10-04-2002 07:49									#61
	Increase Your PM Length

Drake, I don't think it is a nations moral duty to accept refuges from a neighbouring nation on a permanent basis. A nation could, but it is not required.

When France was invaded in 1939, England could have ended the conflict by accepting all the french into england, or it could have kept on fighting Germany. Which one do you think is the moral choice?

Again, and I don't know how many times this point must be stressed: Aggression should never be tolerated. Israel should not be allowed to gain land through warfare or occupation. To do so is against the only thing good that came out of WW2...


IIRC, Europe obtains a lower portion of oil from arab states than the U.S. does... So why isn;t the U.S. more biased to the arabs? Furthermore, I know as a citizen of a eurpoean country that voting-vise, arabs get jack... Most europeans are biased against arabs, mainly because of the higher crime and unemployment levels among arab immigrant groups...

But again, since most europeans do belive aggression is wrong, they do actively condemn Israeli policies and actions.

	10-04-2002 07:57									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Vichy France was a german puppet regime. Apparently you haven't studied WW2 to any great length. In 1939, Germany after England and France declared war on Germany because of Germanys invasion of Poland

Wasn't that invasion justified, since Germany was just trying to recover the land unjustly taken from it in 1918?

quote: Germany attacked France. France quickly fell, and Germany set up a puppet regime in Vichy. The legitimate french goverment fled to London.

That's not really true. The Legitimate French government recalled marshall Petain from his post abroad and gave him a high position in the government. He then negotiated a peace which was passed by Parliament. De Gaulle just ran off and founded his own movement in London and called it the government of Free France.

quote: the struggle to liberate France was led by England and later partnered with the U.S.

This is something of a misstatement of allied war aimes. Our aims were unconditional surrender, not the restoration of French territory.

quote: The basic flaw in your assessment was the acceptance of Vichy france as a legitimate nation. On the contrary, the goverment of france was in London, trying their best to liberate France from their attackers.

Petain was the one who had an actual justification for his rule.

quote: You never answered my question... where did you get this notion? Since I know you must have gone to an american school, I'm assuming you didn't learn it their... Was the history education in your school so bad that you had to try to get information on your own, and read a israeli textbook? Or was it your parents who told you this? Again, I'm genuinly curious...

As for this little snide remark, I do not keep track of where I learn such basic historical facts. However, to confirm what I knew about Vichy France, I turned to www.encyclopedia.com - I recommend you go there and learn something. I can assure you, I have never seen, let alone read, an Israeli textbook. So you can drop that obsession of yours.

quote: Replace every single 'german' in my previous post with 'nazi' and you'll get the same result. People can be killed because the actions they perform, not because of the political views they have.

I said that the French resistance was considered good because it fought against the Nazis, by which, perhaps I should have clarified, the Nazi regime in Germany.

quote: If germany hadn't invaded France, France would have had no justification killing a single german, nazi or otherwise.

quote: If the germans would have started the holocaust without invading other countries, then France would have reason to invade Germany, I believe, and put the german goverment on trial for crimes against humanity.... Much like Sharon should be today.

Invading a country involves killing some of its citizens. Which of these statements was the one you meant to say?

quote: I'm not quite sure what you mean here. please elaborate. Both examples.

By your reasoning, it seems that the Serbian government was just defending its land from Albanian agressors who were planning to turn it into a new country and eventually meld it with Albania. Similarly, by this logic one could say that the Paris Commune was resisting the attempts of the French puppet government to give into German control of Alsace-Lorraine and was the rightful government.

quote: I'm not entierly sure what the point of that statement is, since to the best of my knowledge there aren't a single case of a german who opposed the holocaust but approved of germanys occupation of neighbouring countries... Maybe there were some, but I don't know of them.

IIRC, at least some the coup plotters intended to dismantle the death camps.

quote: If there were such a person, I would say that overall, he does not deserve praise... Just as you would most likely agree that someone who approved of the holocaust but disapporved of germanys war of aggression would desreve praise...

I don't put grabbing land and killing millions of people in the same category. Or do you think Bismarck was as bad a man as Pol Pot?

quote: You are mincing words. Sure, England declared war on germany, but as a direct result of germany invading englands ally Belgium. What difference does that make, other than make it seem like you are rebutting my point without actually saying anything?

