is a done deal, nothing Israelis can do or say will make a damn bit of difference)? Or the West in general falling into appeasement of Muslim aggression at home and abroad?
Contrary to Conservative Swede, I do not find Christianity the cause. Most of Europe is post-Christian, Israel is Jewish, and South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and yes even China have the same impulses of appeasement of Islamic aggression. Many of those nations have little Christian character in their peoples. Islamic nations like Algeria, Iran, Tunisia have below replacement birth rates, 1.7 or so, which you can look up in the CIA World Factbook. Such rates are not too far off from some of the "higher" rates in the West.
What we can say with confidence is that as nations become wealthy, suburban, have better treatment for women, higher personal mobility, higher social mobility, greater individualism, loneliness, isolation, and atomization certain trends occur:
*Nations become unwilling to spend any money on military affairs, particularly if they find protection from the US or another patron, and don't have an immediate neighbor threatening them.
*Nations in low birth-rate places become unwilling, in safe suburban lives, to tolerate ANY casualties.
*Women tend to dominate social affairs, with single motherhood the norm, and politicians catering to them. Among things women hate: any hint of military spending, wars, conflict, violence. Among things women love: "peaceful" conflict resolutions, peace agreements, lots of talking.
*Electoral coalitions (see Barack Obama, Sweden, the UK, etc.) are constructed out of those whose main enemy are the straight white men: women, gays, minorities, etc.
[This means that for electoral solidarity gays and women cannot "notice" assaults against them by any minority, since the main enemy is the straight white men, and notice of physical or political assaults threaten the coalition by finding common cause with the "enemy." The non-response to rapes in Sweden by women, other than "anti-rape belts" is telling.]
*Broadly speaking, Western nations including Israel have become too rich, too old, too risk averse, too suburban and socially isolated from the reality of death, violence, and struggle to fight back.
Israelis are mostly suburban, with small families, who would rather flee than fight. Ahmadinejad has their number, sadly. But Americans, French, British, etc. are not very different either. America's one big advantage is that it still has more rural, working-class people who are not isolated from life and death, who do not live life in the cubicle to the club to the gym to the condo.
It is not a done deal whiskey. Not even close. They are talking, but unless Olmert can convince the IDF (he can't) and the Knesset (he's in trouble there) it is no deal.
"Israelis are mostly suburban, with small families, who would rather flee than fight"
Tell that to the people of Sderot, Ashkelon and Ashdod, all in rocket range. They aren't fleeing. They are standing their ground waiting for a change in government that will take out Hamas.
The patience of the Israelis is fading fast and G-d help Hamas and the people of Gaza when it finally ends. Then they really will have a right to scream. The wrath of the Israelis will be fearsome.
Thank you Conservative Swede for your thoughtful comment.
I suppose the question becomes, are Christian ethical standards suicidal in nature? Surely no thinking observer of history can deny Christianity’s essential role in the ascendancy of the West. Personally, I believe that when the world’s European population falls below some threshold the entire planet will suffer a cataclysmic disruption. If indeed that is true, Europeans have a responsibility not only to themselves but to all humanity – perhaps the golden goose is being bred out of existence.
So, my question to you: Is Christianity suicidal to the West or has Christianity become vitiated by modernity and is that variant (for one example liberation theology) undermining the West?
I personally feel that Christianity and Christian beliefs, traditions, rituals and prescriptions form the foundation of our entire Western tradition. Our Christian civilization has become corrupted by the Utopian ideologies of the last couple of hundred years. Christ was concerned with "personal" salvation. When Christians extend their mission to reinvent man, to deny his essential sinfulness perhaps that is where the heresy that has corrupted Christianity has crept in.
Aquinas clearly stated that Christian obligations are to those connected to us by nature, to friends rather than to strangers, and to one’s country rather than to the world. I am not a theologian, but this seems eminently reasonable to me. We have a right of survival - that is clear. As the engine that has pulled the remainder of the world along in its wake the West has a responsibility to remain strong.
I suspect (remember I am not a theologian) that a judicious application of the totality of Christian principles would lead us to our obligation to survive and perpetuate the Truth. We obviously cannot do so if we observe practices that would destroy us and therefore those practices are NOT fundamentally Christian.
I hope this rather ham-fisted attempt at a theological argument makes sense to you. The Scholastics taught us that reason and Christian faith compliment and strengthen one another. I believe that reason and Christian faith do not support our current practices which are fundamentally suicidal.
Whiskey,
Contrary to Conservative Swede, I do not find Christianity the cause. Most of Europe is post-Christian, Israel is Jewish, and South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and yes even China have the same impulses of appeasement of Islamic aggression.
Let me repeat my argument. It was not about appeasement of Islam (check again). And as I also made clear: Christian or post-Christian are equally Christian in this respect.
Let me phrase it like this: Does anyone here believe that providing the poor in the world with Western medicine, and developing and using improved methods of agriculture for feeding the poor and needy, is a leftist plot based on toxic Utopian ideologies from the French revolution?
The population explosion of the world is entirely made possible and created by the Christian West. And considering the difficulty in reversing this catastrophic development, it is the most immoral and irresponsible thing any civilization has ever done to this planet and to itself. And the Christian Right--who are so principally distressed about abortions--are the ones most stuck on making the planet head for disaster in this way.
Hate to be the contrarian here, but does anyone besides me ever read Stratfor? They've discussed this a couple times. Their argument, essentially, is that the Golan is no longer terrible relevant to Israel, strategically speaking. With advances in computers, artillery, targeting, air support, etc, Israel can bomb the crap out of the Golan at any time. And they can bomb the crap out of Syria at any time, both because of technology and because the IDF is so superior to the Syrian military.
Maybe we're all judging things based on reality from a generation ago- akin to worrying about the Fulda Gap in Germany.
Just a thought.
I'd just like to add that of those 5% that will be left to the european bioculture in 2050, probably 2-3% will be of reproductive age, considering our woeful age pyramid. And sorry oldsters, when it comes to the health of your people, only that 2-3% counts. At that point it will be very, very hard for us to hold on to the vast landmasses our forefathers won for us. Russia, Europe, Australia, America, and Canada were our collective inheritance, an enormous land for our people to multiply and flourish in. Instead we actually shrank and gave the land away. A mystery our ancestors will cry over for eternity.
Charles Martel,
Thank you Conservative Swede for your thoughtful comment.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Personally, I believe that when the world’s European population falls below some threshold the entire planet will suffer a cataclysmic disruption. If indeed that is true, Europeans have a responsibility not only to themselves but to all humanity – perhaps the golden goose is being bred out of existence.
We completely agree about this--and thanks for putting it so well--so this is where the focus should be. However simple math tells us that it's the others increasing that is the much bigger and more urgent problem than us decreasing. So we need to stop NOW to try to solve every world problem with a wimpy Christian guilt and self-sacrifice attitude. We need to impose what's necessary on the rest of the world - first!
It's like with the oil, where the "tough talking" right-wingers say how we must make ourselves independent of oil (translation: since the Arabs are so bad we as wimpy Christians must make a self-sacrifice here), when the obvious solution is to invade and take over the Persian Gulf and TAKE THE OIL. The fact that virtually nobody even manages to think that thought tells us how utterly immoral and degenerate our civilization has become. I'm sure the Chinese would do it as soon as they have become strong enough, which would be just yet another example of how morally superior to us they have become. Of course we are the ones that have the right to the oil, since we were the ones making the oil valuable in the first place (in a parallel world without us, the oil would still be useless). But what's the point of having the right to something if you are too wimpy to make use of it; if indeed you are too mentally oppressed to even think the thought that it's your right.
So, my question to you: Is Christianity suicidal to the West or has Christianity become vitiated by modernity and is that variant (for one example liberation theology) undermining the West?
No as the case I'm bringing up shows, an unvitiated Christianity doesn't make it better but probably worse. The problem is Christianity (all variants of it) in the Industrial Age. Let's make the argument simpler than it really is: Christianity was fine before, but is a catastrophy in the Industrial Age.
I hope this rather ham-fisted attempt at a theological argument makes sense to you.
Well, Christianity is somewhat flexible. If you could manage to twist Christianity that much that it goes against its 2000 years old reflexive core doctrines, then I'm interested of course. The most pragmatic argument in favour of Christianity is that it is already around. If anyone could make Christianity drop the whole "every individual human life is equally important" routine - fine! But considering how much fuss there is already about condoms and abortion, it looks like you have a rather long way to go. I believe that certain things cannot be reformed out of Christianity without it ceasing to be Christianity.
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. It's appreciated.
Whiskey, I dont know where you get your information from but Israel has a high birth rate especially among the religious, who are also the most nationalistic and is a generally young society.
The same buggaboo's keep getting blamed for the softness of the West according to the blinders that the particular individual wears.
