 |
| |
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd have to age with Ned. Look at the population avantage the Arabs have, the economic advatage, the energy production advantage, the advantage in GDP, the advantage, in steel production, the advantage in agricultural output, the advantage in just about everything you can think of. Only a fool would say Israel is the underdog.
Israel likely only survived because they were given access to American, weapons, training, supplies, finance, and foreign Aid. Other wise the Arabs would have killed every Jew in Israel long ago just as they killed or exiled every Jew in every other part of the Middle East. In the whole Arab world Morrocco is the only country which hasn't expelled their Jews.  |
Everything you just listed makes the arabs underdogs not isreal. It's not amazing that she has survived with the support of the U.S. and a veto in the security council. what world are you living on. The U.S. just demonstrated the ability to stomp any two middle eastern countries at will. Isreal has carried out preemptive attacks on all regional arab powers. They are basically unchallenged at this point. Hello!
Last edited by Pax on 18-11-2004 at 04:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
But they don't. I don't recall the reformed Mandela being labeled the bad guy in world opinion. I wasn't around then, but I don't think Ghandi or MLK Jr., were labeled as bad guys in world opinion. But then again, they didn't have anthing to do with civies murdering other civies for their cause. That might have something to do with it. |
NYE, most change comes about through violence. The situation of conquest of Ireland, Africa, and india all came about through violence. The idea of nonviolent social change is a new one on the world stage and not normally practiced. Violence is the normal way conflicts get resolved. Check the history books!!
The civil rights movement was a movement that involved a lot of blood being spilled and put the U.S. in a situation that forced a change through the threat of violence as well as the boycotts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1]
As for targetting civilians? The American Civil War, WW2, and Algeria shows that it can work pretty well. |
Given that both sides in WW2 "targetted civilians", but the germans far, far more than the Americans, is that really evidence of much? Is there a side that could have won showing that targetting civilians doesn't work well?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vince278
and MLK? |
You guys she read the previous posts. The reference of nonviolent social change is talking about Ghandi and MLK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
My hometown was burned down as a part of civillian targeting to reduce/eliminate the capability of the enemy to continue to fight. So was carthage. I would have to say that violence has solved a lot more than non-violence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
It's also strange that people who support violent measures to resolve comflicts should expect others to attempt nonviolence.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-11-2004 17:09
)
|