Attacking a country's ally is not the same as attacking that country.

quote: I have never in my life seen any propaganda claiming that germany was 'evil' for occupying alsace-lorraine... Plenty of people, however, claims that germany was the villain of WW1 because they invaded their neighbours. You really have a problem with that whole 'invasion' and 'aggression' thing...

Well then plenty of people do not seem to grasp that Alsace-Lorraine was seized by Germany in 1871, in a rather blatant land grab.

quote: As I said before, I don't hate Israelis. I just belive in right and wrong, and that aggression is wrong.

I don't hate Palestinians. I just believe that killing innocents is wrong.

	10-04-2002 08:00									#63
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: If the Arabs defeat Israel, the Jews would be lucky to just be expelled as opposed to being killed. Arab society doesn't have the same respect for human rights that many in the West take for granted

That is beside the point. Killing people for their ethnicity is always wrong. I'm wondering if Natan belives 'might gives right' is applicable to both sides, or only when it is jews that have the upper hand...

quote: I have to disagree with you on this. Changing borders is necessary sometimes, in order to achieve a strategic balance between opposing countries. To deny countries the right to acquire defensible borders is stupid, IMO.

Well, like it or not, this IS what we learned from WW1 and WW2. You are arguing that changing land as a result of warfare is just, as well as taking land to obtain more secure borders. Well, that is all part of the versaille treaty. The only thing it spawned was resentment in germany, which eventually led to the rise of Hitler and WW2. After WW2, the Allied leaders didn't take away any land from germany, instead they helped rebuild it. It worked very well too, I don't think Europe has had this long a peace since Roman time.

what do you think the result would be if EU and the US announced that warfare and 'secutiry concerns' is a legitimate reason to steal land? How many warlords in Africa would immediately start a war on each other, secure that no one else that didn;t have a vested interest in the region would mind? China would go on a invasion spree like nothing before it, swallowing up most of the southeast asion states, not to mention taiwan...

You seem like an intelligent guy, so consider the ramifications...

	10-04-2002 08:07									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

America only gets 10% of its oil from the Middle East. I don't know the exact percentage figure for Europe, but I know it is much more than 10%.

Anyway, if you oppose aggression in any form, why don't you decry Arab agression in 1948? Or 1967? Or 1973? Can't you see that Israel is not just an "agressor", but a tiny country that is trying to defend its right to exist against an enormous population of Arabs that surround it and wants it to be destroyed. You're taking a very simplistic view of this struggle, much like many other Europeans.

I would also recommend that you don't take MtG's views so lightly. He is easily one of the most insightful people on these forums and his comments on this thread are dead on (as usual).

	10-04-2002 08:16									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Natan, Alsace-Lorraine has gone back and forth between geramny and france so many times, I don't really know who it belongs to... But that is beside the point. We have to deal wiht the reality that prior to WW2, ceeding parcels of land was the accepted way for nations to conduct business. We might argue that it was immoral, just like we now consider slavery, but we still have to accept it as the past and judge the morality of current actions.

quote: Germany attacked France. France quickly fell, and Germany set up a puppet regime in Vichy. The legitimate french goverment fled to London. That's not really true. The Legitimate French government recalled marshall Petain from his post abroad and gave him a high position in the government. He then negotiated a peace which was passed by Parliament. De Gaulle just ran off and founded his own movement in London and called it the government of Free France. quote: the struggle to liberate France was led by England and later partnered with the U.S. This is something of a misstatement of allied war aimes. Our aims were unconditional surrender, not the restoration of French territory. quote: The basic flaw in your assessment was the acceptance of Vichy france as a legitimate nation. On the contrary, the goverment of france was in London, trying their best to liberate France from their attackers. Petain was the one who had an actual justification for his rule.

And this whole part supports your original claim how?

quote: So you can drop that obsession of yours.

It's not an obsession, it just baffles me how someone could have come up with the notion that the french resistance worked to obtain land from germany... It is such an incredibly bizarre conclusion. Of course, there is the possibility that you know better, but are unwilling to admit it because it would who the legitimacy of palestinian freedom fighters...

quote: Invading a country involves killing some of its citizens. Which of these statements was the one you meant to say?

Well, the first part is obviously assuming that there is no genocide present... I thought that was quite self-evident...

quote: IIRC, at least some the coup plotters intended to dismantle the death camps.