Con Swede says it is Xianity.
Someone else claims it is multiculturalism.
On and on.
What my particular blinders tell me is that is the softness that success brings. We are removed from having to do so many things that breed toughness in individuals and society. (Me, too.)
Well, we better get tough because those who are tough are coming for our better standard of living, our women and our civilization. That they destroy it in a generation or less because they cannot maintain it does not matter to their g-d who commands it.
We are going to have to do things if we are to survive that may destroy the very civilization we seek to perpetuate. But maybe not. May be it will just be those of us who will do the dirty work who are destroyed.
Regarding Christian ethics leading to overpopulation, I've been thinking this may be just the ideology for dressing up the real agenda, which is more consumers. I'm not an economist, so I can't think this through, but it just seems obvious that the world population explosion has led to shortages and high prices for everything. Who's profiting from this? Also, as the third world gets more sophisticated, there's more demand for high-tech toys like cell phones and cars. Again, driving up the price for energy and other related things. I agree with Con.Swede about needing to deprogram ourselves from Christian inspired liberalism but this ideology is only a pretext, anyway. The real motivation is profit for multinational companies and power for governments. BTW, current events in Africa hint that the world population problem is self-correcting. Without colonialism, Africans are killing themselves fast. Although that will stabilize after China colonises Africa.
Perhaps European Christians should actually follow the
teachings of the Church and stop aborting and contracepting their way to oblivion.
Findalis:
The patience of the Israelis is fading fast and G-d help Hamas and the people of Gaza when it finally ends. Then they really will have a right to scream. The wrath of the Israelis will be fearsome.
I hope you're right. The sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned.
@Conservative Swede:
"...when the obvious solution is to invade and take over the Persian Gulf and TAKE THE OIL. The fact that virtually nobody even manages to think that thought tells us how utterly immoral and degenerate our civilization has become."
This is possibly the most ridiculous and morally abhorrent post I've read here on GoV.
What on earth gives the west the right to take by force what is not theirs? Does the sovereignty of a nation mean nothing, the lives of the people involved mean nothing, so long as the west gets its oil?
And you mention immorality? The irony!
But perhaps nobody has thought of this "solution" because maybe the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis and the Russians, all of whom possess nuclear capabilities, may not share your version of morality when it comes to waging war upon nations to rob their resources.
If the west were to use its technological ingenuity to wean itself off oil we could achieve so much without waging war including weakening mortally the camp of Islam.
And without risking yet another world war.
What on earth gives the west the right to take by force what is not theirs?
Well gee.. maybe for the fact that we discovered it. We invented the machines that need it. We invented the methods to extract it.
Are you telling us that if the time came where the only option to get enough supplies would be to get them by force that you wouldn't?
That's mighty brave of you.. Oh so altruistic.
So sanctimonious and so dismissable.
Does the sovereignty of a nation mean nothing, the lives of the people involved mean nothing, so long as the west gets its oil?
If they had the oil and they used it as a weapon against us (or the money we give them to buy it to fund their war against us) are we to expect you to cry these false tears of concern for the hardship of people?
I doubt it.
And without risking yet another world war
That's so naive , it's almost cute.
We're already in the world war.
tskal,
Perhaps European Christians should actually follow the
teachings of the Church and stop aborting and contracepting their way to oblivion.
Stay away from the teachings of the Church. It's the very source of the problem I describe.
However, I agree with you that we should stop aborting and contracepting our way to oblivion. But even before doing so, we should contracept and abort the population explosion away from the Third World. The day the Church preaches that, I'm with the church too.
So to make my overall point explicit: we should not have the same standards for us and for the Other. According to Christianity, arguments about abortion and condoms are metaphysically based; for me it's pragmatic, a result-oriented ethics. Christian ethics uses a principled standard, which is applied equally to all individuals of the world (and since the Other has an especially protected status, the equal treatment of them becomes even more imperative). This is exactly the standard that makes people indifferent to how people of European bioculture drops to 5% of the world population, then to 3%, to 1% to 0%. If the equal standard for all individuals is to be taken seriously, then this is not a problem at all. It's just the result of people's voluntary actions, while upholding a decent standard of Christian ethics regarding individual rights.
Defiant Lion,
What I find ridiculous and morally abhorrent is how we gave away the oil to the Arabic royalties in a vain attempt to treat them as our equals. Like little girls playing shop. A Quixotic make-belief game, as if suddenly feeding Arabic princes with mountains of money would do any good for the people of the Middle East. The little girls playing shop want to believe that, of course, in their fantasy make-belief world. The result of having little girls ruling the Western civilization is that the money we give away for free, for the oil that we had given away for free, is fed into madrassahs around the world and mosques in our lands, into promotion of hard-core Jihad. Now some of the little girls have found so, and do not want to play shop any more with their playmates. But they have already given away all the toys for free to their playmates. It's time for an adult to intervene here.
The idea that the Arabic princes have the moral right to the oil is ludicrous at so many levels! Shame on you for promoting that idea!
But perhaps nobody has thought of this "solution" because maybe the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis and the Russians, all of whom possess nuclear capabilities, may not share your version of morality when it comes to waging war upon nations to rob their resources.
Oh, be sure that they share my version of morality. You are the odd one out here.
If the west were to use its technological ingenuity to wean itself off oil we could achieve so much without waging war including weakening mortally the camp of Islam.
We stop buying the oil that we had given away for free, and the Chinese will buy it instead. It will strengthen the Chinese and the Arabs at our expense.
"weakening mortally the camp of Islam" -- seriously, I have had enough of the fantasies of little girl playing shop.
Vince:
"Well gee.. maybe for the fact that we discovered it. We invented the machines that need it. We invented the methods to extract it. "
Whoopee do. Does that mean then that only those lands and people who have invented anything have a right to use it? Utterly ridiculous and arrogant and nauseatingly so. You do not have the right to wage war on a nation because you need oil. Or do the needs of consumers greed come before international law and the rights of sovereign nations?
"Are you telling us that if the time came where the only option to get enough supplies would be to get them by force that you wouldn't?
That's mighty brave of you.. Oh so altruistic.
So sanctimonious and so dismissable."
Now you construct a straw man. Disingenuous. But I will answer it. Did I not mention technological advancement? Or do we just stop at oil? There are many other energy alternatives perhaps we should explore and develop them? Or is invasion and war better options in your limited little consumer paradise?
They are using the oil as a weapon against us but what does the most harm is our rampant consumerism and our sick dependancy on oil. Peak oil is an issue that is now biting because the west refused to acknowledge it and continued to contruct a society based on a finite resource.
That you and those like you would use this to justify invasion and risk worldwide catastrophe beggars belief and you have the piety to label me as "sanctimonious".
The fact is this has been coming and you and people like you didn't give a damn and put your own greedy needs first and carried on regardless. We are reaping what we sowed and we bear responsibility. Blaming the OPEC nations because they have the oil is a cop-out and it's also cowardice.
I bet you wouldn't be so keen to sacrifice the sons and daughters of your nation if it were China who had the lion's share of the oil would you?
CS:
"What I find ridiculous and morally abhorrent is how we gave away the oil to the Arabic royalties in a vain attempt to treat them as our equals"
Agreed,mistakes were made by the west but that does not justify your call for invasion.
"The idea that the Arabic princes have the moral right to the oil is ludicrous at so many levels! Shame on you for promoting that idea!"
A straw man and a poor one at that. Please show me where I said this? The resources of a sovereign state belong to its people. That the oil sheikhs abuse this does not justify an invasion "by an adult". Please, let's not be so crass here.
"Oh, be sure that they share my version of morality. You are the odd one out here."
What? They share your version of morality that the US should invade and grab the oil? Are you real? I think their version would differ greatly. Perhaps they might want a share? Perhaps the EU might? What you gonna do war man? Fight them all? Nuke 'em?
Dumb idea. Real dumb. And I'm the odd one out? I think not.
"...seriously, I have had enough of the fantasies of little girl playing shop."
You say a lot without saying anything. This is just a nothing statement, pompous bluster. There are many ways we in the west can weaken dar al Islam, you've even mentioned one in your last comment. But rather than go on any further, I recommend you read Hugh Fitzgerald over on Jihad Wacth for a superb analysis on how we can weaken mortally dar al Islam without resorting to lawless military intervention favored by war mongers who for sure won't be paying the price.
One of the greatest gifts the west gave to the world was the rule of law. That we in the west would abandon this gift so willingly to satiate our greed is absolutely shameful and is a path we tread at our great peril.
Please reference Kipling:
"When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
Defiant Lion or Simpering Sheep?
Lenin once said that the west would sell them the rope that they would use to hang us. Well, we are funding the terrorists and islamists that seek to dominate us.
The strong take the weak. It is how nature works. We moderate that, and thank goodness, but if we completely get rid of it, we will find ourselves erased by those not afraid to apply the rules of nature to us.
