Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Putin's Final Answer = Missiles to Syria


AlasBabylon

Recommended Posts

My reason for supporting the setting up of isreal is that it was twice mandated by international agreement and law and supported by the largest and most powerful states of that time.It also, as originally intended, was a reasonable compromise between israelis and palestinians (the other alterntive being that the palestinians give up nothing of their land)

There are justifiable historical imperatives for its formation and for a two state solution.Religion plays no part in my view, I was a secular humainst /atheist for the first twenty years of my life and the position of israel was clearly warranted, looked at through that world view.

I have no objection to "theocratic states" as long as they are democracies. Ie if most of the people are educated, free to chose, and want to live under religious based law, then th t is their right to chose freely.

Britain is in principle a theocratic state.The king has to be of the anglican faith, and the anglican faith is embedded in their constitution, but as a democracy it works very well. Democracy and freedom are first principles.The nature of the democracy and freedom comes second. Theocratic states can be democratic, just as secular states can be autocratic..

Why do it? Because it was the right thing to do. Appeasement never works. Basing national actions on fear never works.

The principle and ethical/moral reasons for the establishment of a jewish state are correct. They were much more obviously correct when Israel was established because of the recent historical events of the 30s and forties. Finally hindsight is a fine thing but can't be use to evaluate policy decisions of the past..

And even with hindsight the formation of Israel was the correct thing to do. The bloody conflicts of the middle east might have beeneven more bloody if Israel had not formed a unifying and rallying point for many arab people and nations. Statistics show how much higher (A factor of tens or even hundreds of times) casualties and refugees are, from conflicts within and between arab states, than between israel and all the arab states put together..

You see, jews are a minority religion in the middle east but almost every country in that region has significant minority religions. shia and sunnis hate each other as much as they do the jews.And there are many other smaller but no less virulent antagonisms within the muslim world.Then ther eis the battle between those who want liberal democratic muslim states and those who want conservative autocratic muslim states. Taking Israel out of this equation wouldn't make the region more peaceful or help its inhabitants one bit.

There are significant numbers of christians in some arabic stes Are you suggesting that we simply leave the area to muslims to establish non democratic theocratic states and elimiante or exple all peole not of thier particualr branch of islam

No, Mr. Walker, the U.N. made its bed, now it has to lie in it.

If we were back where we started, I would suggest we have nothing to do with setting up a new nation and calling it Israel in the Middle East. I would have been just as concerned with the Jews as I would've been for the Maya, or the North American Natives. As it happened, we were never interested in restoring these people's homelands. I mean, how long does a land claim last? Apparently to the people who supported setting up Israel, a claim can last for more than a couple thousand years. Now I'm just hoping that the U.N. doesn't decide Ohio belongs back to the Native Americans, and draws a border for them right in my front yard. Except, I don't hate Native Americans, so we at least wouldn't be killing each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

AlasBabylon, schrooma and others: Regarding "symbols" and "symbolic language," I have this meager crumb to offer. When my wife was stationed in Lebanon in '82-'83, near the Israeli border, she (a UNIFIL Swedish Lutheran chaplain) became fully aware of (although not well-versed in) the incidence and importance of symbology (including numerology) in so-called diplomacy, military reportage and general international rhetoric in the Middle East. For example, casualty counts were mostly bogus and Israel, Syria and Lebanon would play "dueling numbers" to try to out-maneuver the other(s) in the court of international opinion. Many of these word/number games were based on Biblical stories, references and insinuations. I'm not sure what this means, exactly, except that the power of symbols is strong. Carl Jung knew this as a truism, even though today many pragmatists hear "cause" when the symbologists simply mean "effect."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlasBabylon, schrooma and others: Regarding "symbols" and "symbolic language," I have this meager crumb to offer. When my wife was stationed in Lebanon in '82-'83, near the Israeli border, she (a UNIFIL Swedish Lutheran chaplain) became fully aware of (although not well-versed in) the incidence and importance of symbology (including numerology) in so-called diplomacy, military reportage and general international rhetoric in the Middle East. For example, casualty counts were mostly bogus and Israel, Syria and Lebanon would play "dueling numbers" to try to out-maneuver the other(s) in the court of international opinion. Many of these word/number games were based on Biblical stories, references and insinuations. I'm not sure what this means, exactly, except that the power of symbols is strong. Carl Jung knew this as a truism, even though today many pragmatists hear "cause" when the symbologists simply mean "effect."