Are you actually claiming that they tried to kill Hitler ONLY to dismantle the deathcamps? Not at all to stop the losing war? I don't think so...

quote: I don't put grabbing land and killing millions of people in the same category. Or do you think Bismarck was as bad a man as Pol Pot?

Not equating them does not make one of them good... Is sodomy as bad as murder? Of course not. That doesn't mean we consider the cop who sodomized (amadu diallo? can't remember the guys name) with a broomstick a nice guy, just because the McVeigh was worse...

which means you never actually commented on the point:
If there were such a person, I would say that overall, he does not deserve praise... Just as you would most likely agree that someone who approved of the holocaust but disapporved of germanys war of aggression would desreve praise...

quote: Attacking a country's ally is not the same as attacking that country.

Actually, that IS the same thing... Look at NATO, for example.

Doesn't really matter, though...

quote: I don't hate Palestinians. I just believe that killing innocents is wrong.

that is a non-sequiter.


I still don't get what you are referring to in your post abaout albania and the commune. I don't really know anything about the commune thing, and the albanian situation is so muddled, I'd appreciate more details.

Time for me to go home.
Night

	10-04-2002 08:21									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze I agree they did not cause the conflict. Yet they allowed it to arise. What about the Balfour declaration(1917)? The British should never have created their protectorate in Palestine.

If the British hadn't, hundreds of thousands more people would have died at Hitler's hands. As it is, they were spared by coming to Mandatory Palestine in the 1930s.

quote: And allowing -and supporting- the foundation of Israel was a conscious act, partly the result of feelings of guilt.

Yes, but Britain was engaged in a policy of de-colonization at the time, and couldn't be bothered to ensure a favorable outcome in each colony, beyond making sure Communists didn't seize power. Just as Britain left India and Pakistan to duke it out, so it left the Jews and Arabs to duke it out at the same time just a bit further west.

quote: And it is my impression your knowledge of the European policy versus the 'Holy Land' is lacking. Apart from seven crusades, all great European powers have in all centuries tried to have influence in Palestine and to protect Christians in the Near East, especially when the Turks were weak. After ~1650 Turkish power was gradually declining. You should read some treaties with the Porte!

All of the European powers were trying to get influence over the ENTIRE Ottoman empire, not just the Holy Land. That's why they adopted various Christian groups. Look at this logically, Europeans grabbed for themselves the parts of the Middle East they wanted with pure military force, as in Algeria, or with a little bit of finesse, as in Egypt. Even later, France assumed direct control of Lebanon and Syria, and Britain of Iraq. Why the need to install a Jewish state when European Christians could rule directly? And wouldn't it have been easier to just give Arab Christians control?

quote: It was inevitable that some days Europeans would try to control the 'Holy' places again. Especially because the West became so powerful and the Muslim world so backward!

I disagree. What advantage would Europeans gain from controlling it, and how does Israel help them control it? Why do so many European countries side with the Palestinians if Israel serves their purposes?

quote: History is far stronger than the individual will of a human being. Christianity is still the dominant religion of Europe, even in Russia!

Irrelevant, because it wasn't the dominant religion of the rulers.

quote: Most Jews who founded Israel came from Europe. Without constant support -by Europe and US- Israel would not exist!

European support was irrelevant, US support was grounded in geo-strategic thinking (and domestic concerns), not in a desire to control Jerusalem.


CyberGNU: I think one of the great lessons of the twentieth century is that the nationalist obsession with the "just" or "natural" boundaries of a country is madness.

quote: what do you think the result would be if EU and the US announced that warfare and 'secutiry concerns' is a legitimate reason to steal land? How many warlords in Africa would immediately start a war on each other, secure that no one else that didn;t have a vested interest in the region would mind? China would go on a invasion spree like nothing before it, swallowing up most of the southeast asion states, not to mention taiwan...

. . . whereas if all borders should return to their 1945 or 1948 conditions and civillians are legitimate targets, China can be nuked for occupying Tibet and Kashmir, killing 1.2 billion people. Russia has been occupying Sakhalan since 1945, that's another 150 million to cross off. I could go on to smaller fry like Syria, but I think you get the point. Consider the ramifications.

As to your question, my point is that there isn't some hard and fast formula to apply to such a matter.