And only a complete fool, someone with the emotional maturity of a 10 year old, would think that by being nice, or morally superior, that the enemy will choose to emulate that niceness.
Sounds like the same fatal mistake that some folks made in 1930's Germany.
I agree that anyone with the healthy instinct to survive would be willing to go to war to seize oil, food, water, or anything else that's necessary for survival in the modern world.
But defiant lion is right that there's no way the rest of the world would let us seize the oil since they have a stake in it too. It's a pipe dream. Of course, at the same time, we're not letting them seize the oil either. Isn't that good enough? Plus why take their oil, the US has more oil in its own borders than saudi arabia. We're not even using our own resources.
Also I agree that birth licensing is the only way to prevent overpopulation, but again there's no need to invade anyone. If you simply cut off immigration and refuse to give any foreign aid, the population of the world will stabilize without attacking anyone. They'll have to live off of whatever they have in their own borders, and that will reach a natural limit. Right now they can have limitless children since they can always come here or receive charity. Again yes it's morally fair to stop overpopulation which is threatening to conquer all our land, but there's nicer ways to go about it which anger fewer people.
Nicer ways, the dream. The problem is, we have our wonderful western media, an entire class of people that should be shot for treason. There are probably more pro-American muslims than there are pro-American journalists. They would spin ANYTHING to make us look bad.
We send food to N. Korea and Zimbabwe. If we didn't do it for political reasons, our gov't would be raked over the coals for putting politics above humanity. But not sending food, and actually air-dropping weapons and resistance material would be the winning ticket. But the media would spin it up, and the UN, which is as much our enemy as the USSR ever was, would agitate against us. Until we have politicians who would rather do right than be liked by liberals, until we start hanging traitors again, until we start educating people so that they have a clue as to what makes America and the captialist west great, we will have more of the same.
Ultimately, it all comes back to liberals running over the rest of us, and the rest of us not doing anything about it.
Mr SmarterThanYou:
You have totally fialed to understand the issue here. You also fail to understand that being strong does not equate to abandoning international law to invade a sovereign nation and steal its resources. You then fail to separate the issue of the spread of Islamism from the issue at hand here, that being the call to take by force resources of one nation that are also wanted by other nations.
If you think the US - or conversely, China, Russia or the EU - can just waltz into the ME all guns blazing and ride off with the oil then you are away with the fairies. The resulting fallout from any such action will be catastrophic. How you or anyone else fails to see this is a mystery to me.
You then compund your lack of understanding by confusing upholding international law and respecting the integrity of a sovereign state by not illegally invading it with being nice or morally superior. That you even draw a comparison with the appeasement of Hitler's Nazis - a force who really enjoyed invading nations and waging war - with the issue at hand is further evidence of your confusion. Smarter than anyone here on GoV you most clearly are not.
Read Diamed's post. He pretty much hits the nail on the head about this issue.
While Olmert may be suicidal, I don't believe Israel is.
The Golan Heights were captured forty years ago, as spoils of war. If Syria has been unable to take them by force, why should Israel give them away?
Syria can go to Hell!
Long Live Israel!!!
Diamed, Defiant Lion and others,
What I'm trying to establish is our moral right to take back our oilfields in the Persian Gulf. That implies that if we do succeed in doing so that it means a victory for ethics and true justice. And the priests in the Churches around the West will all praise this (or they are leftist traitors that need to be removed). Defiant Lion will also applaud this since the oil is taken back from the crooks, and part of the profit can be used to pay a tribute to the Arabic people. And China, Russia etc. won't be having any objections since we will be selling oil to them, there won't be any difference. And they would respect us, instead of dipising us as they do now.
America and the West are bringing all the whining and attacks upon them because they are so very much asking for it.
Read Weaponizing Civilization by Raymond Kraft:
Now, Russia and China want to be on the winning side of things in ten years when the dust settles, so they are selling weapons to the IRM, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Iran, betting that America will not wake up and smell the coffee, and will not develop the intellectual, strategic, or moral clarity to recognize that it is dying a death of a thousand cuts, until long after it's too late to save the patient, or the victim. So far, Russia and China are betting on the right horse.
...
Russia and China will not be overrun by the Islamic Resistance Movement, since they do not have our qualms about collateral damages, civilian casualties, nor our obsession with being "nice." They do not have our pathological desire to be liked by everyone. They do not fancy themselves quite so civilized, so "over-civilized," as do we, and so their civility cannot be weaponized and turned against them. They do not want "peace" as obsessively as we do, and so their passion for "peace" cannot stab them in the back.
...
The support of Russia and China for the Islamic Resistance Movement (via Iran) will, however, evaporate, when, or IF, the United States comes to its senses and begins to systematically deconstruct the ability and will of Iran, Syria, and the Islamic Resistance Movement, to project terrorism throughout the world. Russia and China, quite logically, want to be on the winning side of things when the dust settles. And if another horse starts to run faster, they'll change their bets.
Russia and China wants to be on the winning side. They'll respect a winner. However a guilt-ridden loser-mind they will play like a violin. This is what makes Russia and China morally superior to America and West. Suicide is always immoral.
Defiant Lion,
You also fail to understand that being strong does not equate to abandoning international law to invade a sovereign nation and steal its resources.
You are truly a U.N. affectionado, aren't you?
You live in a fantasy world. There is no international law. it's a chimera. Ask any lawyer. And the majority of the states around the world do not belong to its people, as you dream. Only a minority of them have truly earned a status of sovereignty, and many of them are not even nations, and yet some are not even states.
Throw away your faulty map, and take a look at reality instead.
Then again, many cultures around the world are too primitive to even make use of the resources they happen to squat above. Call me a communist if you want, but I think the pianos of the world belong to those who can play the piano. I rather live in a world of beautiful music than a world submitted to U.N. principles and waste of resources.
CS:
I do not agree that we have a "moral right" to the ME oil nor do I agree with your labelling of those who have oil "crooks". That is demonisation and a one-sided one at that.
The west also has its crooks - what justice for them? For inflicting the destructive global capitalism and its insatiable consumerism that is destroying our planet?
You are fixated on oil, so much so that you would go to war for it a view I find unsupportable. We have other options. We have technology, we have alternative energy sources to oil, and we also have the option - shock horror gasp - of reigning in our rampant greed and living more in tune with the earth and its resources. Making our nations self-sufficient might be a good idea, that way we wouldn't have to worry about China, Russia, Iran etc.
But why consider alternative solutions including solutions that dramatically if not mortally weaken our enemy when you can get tooled up and jet off to bomb, shoot, kill maim and destroy another nation and its people and steal their property.
As for the Kraft book, the debate here is about invading the ME for oil. The threat and spread of Islam is a different matter. But here is another issue both you, Kraft and others may wish to consider before you call for war.
The west is flooded with muslim immigrants and this is continuing at pace. We in Europe now have an Islamic state at the centre (thanks USA) and we also have Turkey clamouring to join the EU.
You may think you can just bowl into the ME and steal the oil but what do you think woud happen bacdk at home?
Weaning ourselves off oil and reigning in our rampant consumerism is I believe a far more effective and beneficial strategy that will achieve many more benefits for the west without spilling more of our blood.
Defiant Lion,
I do not agree that we have a "moral right" to the ME oil nor do I agree with your labelling of those who have oil "crooks". That is demonisation and a one-sided one at that.
So you do think the Arabic princes have the moral right to the oil, after all. And not only that, you are eager to defend them and their "honour".
Submissive Sheep:
There is no international law, only international deal making.
If there were international law, China would not be in Tibet, FARC would not be working across borders, and about half of the UN staff would be in prison.
And you are very, very silly to use the "if we do it, then china (et al) will do it, and since we don't want them doing it, we shouldn't" argument.
If you think that by abstaining from intervention, we prevent others, by virtue of our virtuous example, from doing it, then you are being foolish. I use that word because you obviously have no grasp of world political and historical reality.
A prime, current example:
China has sent arms and troops to prop up Mugabe. Did they do it because we sent arms and troops to help the opposition? No, they did it because we showed inaction. According you your world view, by our keeping out of it, others would too.
So now that we know that wherever there is a power vacuum, someone will fill it, what are we to do? Do we stand back like idiots and say "gee, if we show the morality of not filling that vacuum, no one will, and kumbaya, we will have peace"? Better yet, once we have done that, and been shown to be fools, shouldn't we handle it differently the next time?
Look at Carter, the man is a complete jackass, totally inept, and has cost the west billions of dollars and countless lives. We have seen him and his ideology to be a complete failure, but still, leftists listen to him, and think the rest of us should.
That takes us from stupidity to mental illness.