Very interesting especially if you could provide us more specific examples. If able to telling us if it is an example or an actual time of when this was actually done.

Do you think it is the collective consciousness seeping through or were they deliberately basing their statements and statistics on their holy texts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Syrian Gov't win genocide will remain,if the Rebels win fighting will continue as there are 3 different groups squabbling for power.One Rebel group has pledged its support for Al Qaeda,so whichever one wins there will still be no peace.The best thing to do is walk away.The women and kids always suffer in the end.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Mr. Walker, the U.N. made its bed, now it has to lie in it.

If we were back where we started, I would suggest we have nothing to do with setting up a new nation and calling it Israel in the Middle East. I would have been just as concerned with the Jews as I would've been for the Maya, or the North American Natives. As it happened, we were never interested in restoring these people's homelands. I mean, how long does a land claim last? Apparently to the people who supported setting up Israel, a claim can last for more than a couple thousand years. Now I'm just hoping that the U.N. doesn't decide Ohio belongs back to the Native Americans, and draws a border for them right in my front yard. Except, I don't hate Native Americans, so we at least wouldn't be killing each other.

Except that the mix and history of the middle east is a lot more complex than that. Just as one example, colonial powers divided the area up into artificial states without regard to religion or ethnicity, because they could keep control of those things in a colonial era. just as they did in Africa. They had NO mandate to do so.

But the UN, and prior to that the league of nations to a lesser extent, as an international body actually does have a say in the foundation, boundaries, legitimacy and borders of states; and eventually managed a reasonable settlement in the balkans after tragic delays.

Yes, depending on "real politics" land claims might endure for a millenia.

The Irish question is unresolved after 4 centuries and the scottish claim to independence is still being resolved after about the same period of time. MAny countries went through 4 centuries or so of colonial "ownership" before establishing their independence, while others like canada australia and the united states of america, are basically now european countries who accomodate their indigenous peoples with differing degrees of success. Many south american countries are also now basically spanish or portuguese countries. My mother's family from france helped conquer england in 1066. Before that it had been largely occupied by angles and saxons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems all sides are willing to use genocide. If the Syrian government fails there is strong possibility for genocide to the Alawites and Syrian Christians. The country was stable before :/

Our best bet are sanctions that suck the money from all sides no longer allowing them to continue doing damage to each other and then sending in peacekeepers.

Supporting one side against another will only make us complicit when strong moderation between all is needed instead.

Of course the media message is insuring a future of picking sides and creating even more losers.

Stronger possibilities exist of creating new thorns on our side by doing so.

Peace is delayed by our greed yet again.

Delayed, but it will come.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Syrian Gov't win genocide will remain,if the Rebels win fighting will continue as there are 3 different groups squabbling for power.One Rebel group has pledged its support for Al Qaeda,so whichever one wins there will still be no peace.The best thing to do is walk away.The women and kids always suffer in the end.

Trouble is; in the long term the women and kids might suffer even more, if those who can do something about it just walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they are guaranteed to suffer more if we choose to go in and stay or just support one side through pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems all sides are willing to use genocide. If the Syrian government fails there is strong possibility for genocide to the Alawites and Syrian Christians. The country was stable before :/

Our best bet are sanctions that suck the money from all sides no longer allowing them to continue doing damage to each other and then sending in peacekeepers.

Supporting one side against another will only make us complicit when strong moderation between all is needed instead.

Of course the media message is insuring a future of picking sides and creating even more losers.

Stronger possibilities exist of creating new thorns on our side by doing so.

Peace is delayed by our greed yet again.

Delayed, but it will come.

You slay me man...could you explain your concept of "strong moderation"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they are guaranteed to suffer more if we choose to go in and stay or just support one side through pay.

How do you know this? Can you foretell the future?

A strong military intervention is not enough. It also requires the sort of "re-socialisation" which occured in germany and japan after world war 2. That might require years of occupation, and a reconstruction of the education and other systems in a country. But re- educate one full generation and you have re- educated the country. And that would make the same difference it did for japan and germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alawites and Christians will suffer.

WWII this is not and a Cold War has not begun.