	10-04-2002 08:30									#67
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu After WW2, the Allied leaders didn't take away any land from germany, instead they helped rebuild it.

Maybe they don't teach you this in European schools, but Germany lost a large amount of territory following WWII. Poland got the provinces of Pomerania and Silesia and half of East Prussia while the Soviet Union got the rest of East Prussia. Not only was the territory taken, but all of the ethnic Germans in those areas were expelled and fled to Germany. Over 12 million German refugees left Eastern Europe after the war and were resettled in Germany. All these horrible things happened, yet there has still been peace in Europe. There is no PLO (Pomeranian Liberation Organization) out blowing up Polish supermarkets. The German people accepted the fact that they had lost the war and learned to live with the consequences, distasteful as they were. Why shouldn't the Palestinians do the same thing? And why aren't the Arab nations as willing to accept Palestinian refugees into their nations as Germany was when there were 12 million German refugees? I feel bad that the Palestinians lost their land, but it's time to move on. Either agree to a real and sincere peace with the Israelis or leave. Continuing to fight for land lost 50 years ago is only going to lead to destruction.

quote: How many warlords in Africa would immediately start a war on each other, secure that no one else that didn;t have a vested interest in the region would mind?

What do you think is happening in Africa right now?

quote: China would go on a invasion spree like nothing before it, swallowing up most of the southeast asion states, not to mention taiwan...

International law banning conquest is not what is keeping China from attacking Taiwan. They are being deterred by American military might. Take away the US military in the region and China will wipe their ass with every international law while sailing for Taipei. Don't be so naive.

	10-04-2002 08:31									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Natan, Alsace-Lorraine has gone back and forth between geramny and france so many times, I don't really know who it belongs to...

AFAIK it was French from the seventeenth century to 1871. There wasn't even a Germany in existence until the nineteenth century.

quote: But that is beside the point. We have to deal wiht the reality that prior to WW2, ceeding parcels of land was the accepted way for nations to conduct business. We might argue that it was immoral, just like we now consider slavery, but we still have to accept it as the past and judge the morality of current actions.

Why should WWII be the dividing line, when so many border changes were made after WWII? Most states still consider it to be legitimate. Unless you think France shouldn't have ceded Algeria to the FLN.

quote: And this whole part supports your original claim how?

So you accept that the Vichy government was the legitimate government of France?

quote: It's not an obsession, it just baffles me how someone could have come up with the notion that the french resistance worked to obtain land from germany... It is such an incredibly bizarre conclusion. Of course, there is the possibility that you know better, but are unwilling to admit it because it would who the legitimacy of palestinian freedom fighters...

The point is that borders are essentially arbitrary. You've just picked a random point in time which happens to suit you, and said "the borders which existed on this date are the true and just borders, any nation which deviates from them can be struck by suicide bombers and any other weapons available to kill as many civillians as necessary."

quote: Well, the first part is obviously assuming that there is no genocide present... I thought that was quite self-evident...

Your whole claim seemed to be that the real Nazi crime was annexing French land, not killing people.

quote: Are you actually claiming that they tried to kill Hitler ONLY to dismantle the deathcamps? Not at all to stop the losing war? I don't think so...

I don't see how it's that important. Stalin wasn't fighting to save Poland from Nazi domination, but it was still good that he fought against Hitler. Pretty much every actor in every war has some ulterior motive for its involvement. I'm not arguing that they're angels, but I'm using them to show a point, that it's the genocide which made Nazi Germany evil, not its border changes.

quote: Not equating them does not make one of them good... Is sodomy as bad as murder? Of course not. That doesn't mean we consider the cop who sodomized (amadu diallo? can't remember the guys name) with a broomstick a nice guy, just because the McVeigh was worse...

I assumed that your moral equivalencies between Nazis and Israel reflected your belief that genocide and land annexation are equally evil, rather than simply rather mediocre trolls.

quote: I still don't get what you are referring to in your post abaout albania and the commune. I don't really know anything about the commune thing, and the albanian situation is so muddled, I'd appreciate more details.

I've provided a summary of the relevant facts, if there's anything more you'd like know, either be specific or research yourself. I can't "give details," that request is a little too general.