SmarterThanYou
First you descend into the gutter with an insult then you completely msirepresent and misunderstand the whole issue with yet another straw man:
"And you are very, very silly to use the "if we do it, then china (et al) will do it, and since we don't want them doing it, we shouldn't" argument."
No the point is that if the US invade the ME for oil the fight won't end there. Dirty bomb in Chicago? Virus outbreak in London?
But you have such a fantastic grasp of the world you will surely have figured this out for yourself and discounted it as unlikely. Besides, if the west gets the oil who cares?
You then again descend into the gutter by labelling me "foolish".
That you cannot see that better, more intelligent and more beneficial solutions for the west exist makes me a fool does it? That your lust for blood would cause an absolute catastrophy doesn't matter to you because all you can see is a need for oil and if the west wants it it gets it.
That the west has put itself in this position with its greed and its idiotic mass immigration programs makes a call for war absolute madness.
What you and people like you have yet to grasp is that conventional warfare is finished. Asymetric warfare is here. Your war wouldn't just be in the ME it will be all over the west as well.
Your penultimate paragraph is ridiculous as it is again a straw man and is not my stance.
Your argument absoloves the west of any responsibility for the mess it is now in. Your call for war is an easy way out, a cowardly bullying way out because instead of using our technical ingenuity and our intelligence you want to resort instead to overwhelming firepower - a tactic I seem to recall has failed the US on one or two other occasions.
To summarise your somewhat out of touch argument, you:
Think it's perfectly OK for the US to send men, women and billions of dollars worth of awesome firepower to the ME, crush the people there and steal their oil. You think the Chinese, the Russians, the EU, the UN, the Indians, the Pakistanis, the Turks etc.will sit there in admiration because the US is really strong and powerful. You believe the muslim population throughout the west will forget their allegiance to the ummah and will also sit in wide-eyed wonder as the US kills muslims in dar al Islam and robs muslim oil.
Forgive me if I hold a slightly different - very very silly and foolish - view of world political and historical reality.
CS:
And you too join STY in the gutter:
You are truly a U.N. affectionado, aren't you?
Desperate to smear me and cloud the issue because your argument is so weak you resort to stupidity.
But understand that I'm a proud British Nationalist who wants Britain out of the UN for a variety of valid reasons but that is beyond the debate as was this asinine statement of yours.
And just as I thought you couldn't possibly make a more asinine statement you conjure up this little gem:
"So you do think the Arabic princes have the moral right to the oil, after all. And not only that, you are eager to defend them and their "honour"."
How pathetic and how wrong. I have not said this but let's indulge you in your war-mongering, self-righteous vanity.
Do the politicians who run the west, the global capitalists whose greed knows no bounds and the people in the west whose rampant consumerism is placing a terrible and unsustainable strain on the planet - driven of course by the availabilty of cheap oil - have a greater moral right to the oil than the Princes you demonise?
Your argument is completely bankrupt. Just because these princes are corrupt doesn't mean they have less right to their oil than anyone else. If the west were smart - and it isn't - they would be using this abuse by the princes to agitate and irritate the people who really do own the oil, the people of the lands in question.
Something Hugh Fitzgerald has been advocating for years as it means we in the west don't pay such a high price in terms of our blood and our money to solve THEIR problem.
And hey, it would also severely weaken dar al Islam too.
I think the birth of Israel was an unique and standalone event in History. Israel was created and built by the Holocaust Generation, people who came back from the throat of death and corollary, they had the will to create and to survive and prosper. They appretiated the freedom they never had before.
That generation for the most part now extinct and the unique spirit died with it. And for good.
Jewish people were never warriors: 2000 years of ghetto/shtetl life made them to succumb, submit, accede, surrender to stronger powers.
With he disappearance of the pioneer generation, contemporary Jews now revert to the old ghetto mentality of 2000 years.
Nationhood is a burden they cannot internalize and comprehend, they cannot relate to it:
look around, British Jews organizing boycott against Israel, 100 "intellectuals" refuse to support Israel(Guardian co.uk) American Jewish political groups bashing Israel incessantly...so do prominent Jewish American individuals.
In Israel a few people whining but the majority keeps silent, and regards the dissolution of their homeland with abject indifference. Protest? Nope.
A sickly old traitor can do this all by himself and nobody objects it?
The damage is done the deal is done, bid farewell to Israel.
And a warning for us: these people are expert in destroying any host society, now they are at it in Israel and after that they will move on to other countries if History serves as example.
They did first in Russia,> Germany,> Hungary,> Israel> ...I wager US will be next.
bela:
Clarify something for me.
Who is the "they" in this sentence:
"They did first in Russia,> Germany,> Hungary,> Israel> ...I wager US will be next."
Jews?
D. Lion,
You are a socialist.
CS:
"You are a socialist."
Am I? Just like I'm a UN "afectionado" eh?
You are a disingenuous, narrow-minded and clearly confused individual wholly lacking in debating skills, honesty and reason.
Brickbats and mud-slinging along with smearing assumptions belong to the intellectually challenged.
I have raiosed serious and honest objections to your call for war and in turn you have resorted to the gutter rather than debate honestly and openly. This says far more about the weakness of your stance than anything.
Your ridiculous position has been well and truly exposed. Unless you can drag yourself from the gutter and offer serious, reasoned and logical argument to support your war mongering then I consider this debate well won.
Insults and adhominem attacks - I expected better from commenters here on GoV, these are the trademarks of marxists and liberals not of people who honestly and sincerely seek to discover truth and a better way.
While we're talking about who has rights to the oil, why are we ignoring the fact that it isn't the Saudi's oil. That's right, it's not theirs. Western oil companies bought the oil, which the Saudis gladly sold because they thought it was worthless. When it turned out to be valuable, they sent in their army and took control of the fields and equipment. Of course they never paid for what they stole, it being intolerable for a Muslim to owe an infidel anything. It is "theirs" only because they reneged on their agreements with the infidels (big surprise!). In this light, taking their oil fields isn't so crazy. Moreover, why should anybody believe they (the Muslims) won't trigger a dirty bomb or a virus attack regardless of what we do?
D. Lion,
No but you really are a socialist!
CS:
Ner ner ner ner no I'm not :-))
Can you possibly debate like an adult and offer any evidence? Anything substantial? Anything that doesn't involve banality?
Next you'll be calling me a racist. Or a nazi. Or - heaven forbid - A FASCIST!
Heard it all before mate. Faced it. Fought it. Beat it. It now means nothing.
Is that the best ya got, war man?
vincep 1974
Who are THEY? Here they are:
British Jews call for boycotting Israel’s independence ...
Apr 30, 2008 ... British Jews call for boycotting Israel’s independence ... Bresheeth was the organizer of the call for an academic boycott against Israel. ...
____________________________________________
Jewish Left-Wing Community..........Socialists, Marxists & Anarchists
This is a website of Jewish Socialists, Anarchists, Environmentalists, Animal Rights Activists and Peaceniks to promote Left-Wing ideas back into the Jewish ...
www.left-wing.net/
_____________________________________________
LEFTIST JEWS' HATEFUL OBSESSION - New York Post
Feb 18, 2007 ... TOO many writers and pundits today are obsessed, almost pathologically, by the conviction that Israel is the most evil country that ever has ...
www.nypost.com/.../postopinion/postopbooks/
Conservative Swede and Defiant Lion --
Your comments have degenerated into pure name-calling, which violates rule #1 (civility).
If the case can't be argued on the merits, without any name-calling or label-affixing, it doesn't need to be made.
It doesn't matter if anyone is a socialist or a fascist. What matters is whether the idea has merit.
So cut it out. I'll delete any further name-calling comments when I see them.
Baronn
Should you feel I have behaved out of line then I humbly apologise.
But I feel that it is I who have been on the end of ad hominem attacks and I have tried to make this point and keep the debate civil and on topic. To no avail.
Again, I apologise if you feel my contributions are out of line.
Randian,
Thanks for your succinct historical resumé.
In this light, taking their oil fields isn't so crazy. Moreover, why should anybody believe they (the Muslims) won't trigger a dirty bomb or a virus attack regardless of what we do?
Yes indeed. It's seems that no one so far has noticed that I have not called for war on this issue. I have just brought up the issue from a principled point of view. Nevertheless, when the time is right the oilfields should be restored to their rightful owners (yes, so they can be exploited by filthy Western capitalists, D. Lion). This is an easier mission than Iraq, less risky and winnable.
However, the West is full of people, like Defiant Lion and Diamed, that have a very special sort of superstition which makes them think a lot of bad things will happen to us if we act in our own self-interest. That breaking the edicts of bloodless Christian ethics is the cue for China, Russia and Muslim Jihadists to attack us. Nothing could be more wrong. They are all already doing their utmost to harm us. Instead acting with self-confidence would gain us respect, and in the longer run win allies among Russia and China.