We can see how well nation building has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was money and a desire to rebuild Western Germany and Japan after WWII.

There were no natural resources to compete over in either of those countries, it was not oil based.

The wars there were between two great powers with one side losing and another winning, not mere proxies we have interests in.

Fighting our enemy and helping them rebuild after they lose is not the same as picking and choosing sides in a non-global conflict.

We cannot continue perpetuating the myth we are saviors when our intervention and dollars only serves to destabilize other nations.

The only current examples we have to compare what could have been are Arab Spring nations like Libya and Egypt but that is not what is happening here either.

We are going to allow and go with the Iraq and Afghanistan examples instead. Those are our current choices: Arab Spring or long protracted sectarian conflicts that destabilize while debt is incurred allowing only some to profit while innocents suffer. Although an Arab Spring is not a choice at all due to the heavy factionalized population of Syria and the neighboring nations tugging in different directions (something not present in West Germany or Japan) which in that case we need to send in the peackeepers and suppress both sides, not take sides.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LBA recognizes that foreign policy is a game of special interests, pouring the money down the right (politically popular) holes, and the wells that receive it are long and deep instead of broad and shallow.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that bad policy produces bad results. It doesn't even take predicting; the results have been in for decades already.

I predicted well over a year ago now that Syria would be another bloodletting where US policy serves to deliberately grind both sides down with no clear winner. Flypaper for the flies. I think it's now safe to say history has confirmed my prediction. Wars like this are a boon to defense companies who rely on taxpayer money to produce their ROIs. It's the free market of bipartisan politics.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alawites and Christians will suffer.

WWII this is not and a Cold War has not begun.

We can see how well nation building has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was money and a desire to rebuild Western Germany and Japan after WWII.

There were no natural resources to compete over in either of those countries, it was not oil based.

The wars there were between two great powers with one side losing and another winning, not mere proxies we have interests in.

Fighting our enemy and helping them rebuild after they lose is not the same as picking and choosing sides in a non-global conflict.

We cannot continue perpetuating the myth we are saviors when our intervention and dollars only serves to destabilize other nations.

The only current examples we have to compare what could have been are Arab Spring nations like Libya and Egypt but that is not what is happening here either.

We are going to allow and go with the Iraq and Afghanistan examples instead. Those are our current choices: Arab Spring or long protracted sectarian conflicts that destabilize while debt is incurred allowing only some to profit while innocents suffer. Although an Arab Spring is not a choice at all due to the heavy factionalized population of Syria and the neighboring nations tugging in different directions (something not present in West Germany or Japan) which in that case we need to send in the peackeepers and suppress both sides, not take sides.

Sadly you have a point about motivation, but still this is the only answer apart from walking away.

If we do not care we can do nothing. If we do care we must do something. Women and children will suffer until a whole nation is resocialised to ensure that they do not and they are empowered to help ensure this Eventually the world will realise that the treatment of women, particularly in many countries is the equivalent moral evil to the extermination of a race religion or group.

In some of these countries such genocide also continues, affecting not just children and women but whole groups. Iraq and afhanistan did not work because we did not have the will to impose through centralised control and education, a change in social values and attitudes. Still, as yet, neither is a complete failure. The education of women has risen in the last few years in Afghanistan for example.

Ps. This IS a global conflict for the rights and freedoms of all humans. A woman, or minority group, or any person in any country, HAS the same intrinsic rights as any human and it is up to all of us to help them realise those rights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LBA recognizes that foreign policy is a game of special interests, pouring the money down the right (politically popular) holes, and the wells that receive it are long and deep instead of broad and shallow.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that bad policy produces bad results. It doesn't even take predicting; the results have been in for decades already.

I predicted well over a year ago now that Syria would be another bloodletting where US policy serves to deliberately grind both sides down with no clear winner. Flypaper for the flies. I think it's now safe to say history has confirmed my prediction. Wars like this are a boon to defense companies who rely on taxpayer money to produce their ROIs. It's the free market of bipartisan politics.

Nonetheless, it is the people in the countries which create and cause the war, not the arms dealers or politicians from outside. People who are free do not need war to liberate themselves. Certainly war would not be so bloody or destructive without modern weapons, but it will continue until we address its causes, even if people go at each other with clubs and kitchen knives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.