	10-04-2002 08:58									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu China would go on a invasion spree like nothing before it, swallowing up most of the southeast asion states, not to mention taiwan... Originally posted by Drake Tungsten International law banning conquest is not what is keeping China from attacking Taiwan. They are being deterred by American military might. Take away the US military in the region and China will wipe their ass with every international law while sailing for Taipei. Don't be so naive.

Generally interesting discussion. Let's not ruin it with fantastic assumptions as to what is 'preventing' China from invading Taiwan.

China's 'threats' to Taiwan has more to do with posturing than anything else. Claims to Taiwan could conceivably be used as a bargaining chip in other international negotiations. China-Taiwan economies and relationships have, practically speaking, never been closer.

If China has ever seriously wanted to militarily take Taiwan or another neighbouring region, it would have been done before we were born.

Not today, in an more internationally responsible and aware environment. Not today, with a more free, better educated, and more aware mainland Chinese population.

	10-04-2002 09:06									#70
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu what do you think the result would be if EU and the US announced that warfare and 'secutiry concerns' is a legitimate reason to steal land?

Legitimate? When did we get a true form of international law for such terms to be of any meaning?

There are many conflicts in which the EU and the US don't intervene in.

	10-04-2002 09:19									#71
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by muppet China's 'threats' to Taiwan has more to do with posturing than anything else. Claims to Taiwan could conceivably be used as a bargaining chip in other international negotiations. China-Taiwan economies and relationships have, practically speaking, never been closer.

I don't agree with this. China views Taiwan as a rightful part of the Middle Kingdom and has great interest in reuniting it with the rest of China. There are two reasons that China hasn't taken it back already, IMO.

1. China lacks the force projection capabilities necessary to invade Taiwan.

2. The US is staunchly supportive of Taiwan.

Because of these reasons, China's threats to Taiwan right now are posturing. However, if China get the military capabilities it needs in the future and America pulls back from its support of Taiwan, China will take Taiwan back.

quote: If China has ever seriously wanted to militarily take Taiwan or another neighbouring region, it would have been done before we were born.

They seriously want to take Taiwan back, by military force if need be. They haven't tried yet because they are incapable of it. The Chinese aren't stupid; they know that they probably can't beat Taiwan's own defense forces, let alone the US seventh fleet. Just because they can't do something doesn't mean they don't want to.

	10-04-2002 09:23									#72
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I posted a thread on that exact topic: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=46699

	10-04-2002 16:38									#73
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu As long as Israel occupies palestine, the murders you talk of ARE cries for freedom...

Well, if this is how they cry for freedom, then they do not deserve it.

If the two of us lived down there and I blew up your sister while she was riding a bus to work one morning, would you call me a freedom fighter and ask your government to give me what I wanted?

It's not that simple, is it?

	10-04-2002 18:57									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Hmmm interesting to Read Alexander's Horses comments re rights of conquerers keeping land. I mean he lives in Australia as well as I do and we are living in conquered territory, our aboriginals still claim the land as theirs, but i dont see too many people lining up to give it back!!!!

Same goes for USA how much land was won from indians!!! ( I know some wass bought cheap)

Texas was mexican IIRC So was california..

how bout the original inhabitnats of South america ??

Does all land attained through war have to be returned?

Many here speak of WW2 and WW1 of Germanys aggresion for invading its neighbours, go back far enough and the Germanic tribes controlled all of Europe nearly even the French are originally a germanic tribe (The Franks)...

There was no Palestinians until the Palestinian mandate was drawn up and given to the English... Palestine is a name we gave the teritory.

Also remember that Jews were living in and emigrating to the Mid East well before 1948 settlements were known to exist in the early 1800's. The reason for splitting into zones of Jewish and arab was to stop the troubles that already existed. But that didnt work. The Jews were given just the land that they were a vast majority of settlements. The Arabs got most of the good land along the jordan, which is where they lived. But they didnt accept that and in 1948 tried to take all the land. They lost and Israel expanded.

Israel has not kept all land it has conquered, remember the Sinai was given back.

	10-04-2002 19:22									#75
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

very intersting discussion. Sadly I am to ignorant to join in.

	10-04-2002 21:49									#76
	Remove this text

"Israel overstepped the mark."

What mark is that?

Certainly not the mark of 7,000 civilians (conservative estimate) that have been killed in Afghanistan as a result of America's justified war against terror.