Let me point out that most socialists today deny that they are socialists, and that it's not name-calling to point out that they actually are.
Let me then quote an unnamed person, and ask you all what ideology this represents:
"the destructive global capitalism and its insatiable consumerism that is destroying our planet"
Conservative swede:
Word smithing 101:
The Marxists hate to be called as such - for its pernicious association with unbridled genocide - so they have new names for the same things:
Progressive, liberal, democrat, humanist...
The History from the "The Origins of Political Correctness"
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
"... the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank."
But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified
as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism.
So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research."
Dymphna: (from her link about “Making Water from Thin Air”)
Inspired by the dew-collecting properties of leaves, one 315 sq ft unit can extract a minimum of 48 liters of fresh water from the air each day. Depending on the number of collectors used, an unlimited daily supply of water could be produced even in remote and polluted places.
The correct term for gathering water in this fashion is “dehumidification”. Expanded to a scale whereby it could augment a national drinking supply, such atmospheric dehumidification might easily bring about regional ecological disaster. The law of unintended consequences applies here in spades. Desalination is much saner and less likely to cause environmental collapse.
Findalis: Then they really will have a right to scream.
It’s long past tea for the Palestinians to finally be screaming bloody murder in earnest.
Con Swede: So we need to stop NOW to try to solve every world problem with a wimpy Christian guilt and self-sacrifice attitude.
Finally, the “A” word begins to rear its ugly little head.
VinceP1974: Oh so altruistic.
There’s the little devil. Altruism in any form is nothing but a suicide pact. Something that the West in particular needs to get over with all possible haste.
Defiant Lion: Or do the needs of consumers greed come before international law and the rights of sovereign nations?
Substitute “consumers greed” with “national security” and the question takes on an entirely different cast. Especially with respect to observing the “rights of sovereign nations” that overtly sponsor terrorism. When shall they pay the piper and how?
Defiant Lion: The resources of a sovereign state belong to its people.
Defiant Lion, do you agree that Saudi Arabia is a tyranny? If so, then I will ask you to please remember that tyrannies have no sovereign rights. While, per your argument, the Saudi oil may belong to its people, they were also responsible for the 9-11 atrocity and a ONE TRILLION dollar collapse of the American economy. Appropriation of the Ghawar oil field would compensate nicely for that. Continuing in that, admittedly, fantasy theme, America also possesses sufficient military assets to seize the Ghawar oil field in a lightning raid of such speed and stealth that other nations would risk starting nuclear war to counterattack or intervene.
Defiant Lion: One of the greatest gifts the west gave to the world was the rule of law.
I seem to recall that Rule of Law also provides for the confiscation of property from criminals as ill-gotten gains. The continued funding of terrorism through operation of MME (Muslim Middle East) oil fields represents an ongoing criminal enterprise. There is a price to be paid for such perfidy and very few options present themselves. Among them are (in order of desirability):
Assassinating Islam’s clerical, scholastic and financial elite.
Appropriating the MME’s oil resources to interdict Islamist funding and compensate for their terrorist activities.
Halting all wheat shipments from the West so that the MME starves to death in very short order.
Glassing the entire place over and going in with lead-lined suits to extract the oil afterwards.
The options are not pretty. Plus, nothing says that we could not provide far more equitable distribution of oil revenues to the MME’s people than their current brood of kleptocrats. We need not steal the stuff, just cut out the malignant middle men.
Defiant Lion: being strong does not equate to abandoning international law to invade a sovereign nation and steal its resources.
Again, terrorist tyrannies have no sovereign rights.
Con Swede: What I'm trying to establish is our moral right to take back our oilfields in the Persian Gulf. That implies that if we do succeed in doing so that it means a victory for ethics and true justice.
To the extent that Iran—and other MME nations like Saudi Arabia—appropriated or nationalized (read: STOLE), American owned extraction and refining assets, this is not entirely out of the question.
Con Swede: And the majority of the states around the world do not belong to its people, as you dream.
Le Bingo!
Defiant Lion: nor do I agree with your labelling of those who have oil "crooks".“
While not all oil producing nations are criminal enterprises, a vast majority of MME OPEC members most certainly are. One need only examine how the overwhelming majority of MME nations are ongoing crimes against humanity.
The west also has its crooks - what justice for them? For inflicting the destructive global capitalism and its insatiable consumerism that is destroying our planet?
And your point is? Everywhere has crooks. You really tip your Transmationalist hand by alluding to “destructive global capitalism”. Capitalism is not to blame. Corruption and lack of ethics is . Greed and corruption are among some of the most destructive forces currently in operation. Capitalism has little to do with it. Your “insatiable consumerism” represents a free choice made by free people. Free choices can also be wrong choices, but consumerism is also responsible for the industrialization and productivity that feeds our modern world. Your reasoning comes dangerously close to the Zero Sum Game.
You are fixated on oil, so much so that you would go to war for it a view I find unsupportable.
In case you hadn’t noticed, we are already in a war over oil. Oil that funded al Qaeda, oil that built madrassas in Pakistan. Oil that backed the Taliban who sheltered Osama bin Laden and his plotting of the 9-11 atrocity. This war with Islam is very much about oil and it is exceptionally puerile to think otherwise. Please let me know when you’re ready to abandon driving your car or taking most mass transportation in order to maintain moral purity.
As for the Kraft book, the debate here is about invading the ME for oil. The threat and spread of Islam is a different matter.
Au contraire, the two are nearly inseperable. Islam’s spread is tied directly to petrodollars and both issues require similar attention. Kraft most certainly has one thing right, Islam weaponizes every best aspect of Western civilization to turn against us. Such thanklessness and ingratitude must not go unpunished.
… the west has put itself in this position with its greed …
Your West-bashing is as tiresome as it is misguided. Without Western intervention, the MME would still be herding goats. Without Western intervention, once again, the most likely outcome will be a Muslim holocaust, entirely brought about by Islam’s apocalyptic triumphalism.
What you and people like you have yet to grasp is that conventional warfare is finished. Asymetric warfare is here. Your war wouldn't just be in the ME it will be all over the west as well.
In case you have not noticed, global jihad is all over the West already. Be it slow demographic jihad, fast terrorist jihad or individual cases of Sudden Jihad Syndrome, we are being peppered with Islam’s low level conflict. Allowing MME tyrannies to continue their program of asymmetrical warfare will only lead to the eventual immolation of the entire region. Either we intervene now or face the eventuality of a Msulim holocaust.
Do the politicians who run the west, the global capitalists whose greed knows no bounds and the people in the west whose rampant consumerism is placing a terrible and unsustainable strain on the planet - driven of course by the availabilty of cheap oil - have a greater moral right to the oil than the Princes you demonise?
Actually, yes. But that ignores your continued bashing of the West and capitalism.
Just because these princes are corrupt doesn't mean they have less right to their oil than anyone else.
Only in cloud-cuckoo-land.
I expected better from commenters here on GoV
Sadly, so did I. Here I shall agree with you very much. Even as you yourself descend into personalities.
Enter, the Baron. ‘Nuff said.
Zenster,
Con Swede: So we need to stop NOW to try to solve every world problem with a wimpy Christian guilt and self-sacrifice attitude.
Finally, the "A" word begins to rear its ugly little head.
People tend to interpret things in simplified categories. When I criticize the right-wing I sometimes get to hear that I must be a socialist. And when I criticize Christianity I get to hear how I'm and atheist. This is one-dimensional thinking.
Regarding atheism, I've been saying all along that the "wimpy Christian guilt and self-sacrifice attitude" is far worse among Western atheists than among Western Christians. This is simply the result you get if when you throw out God and Christ from Christianity. The only thing left is the Christian ethics of inversion of values, and since Christ is no longer around for you to take the major burden of sacrifice, you will have to perform all the self-sacrifice personally, if you are a Western atheist. Needless to say, this is what I object to, not what I stand for.
With your knee-jerk reaction. Zenster, you evaded the issue at hand. How do you suggest that we deal with the deeply rooted Christian ethics of our culture, with its inversion of values, seeing the strong as bad/evil, the weak as the good, and the Other protected?
Here's an article I wrote last year on this topic:
Christian ethics--to be or not to be?
Quote:
"Christian ethics without Christian religion is fatal." By simple logic we can conclude that there are only two ways to go from there: 1) Either we put God and Christ back into the equation in order to balance the Christian ethics and make it less suicidal, i.e. we'd need a resurge of Christianity, and once again making our civilization being defined by Christianity. 2) Or we must leave Christian ethics altogether.
CS: I think the "A" word he had in mind was "Altruism" not atheism.
Notice how you said self-defeating attitude.. and he said the A word is starting to show its head.
And then he quotes me where I used the word, and the says Ah there's the little devil.
Con Swede: Regarding atheism ...
Ummmm, no.
VinceP1974: I think the "A" word he had in mind was "Altruism" not atheism.
Thank you, Vince, for reading carefully. Altruism's dictate that the only good things one does are those that are done for others is nothing short of cannibalism. It is the root and branch of religion's and Liberalism's continued assault upon the human ego and is directly responsible for much of the self-doubt that currently afflicts the West.
Be certain that some religions have brought many good things to the table of humanity, but the denigration of individuality is not one of them.
Permit me to share my own interpretation of a Biblical quote:
MY CUP RUNNETH OVER
The body is a container of energy and spirit much as it is a vessel of water. Draining that vessel in order to help others is self-defeating in that, eventually, we so deplete ourselves that our ability to help others is crippled.
Better that we improve our own productivity until that proverbial cup or vessel overflows with a bounty of energy that we cannot help but share with others.
Yet, too often one's own self-improvement is classified as selfish or ungenerous in motivation. In fact, the word "selfish" has been given a very unfair and perjorative cast.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being selfish. The self or ego is who we are and it must be carefully nurtured in order for us to be our very best.
There is another form of truly evil behavior which most people conflate with selfishness. It is a huge source of human misery and harm. Few people bother to make the distinction and therein lies a major wrong in how humans are taught to view themselves.
That evil is self-absorption.
In this modern age, far to many people think that their world goes no farther than their skin. They simply cannot or often outrightly refuse to see beyond their own self and thereby become so self-absorbed that they no longer give of themselves in any meaningful manner.
Selfishness in no way precludes personal generosity or kindness, self-absorption usually guarantees it.
Altruism's poisonous meme has reviled the human ego to the point where even the word "ego" itself is freighted with negative connotations. I can only hope that one day humanity will be cured of this pestilential notion.
Con Swede, perhaps you might be so kind as to reintegrate what I have just observed about altruism into your own rather appropriate comments regarding inappropriate self-sacrifice. I'd be very interested to see if we have the degree of concordance on this topic that I suspect we do.
And then he quotes me where I used the word, and the says Ah there's the little devil.
Aw, you are way too sophisticated for me, Zenster :-)
I'm guess I'm just too used to the "A" word meaning atheist or a$$hole. Strange feeling to be in a forum where most people agree, or at least follow in the direction of my argument. A completely new experience for me.
Altruism, yeah. Yes, we have very similar thoughts about it. I concluded many years ago that to get altruism as result, then we cannot use altruism as method. Your comparison with the cup that runneth over is perfect to express my very own thoughts about it. Draining the vessel is self-defeating. This holds true at a personal level as well as at a civilizational level. We are draining the vessel that is our civilization by dwindling into numbers of insignificance. So whatever liberté/egalité we want to spread around the world, in the current way it's heading for the end of it forever. What we need is to do the opposite, to secure the sustained survival of European bioculture. This is the only path to liberté/egalité of the world. Self-interest and altruism converges. Let's fill our cup again, so that it once again can spill over. Well said, Zenster!
CS:
CS - I have ceased debating with you. Your constant resort to ad hominem is tiresome and you now smear me as a socialist. Enough is quite frankly enough I will not join you in the gutter.
Zenster:
SA is a tyranny. What about the USA and what it did to Serbia? Is the USA a tyranny? And why is the USA entitled to Saudi oil on the premise that it is a tyranny?
Yes the US has given $1 trill for oil but it chose to do so. Poor decisions and dhimmitude. That is the US's fault.
As regards the rule of law I did make a point about asymmetric warfare guess you missed it. Also, the US worked hand in hand with Iran, the Saudis and Al Qaeda to create an illegal state with Kosovo. Does the US sponsor terrorism? Apparently so. Do you condemn this or is that west bashing?
"glassing the entire place" -how nice. Hope you feel the same way should say thousands of US citizens die in say a dirty bomb attack in a major us city or cities. That is a shameful and ignorant remark. There are better solutions but blood lust clouds judgement.
You say:
"Again, terrorist tyrannies have no sovereign rights."
Are you talking about the United States here? Or does the illegal bombing of a once proud ally based on a pack of lies to assist terrorists like the KLA and Al Qaeda mean nothing when it's the US?
"Capitalism is not to blame."
I never said it was. I said Global Capitalism is. BIG DIFFERENCE. It is becasue of GC that we now have scores of muslims in Europe who are not there to integrate they are there to dominate. GC needs continual growth and it needs tofind cheap labour. So if your wish to glass the ME happens then it won't end there. GC has a lot to do with it as does marxism and they are in tandem.
"Your “insatiable consumerism” represents a free choice made by free people".
What? It is anything but a free choice it is the result of brainwashing and lack of education. It is not a free choice to consume as much as you can and way beyond your needs (credit crunch here that's GC in action) and have scant regard for the consequences.
What feeds the modern world is a dependancy on oil based pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and of course the machinery to work the land. What is happening is that cheap oil (i.e. peak oil) is starting to bite. People were warned years ago and trusted that new oil would be found. Big mistake. What are we at now, nearly $200 a barrel? When I started studying peak oil about 18 months ago it was about $60 and people said $100 a barrel would never happen.
It is your reasoning that is faulty.You see that states and international law don't really exist but you cannot see that the oil based economy is false and nor can you see that there are alternatives to oil and war in the ME.
"In case you hadn’t noticed, we are already in a war over oil."
Of course I've noticed. Why the hell do you think I'm aware of alternatives to invading the ME?
" This war with Islam is very much about oil and it is exceptionally puerile to think otherwise."
It may be about oil from the west's side but it isn't from the Islamic side and it is exceptionally puerile to state otherwise, I suggest you study the history of jihad.
"Please let me know when you’re ready to abandon driving your car or taking most mass transportation in order to maintain moral purity."
Again, you descend into assumpitions and sneering condescension to somebody you know nothing about. FYI I abandoed my car 4 years ago. I rarely use PT but if you think this is about moral purity you are way off the mark. And way out of your depth.
"Au contraire, the two are nearly inseperable. Islam’s spread is tied directly to petrodollars and both issues require similar attention."
Yes, petrodollars is one cause as is mass immigration into dar al harb. But who invited them here? Who grovelled at the feet of muslims to suck on the oil tit? Who created a society dependant on oil at all levels despite being warned about peak oil and despite being warned in 73 of how OPEC would use the oil as a weapon against the west?
"Your West-bashing is as tiresome as it is misguided."
West bashing? Don't be so silly. I love my country but as well as threats from without we also have a threat within. Quite frankly I do not care what state the ME would be in without us. I do not care if muslims slaughter each other from now until doomsday. What I care about is making my country strong. That means we are self sufficient for our food and our energy and strong enough militarily to resist any threat and defend our land from attack. That is the core of British Nationalism and I am very proud to be a British nationalist.
"In case you have not noticed, global jihad is all over the West already."
Deary me your patronising is boring.Use your reason. We're on GoV so you can assume I know about the global jihad. But tell me, what would come first if you glassed the ME? Would you nuke first then get rid of the muslims in the west or would you get rid of them first?
"Actually, yes. But that ignores your continued bashing of the West and capitalism."
Actually no. But you ignore the catastrophic failures caused by poor leadership and supporting of terrorism because your greed and need for oil overrides everything. Nevermind that there are much smarter, far more damaging to our enemies and much more beneficial strategies we can employ, no no no! They're all criminal terrorists in backward lands who would be nothing without the west anyway! GLASS 'EM!
I find that naieve, narrow, limited and unsupportable full of the most nauseating hypocrisy and double standards.
What I'm bashing is not the west I am bashing war mongerers like you and the stupidity and the failure of our leaders over the last 50 years. We have made some bloody awful decisions that have complicated long-term consequences. The criticism is constructive and well earned. You just can't bear to take it and want war to get us out of the mess we are in.
"Sadly, so did I. Here I shall agree with you very much. Even as you yourself descend into personalities."
As you yourself has. And for which I have apologized.
D. Lion,
CS - I have ceased debating with you. Your constant resort to ad hominem is tiresome and you now smear me as a socialist. Enough is quite frankly enough I will not join you in the gutter.
I never resort to ad hominems or smears. Why should I? There are always enough purely descriptive, easily backed up things to say. If you want we can go over it all again, and I will present my case thoroughly, to nail it down once and for all.
DL: "glassing the entire place" -how nice.
Clearly you managed to miss how that option ranks as the least desirable on my list. Or are you intentionally ignoring the fact?
Additionally, your constant resort to cultural relativism is repugnant. Try and remember that it was this American "tyranny" that pulled your nation's collective stones out of the fire some decades ago.
... it [consumerism] is the result of brainwashing and lack of education.
Ah, yes. The Great Unwashed. Your elitism is showing.
You see that states and international law don't really exist but you cannot see that the oil based economy is false and nor can you see that there are alternatives to oil and war in the ME.