Attachment: opinion-cartoon2.gif
This has been downloaded 99 time(s).

	10-04-2002 22:05									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

In terms of Alsace and Lorraine, I'd say that Alsace should be German, and Lorraine French. It's important to recognize that they aren't the same, and shouldn't be handled as a pair all the time. The former is more German than the latter, and it would make sense for it to belong to the Germans. Ideally of course, the situation could be resolved through a referendum.

	10-04-2002 22:10									#78
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

http://www.gadol.com/various/ambu_win.zip

Great movie.

	10-04-2002 23:12									#79
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Israel is far more suitable for Jews today, because of the historical roots there. What Israel needs to do, is welcome the possibility of citizenship for Muslims and Christians as well, given that these two religions also have roots there. And Israel is already doing that.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but I've read that the last time there was a state of Israel was in app. 135 BC and that at the time just prior to the founding of the current state of Israel the population of the area was 32% Jewish and owned 5.6% of the land. Does the fact that a race or religion once inhabited an area almost 2,000 years ago supersede a current population's claim? Does it make the confiscation of legally owned land justifiable?

	10-04-2002 23:15									#80
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Does it make the confiscation of legally owned land justifiable?

It's called war, tandee. The winners get the spoils. Didn't they teach you anything in the Army?

	10-04-2002 23:27									#81
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but I've read that the last time there was a state of Israel was in app. 135 BC and that at the time just prior to the founding of the current state of Israel the population of the area was 32% Jewish and owned 5.6% of the land. Does the fact that a race or religion once inhabited an area almost 2,000 years ago supersede a current population's claim? Does it make the confiscation of legally owned land justifiable?

Judea was conquered by Babylon in [checking Alström's The History of Ancient Palestine] 586 BC. The breach in Jerusalem's walls was made on the ninth of the month of Tammuz. Not sure what year that would be in the Hebrew calender, but I'm sure somebody can figure it out. After that, Palestine was essentially a Babylonian holding, then Persian (Cyrus the Great being famous in part for returning the Jews to their homeland), then Hellenic, and then Roman. It may have briefly been independent, or at least autonomous, but it ceased to exist as a real historical entity around then. Still, your point holds, I'm just showing off my useless ability find out when the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem was ended.

And no, I don't really have much of a life.

	10-04-2002 23:39									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Wasnt it the ninth of Av?

Or did they fight in the city for a month before burning the temple?

	11-04-2002 02:02									#83
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but I've read that the last time there was a state of Israel was in app. 135 BC and that at the time just prior to the founding of the current state of Israel the population of the area was 32% Jewish and owned 5.6% of the land.

Jews may only have owned 5.6% of the land (I'm not sure), but Arabs didn't own the rest, most of it was owned by the British government.

Felch: AFAIK, they are both very French now, and besides, most Europeans (including Germans) are uncomfortable espousing the idea that all ethnic Germans should be united in one state.

	11-04-2002 03:29									#84
	Tired of ads?

Drake, there was a story in the LAtimes just a few days ago about how much oil the U.S. inports from OPEC and other sources. Saudi-Arabia alone stood for more than 10%.

Europe imports most of their oil from Norway and Russia, IIRC. (plus domestic producation in Britain).

And I can't see how Israel is a tiny country defending itself... that claim is invalidated by the occupation of other peoples territory. 'Yes officer, the fight started when he hit me back'.

If Israel stops the occupation and solves the right of return, then I might be convinced that Israel is a tiny country trying to defend itself (depending on cirumstance, of course.). But up till that point, Israel is just another nation trying to gain more lebensraum by the removal of its neighbours.

you are right about the land in Poland, I forgot about that. Sorry. The main point still remains, though.The emphasis after WW2 was to rebuild, not punish.

Now, why should the germans live with that but the palestinians shouldn't? Well, how about that the germans started WW2, but the palestinains never caused the jews to flood palestine, nor did the palestinians cause the founding of Israel. That the arab neighbours went to war in 1948 I don't hold against them - The U.N. happily gave away land that wasn't theirs to give away, and the arabs only tried to retian what belonged to them.

Natan, I actually do think that China should be nuked if it doesn't release tibet. However, China has nukes too, so reality prevents of from doing that.

Just like I believe that Israel as a state should morally be dissolved ceompletely, but practially I realize that Israel is there to stay, and a compromise must be reached.