You seem to be new here, so I'll merely advise you to relax a bit. I've worked on fuel cell technology and actively advocate getting off of the oil tit. Deep breaths, emkay?
Why the hell do you think I'm aware of alternatives to invading the ME?
I suggest that you spell out those alternatives very clearly so that they can be opened to debate. My gut feeling is that you may have a limited appreciation of how intractable the war with Islam will prove to be.
But who invited them here? Who grovelled at the feet of muslims to suck on the oil tit? Who created a society dependant on oil at all levels despite being warned about peak oil and despite being warned in 73 of how OPEC would use the oil as a weapon against the west?
Our Vampire and Vulture elites who deserve nothing more or less than a quick tour of the nearest lamppost.
But tell me, what would come first if you glassed the ME? Would you nuke first then get rid of the muslims in the west or would you get rid of them first?
How cute. You accuse me of being patronizing then go on to do exactly the same. Go back and read my list of alternatives. It is specifically constructed to avoid massive loss of human life.
They're all criminal terrorists in backward lands who would be nothing without the west anyway! GLASS 'EM!
You really don't get it, do you? I can only conclude that you are intentionally misconstruing me. Please remind me, once again, why I should bother replying.
I am bashing war mongerers like you
So, it's war mongering to hope that the West can find the backbone required to neutralize Islam's terrorist aristocracy? You really need to pay closer attention.
I have not descended into personalities with you, despite you doing so in turn. I may be critical of what you say but have refrained from casting aspersions upon your own character. Something you seem overinclined to do.
Please go back and re-read my list of alternatives. Total War is the last thing I want. Ironically, Total War is exactly what Islam is pushing our world towards and I will be hard pressed to summon up much sympathy for Islam when it finally gets what it has so ferverently prayed for.
DL said "SA is a tyranny. What about the USA and what it did to Serbia? Is the USA a tyranny? And why is the USA entitled to Saudi oil on the premise that it is a tyranny?"
Wow. DL makes it clear he has no idea what the definition of tryanny is. (The US attack on Serbia has no bearing on what type of government the US would have)
This is why I stopped debating with him a while ago. To debate someone with so little understanding who actually believes they are correct and are not open to realize the errors of what they are saying would be just as stupid as for me to have this discussion with a 2 year old.. It would make me look like the idiot , not the 2 year old.
Vince:
Wow. DL makes it clear he has no idea what the definition of tryanny is. (The US attack on Serbia has no bearing on what type of government the US would have)
Tyranny:
Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
The US lied to justify their appalling bombing of the Serbs. That was an unrestrained exercise of power. That is tyranny. Add this to working with Al Qaeda, Iran, SA and the KLA to create a greater Albania and there you have a tyrannical government so you can easily see that it does have a bearing.
The US involvement in Serbia constitutes a war crime. It is a bit rich for Americans to give it the "they're tyrannts this gives usn the right to steal their resources" when the US themselves aren't quite squeaky clean and have been working hand-in-glove with these tyrannts.
Your last paragraph is not something I willl not lower myself to respond to.
Zenster:
I will respond to your post later when I have more time. Needless to say I don't agree with most of it!
Zenster:
As briefly as I can:
"...option ranks as the least desirable on my list"
I don't care if it's 1st, 10th or last I care if it is a valid option and I believe it is not.
"Try and remember that it was this American "tyranny" that pulled your nation's collective stones out of the fire some decades ago."
Factually incorrect. The USA did nothing of the kind. When Britain faced the might of nazi germany in 1940 we faced it alone. And back then the USA stood against tyranny now it works hand in had with it. What the USA was back then is clearly not what it is now.
"Ah, yes. The Great Unwashed. Your elitism is showing."
Rubbish. If I say one of the reasons Islam is growing is because of lack of education about it in the west am I being elitist? Islamophobic? No,I am stating a simple fact. Lack of education - and I believe it is deliberate by elites - is causing people to believe they can consume what they want without consequences. I think this is very, very dangerous for the future, not just in terms of the human race and our planet but in terms of assisting the rise of Islam.
"...I suggest that you spell out those alternatives very clearly..."
In no particular order I would like:
To see a total ban on muslim immigration.
To see a ban on Islamic dress, halal foods, the teaching of Islam in schools and then a total ban on Islam in the west.
To agitate, irritate and stir up tensions in the ME by revealing what those with the oil money do with it and how they are cheating their own.
To stop playing ball with the Saudis and bring a halt to their da'wa throughout the west.
To withdraw immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan and stir up hatred between rival camps of Islam.
To withdraw all aid for the so-called "Palestinian Cause" and to call that cause for what it is: a scam. To reveal how Arafat betrayed his people to stir up as much unrest among Islam so that Islam implodes. There is a lot we can play on too.
To implement multiple energy solutions, especially coal to wean ourselves off oil and to educate people about how precious resources are on our planet.
To encourage as much as possible self sufficiency especially purchasing local produce and goods to bring about a massive slowdown in imports.
To end the practioe of global capitalism. International corporations wield far too much political power and usurp democracy.
To stop interfering with other nations, to make Britain a self sufficient nation able to feed its people, meet our energy needs and defend our land and our interests from attack.
I could go on but that gives you a flavour of what British Nationalism is about.
"Our Vampire and Vulture elites who deserve nothing more or less than a quick tour of the nearest lamppost.."
On that we are in agreement.
"How cute. You accuse me of being patronizing then go on to do exactly the same."
A misunderstanding. I asked you this for a good reason, that being the reaction of hordes of muslims throughout the west to whatever scenario came first. It was a genuine question and it looks like I didn't make that point well enough.
"So, it's war mongering to hope that the West can find the backbone required to neutralize Islam's terrorist aristocracy?"
May I remind you that the original debate was in response to a call to invade and grab oil and not about a war with Islam.
"...but have refrained from casting aspersions upon your own character. "
I suggest you re-read through your posts.
"Total War is the last thing I want. Ironically, Total War is exactly what Islam is pushing our world towards "
Yes that's what Islam wants but they aren't the only ones as I have made clear, the US is playing its part too, along with the UN and the corrupt, EUSSR.
What I am objecting to is the double standard of slating ME regimes as corrupt tyrannies, using this as some kind of moral green light to invade them and steal their oil. This is then further compounded by dressing it up as a war on Islamic terrorism.
This conveniently whitewashes the west yet the fix the west is in is entirely of its own making. But very effective solutions exist and I believe the need to invade and wage war in dar al harb to grab the oil, especially nuclear warfare, simply isn't needed.
D. Lion,
What I am objecting to is the double standard of slating ME regimes as corrupt tyrannies, using this as some kind of moral green light to invade them and steal their oil.
Applying the same logic, Israel has stolen the Golan Heights from the noble people of Syria, and it is justice come true if it's now given back. Right?
Hey wait a minute, our socialist friend, the Cowering Lion agrees that Clinton was a butchering tyrant!! This is a breakthrough.
Well, I just have to say this. In spite of my solid and well-founded criticism of America--the center of purified Christianity of the Industrial Age (i.e. the quasi-empire of cultural leftism). It's a country that at least produces a minority of people (some of which we find in this forum), that has the proper sense of how to act as an empire.
While there is too much weak and naive nationalism going around in Europe. The kind that thinks that as long as we can set up proper fences, the people of the world will live in order and peace. I'm sorry to say, but some of the things Nick Griffin said puts him in that category (the fences-kumbaya sing-song)
Time is way passed for provincialism. The problems we are facing are global. And the only way to deal with it is to take command.
And by the way,
Pointing out that someone is a socialist is not name-calling, but calling him "Cowering Lion" definitely is. And it's rather childish.
Conservative Swede --
I can't help but agree with you on the "childish" aspect of all this. Displaying open contempt for one's interlocutor is not particularly productive, nor is it conducive to actually winning an argument.
But label-affixing ("You're a socialist! An antinomian! A theosophist! A deist!") is also not particularly helpful. A label is often freighted with emotional content, usually negative, and its value as a descriptive is vitiated by its impact as a perceived insult.
In other words, I prefer arguments based on the merits of the ideas.
Baron,
But label-affixing ("You're a socialist! An antinomian! A theosophist! A deist!") is also not particularly helpful.
Yes, you are right. I should have handled that differently. I maintain that it is vital to point out the socialist nature of someones argument, especially if it's one of the main themes. This is important because our society is so permeated with this sort of socialism that people get blinded to the fact that it is actually socialism.
But my way of handling it here was not very helpful. You are absolutely right. Looking back I see a few other examples where I also did this mistake. I will bear it in mind, in order to avoid it in the future. The point is better made by label-affixing to the words than to the person.
So Defiant Lion, I'm sorry I called you a socialist, and I take it back. You do not identify yourself as one, and me saying so only angered you. I see a couple of fundamental problems with your views, but it cannot be summarized as easily as "socialism". But I made two posts earlier today (above) that I think better pinpoints it.
I'm impressed you boys are still at it. Good perseverance.
I say we glass 'em and be done with it. Problem is when we glass 'em it screws it up for the next shift. But never mind.
Zene: Fuels cells? Good man. I'm partial to windmills, but I don't think the economics works out. Not now anyway.
And ethanol for fuel. What a joke. But I'm intrigued by the concept of messing with world wide food supplies as an avenue for providing an alternate fuel source.
Defiant Lion: Welcome to the neighborhood. Good handle, by the way. Let's find some common ground.
Food for thought: When are the boys in Jerusalem going to stop letting the dogs fire missles on civilians with impunity from Gaza? Hello???
Hey Paul,
You speak like a cowboy. Charming. Few words and straight to the point. Good sense of humour and with a good heart.
Paul:
Thank you for your warm welcome and I am sure we will find much common ground.
Baron:
Thanks for that and thank you for allowing me to express my opinion. I think mrsmarterthanyou has embarrassed him/herself and hopefully will not repeat the childishness of the last post.
CS:
Apology accepted thank you.
I found this today, an analysis by ex-CIA man Herb Meyer and I think it makes an interesting addition to our discussion:
What In The World Is Going On
Hope you find it as interesting and eye-opening as I have.
I am now going to bow out of this debate, a debate I have really enjoyed even though passions over-flowed. It has given me much food for thought which is no bad thing.
A happy weekend to you all.
Defiant Lion,
Before you leave. What's your position on the original topic of this thread:
Is it your opinion that Israel has stolen the Golan Heights from the noble people of Syria, and that it is justice come true if it's now given back?
"..So Defiant Lion, I'm sorry I called you a socialist, and I take it back.."
Hey CS, you called me a socialist too! haha, no wait.. a liberal you said. Well, same old same old. Now that sort of a "day of atonement" has arrived, let's see if we can - in the spirit of what Paul just said - somewhat harmonize our views (not too much of course).
I like what you say about society being inundated with socialism to the point that many are accustomed to swim in it without recognizing what surrounds them. It's ubiquitous and its many myths are rehashed over and over by the MSM like some gospel truth.
What you say about socialism (Goldberg would call it liberal fascism, or fascist socialism "with a friendly face") and people being blinded by its omnipresence, can also be said about true conservatism, in the sense that the general public has almost lost the ability to recognize it because of its virtual "omni-absence".
When I read the comments by DL, it almost seemed like he knew about all three books by the conservative writer Antony C. Sutton. He wrote "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" (1976), and already you might think "Oh boy, here we go again.." (I did). But when one looks beyond the cover, then it becomes clear that Sutton exposes some part of "Big Business" supporting al kinds of socialism. One of the other titles makes this clear: "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution".
The thing to keep in mind here, is that of course some big corporations have always been pretty much opposed to free competition in a free market. They seek to gain favours and privileges from the State, always a very bad sign. Anyhew, I think DL could very well be making the same point Sutton made in his well researched books (still in print today. Recommended!).
@DL,
Your comments in this thread have been a good read and I especially liked the way you've managed to keep y'r eye on the ball, when you remarked:
"..I suggest you study the history of jihad"
The alternatives you were kindly asked to provide are clear and substantial. Like Paul, I say welcome to the neighbourhood. You might wanna stick around for some more invigorating "name calling" ;-)
Would be nice.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sagunto,
Hey CS, you called me a socialist too! haha, no wait.. a liberal you said.
For all what I know you might be a fascist, but what you write in this forum is mainly liberal junk. I guess this is why you feel attracted to the many socialist viewpoints that are expressed by Defiant Lion.
Defiant Lion, I’m going to keep this short and sweet as butting heads with you has caused the flat spot on my cranium to flare up again.
Defiant Lion: In no particular order I would like:
To see a total ban on muslim immigration.
To see a ban on Islamic dress, halal foods, the teaching of Islam in schools and then a total ban on Islam in the west.
To agitate, irritate and stir up tensions in the ME by revealing what those with the oil money do with it and how they are cheating their own.
To stop playing ball with the Saudis and bring a halt to their da'wa throughout the west.
To withdraw immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan and stir up hatred between rival camps of Islam.
To withdraw all aid for the so-called "Palestinian Cause" and to call that cause for what it is: a scam. To reveal how Arafat betrayed his people to stir up as much unrest among Islam so that Islam implodes. There is a lot we can play on too.
Since you are a newcomer, I doubt that you are aware of how I have advocated—both here and elsewhere—literally every single one of the foregoing tactics. If you doubt this, please poll the other GoV participants in this thread. To a more limited degree I have also promoted the following suggestions of yours as well.
To implement multiple energy solutions, especially coal to wean ourselves off oil and to educate people about how precious resources are on our planet.
To encourage as much as possible self sufficiency especially purchasing local produce and goods to bring about a massive slowdown in imports.
To end the practice of global capitalism. International corporations wield far too much political power and usurp democracy.
I’ll ask you this. Do you honestly think that—besides Geert Wilders—there is a single living Western politician with the spine to implement even just one of the policies in your first list? If so, please name that person. Each added item from your list reduces the probability of such a thing happening by an order of magnitude. To that end, the entire first list represents a near-physical impossibility for our current—and even upcoming—crop of political leadership.
Of far greater importance is the simple fact that our Traitor Elite’s unwillingness to enact any of the items in your first list is almost guaranteed to prompt nuclear war and the Muslim holocaust that I continue to predict.
While your first points are entirely valid, far too many of the Vulture Elite and Vampire Elite have sipped—if not chugged—the Kool-Aid of Transnational Multiculturalism for so long to the point where NOTHING will happen until after there has been a terrorist nuclear attack—more likely attacks—or some other use of WMDs against the West.
The likelihood of a massive nuclear reprisal would only be augmented by having a worthless greenhorn like Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama in the American driver’s seat. They both have ZERO war-fighting experience and would be far more apt to try and surrender or, conversely, let the entire mehgilla slide over the event horizon into nuclear war.
Sadly, such vital policy will only be installed as an afterthought in response to one or several Western cities being immolated. Once that tragedy has happened, those who remain had best have plenty of rope in hand to reward our feckless pols who wittingly and knowingly enabled this predictable and totally avoidable catastrophe.
Even more dreadful is the distinct possibility that—having enacted all of your anti-Muslim measures—the time required to do so will still permit some Islamic regime in the MME (Muslim Middle East) to acquire and deploy nuclear weapons against the West.
It is for that reason I advocate an immediate program of targeted assassinations against Islam's clerical, financial and scholastic elite. This should be coupled with a strategy of massively disproportionate retaliation against known terrorist sponsors in reprisal for all further terrorist atrocities. Muslims must be made to suffer on such a scale that they begin the onerous task of cleaning their own d@mn house instead of sitting back and laughing as America idiotically tries to do it for them.
Without further argument I will close by saying that your characterization of America as a tyranny is exceptionally repugnant and represents a descent into moral relativism that casts doubt upon the entire body of your own opinions. This is especially so in light of how your own once-great nation is racing at near light speeds to install the very worst forms of tyrannous rule, if not simply elbowing aside your monarch and enthroning a Muslim in her stead.
Conservative Swede is blaming the christainity for the crisis of the west and in particular Europe, but it's the western atheism and social darvinism of German nazism and soviet communism that brought us the war which wiped out the 1/3 of World's Jewry, killed the milions of our men and made half of Europe the protectorate of USA and second half the colonies of Soviet Russia. Its the post war secularism which brought us such "modern marvels" like Abortion, femainazidm and gay rights which are depopulating us; in both Israel and USA it's the religius sector of society which both most militant and virile.
To sagentum and defiant leon I like your critic of "globalist capitalism" which don't have anything with free market. However the Britain is more populated than France only thanks to all sea coming comerce this country generated since XVI century, without this oversea trade your population will start to starve like during WWI and WWII. Besides British nationalism is artifiacial term becouse only thing that unites Emglish, Scotts, Welsh and Irish is anahronic and ineficient monarchy and dream about lost empire. Even the Westminster parlament is now outsorced to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Brussels. Better thing woud be a Atlantic union with USA and Canada and for continental Europe the HRE style Confederacy of nations with Pope as titular head of state and strategic alience with Russia.
As to Israel, if the true ortodox and zionist rightwing Jews will survive the Olmert and Peres incompetence and treason and elect or force the goverment with enough backbone to not only fight Arabs but to defy American "Wilsonism" if nescesery I'm sure they'll be OK. Even from their own self hating galut ridden kind.
Anyway If we screw up all we can always fall back to plan B - Waiting for the Meshias to come and kick the bad guys butts. It's both the leftists and muslims who're desperate and out of time.
Post a Comment