The lesson is: one can have two opinions, one based on ideology and one based on reality. The first often shapes the second, but the second is the one that must be carried out. too many people int he world don't see the distinction, and turn out as fanatics.

But if practicality does no hinder the ideological, there is no reason NOT to carry out the ideological one. As it is, the world could force Israel to behave like a civilized nation if it only wanted to... (Well, if only the U.S. wanted too, that is).


the 'arbitrary' point in time isn't arbitrary, and I didn't pick it. At the end of WW2 the world recoiled from the horrors that had occured, and sat down to make sure it wouldn't happen again. The result of this was the global agreement that aggression is not a legitimate way of obtaining land. Ever since, land boundaries have been essentially fixed, with the exception of nations fragmenting into smaller nations as ethnic groups free themselves.

If you don't like that, well I'm sad for you. This is one of the greatest achievements of mankind, IMO, and finally brought us from a 'might gives right' society into a global society ruled by law.

quote: So you accept that the Vichy government was the legitimate government of France?

So, you really are saying that you don't understand how bizarre this argument is?

Before you answer, I'l give you some advice. See what happened to Petain AFTER the war, and you might come up with some conclusions on your own.

quote: Well, the first part is obviously assuming that there is no genocide present... I thought that was quite self-evident... Your whole claim seemed to be that the real Nazi crime was annexing French land, not killing people.

You still don't seem to get that they are two independent acts.

Germany could have invaded France without ever starting a holocaust.

Germany could have started a holocaust without invading France.

Both are crimes, but they are different from each other.
the first one would entail a resistance movement, who is more than justified doing whatever it can to eliminate the occupying power.

The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.


However, this all started with your original thesis, that the french resistance didn't care at all about germany occupying france, but only killed nazis for their political ideology. I think this is not only wrong, but actually terrifying in that it shows how little you undertsand about human motivations...

quote: Are you actually claiming that they tried to kill Hitler ONLY to dismantle the deathcamps? Not at all to stop the losing war? I don't think so... I don't see how it's that important. Stalin wasn't fighting to save Poland from Nazi domination, but it was still good that he fought against Hitler. Pretty much every actor in every war has some ulterior motive for its involvement. I'm not arguing that they're angels, but I'm using them to show a point, that it's the genocide which made Nazi Germany evil, not its border changes.

Well, it is important of your original thesis.

On the contrary, I'm stipulating that most French couldn't care less whether germany carried out a holocaust or not, as they were dealing with german occupation, a much more immediate problem from the french point of view.

And as far as I know, EVERY SINGLE OCCUPYING POWER IN HISTORY HAS BEEN BRANDED AS 'EVIL' BY THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE. Even the english were branded as 'evil' by american revolutionaries...

quote: I assumed that your moral equivalencies between Nazis and Israel reflected your belief that genocide and land annexation are equally evil, rather than simply rather mediocre trolls.

what is a mediocre troll? I've said repeatedly that sharon is equivalent to a 1935 hitler, i.e. before the holocaust started. Does Sharon look up to Hitler as a guiding symbol? Yes, I think he does, although not consiously. This is actually quite common among people who are victimized... Look it up in any moderns psychology textbook if you want.


Drake and Natan:
The situation in Africa is a lot more stable than it could be. While there are several civil wars, there are, AFAIK, only one actual interstate war, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea? and that one is partly a civil war as well. You might claim that the international community doesn't care enough, but it is a fact that does care.

Finally:

quote: As to your question, my point is that there isn't some hard and fast formula to apply to such a matter.

so, you are basically saying 'If jews take land, it is OK, but if jews lose land, it is not OK'. That is pretty much what I figured.

	11-04-2002 03:35									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Guardian, as I posted earlier I agree that right now, suicide bombers aren't the most effective way to peace. Unfortunately, The only palestinian leader who understand this is Arafat, which is why Israel is trying to get rid of him...

Rasputing, the myth that there was no such thing as 'palestinians' are one of the most widespread lies of the Israeli propaganda machine. Next to the 'we offered Arafat 95% of what he wanted at Camp David' myth, the second biggest, I think...

Claiming that palestinians didn't exist is like saying that Norwegians doesn't exist... Sure, they look like Swedes, and they were ruled by Denmark for many many years, but Norwegians are definetly an ethnic group. Claiming otherwise would only get you beaten by a lusekofte.

Oldenbarnevelt, very poignant, as long as you realize that it is ISRAEL that carries out terrorism, not the other way around... Terrorism is still terrorism even though it is carried out by people in uniform.

	11-04-2002 03:36									#86
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Spraybear?

MTG?

	11-04-2002 03:48									#87
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu The situation in Africa is a lot more stable than it could be. While there are several civil wars, there are, AFAIK, only one actual interstate war, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea? and that one is partly a civil war as well. You might claim that the international community doesn't care enough, but it is a fact that does care.

War is a comparatively rare phenomena in the international system to begin with. The fact that there is only one interstate war going on at the moment in Africa is hardly suprising to say the least given that fact.

	11-04-2002 03:57									#88
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Only in the last 50 years.

If you look at any given area with several states of reasonable equal power, there is historically very few times of peace...

	11-04-2002 04:39									#89
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Now, why should the germans live with that but the palestinians shouldn't? Well, how about that the germans started WW2, but the palestinains never caused the jews to flood palestine, nor did the palestinians cause the founding of Israel. That the arab neighbours went to war in 1948 I don't hold against them - The U.N. happily gave away land that wasn't theirs to give away, and the arabs only tried to retian what belonged to them.

Why are "the Arabs" a monolithic group? As che can tell you, their goal was in no way to help the Palestinians get independence.

quote: Natan, I actually do think that China should be nuked if it doesn't release tibet. However, China has nukes too, so reality prevents of from doing that.

So don't say that supporting flexibility with borders means that Drake, Dinodoc and I support changing every border in existence. But assuming that it was possible to place nuclear charges in all of China's nuclear weapons sites and cities, you would support that, even though it would mean exterminating a fifth of the world's population?

quote: The lesson is: one can have two opinions, one based on ideology and one based on reality. The first often shapes the second, but the second is the one that must be carried out. too many people int he world don't see the distinction, and turn out as fanatics.

I agree, but I don't even consider state's borders to have much moral value.

quote: the 'arbitrary' point in time isn't arbitrary, and I didn't pick it. At the end of WW2 the world recoiled from the horrors that had occured, and sat down to make sure it wouldn't happen again. The result of this was the global agreement that aggression is not a legitimate way of obtaining land.

You know, they also agreed (UN declaration of human rights) that every person has a right to two weeks of paid vacation. Yet very few countries offer that right, are they all evil for violating the international community's will and their own agreements?

quote: Ever since, land boundaries have been essentially fixed, with the exception of nations fragmenting into smaller nations as ethnic groups free themselves.

Not true.
- Morocco seized Western Sahara against its inhabitants will.
- China seized a portion of Kashmir and also seized Tibet
- Massive border shifts (such as in Poland) throughout eastern europe.
None of these have been punished or even condemed by the international community.
Also, how do you decide what ethnic groups deserve nations?

quote: If you don't like that, well I'm sad for you. This is one of the greatest achievements of mankind, IMO, and finally brought us from a 'might gives right' society into a global society ruled by law.

Firstly it isn't enforced and secondly, if it were it would be merely inflexible. You yourself acknowledge an exception for "ethnic groups" which "free themselves," so you actually do believe that changing borders by force is okay under certain circumstances. How you determine what ethnic groups deserve states, I don't know.

quote: So, you really are saying that you don't understand how bizarre this argument is? Before you answer, I'l give you some advice. See what happened to Petain AFTER the war, and you might understand

You know, the leaders of Germany were put on trial to, but they were Germany's "legitimate" leaders; no one argued that the Nazi government was not the "true" German government. Petain was the legitimate ruler, and of course he was executed, De Gaulle won and besides, Petain supported the evil (and more importantly to the factual side of this, losing) Nazi regime in Germany. But Charles I was executed too, and so were Czar Nicholas, South Vietnam's President Diem, and Iraq's Kareem Abdul Qassim. That he was executed doesn't prove anything. You yourself agree that a government can give away part of its land in a negotiated agreement, so tell me, why was Petain an illegitimate ruler?

quote: Both are crimes, but they are different from each other. the first one would entail a resistance movement, who is more than justified doing whatever it can to eliminate the occupying power. The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.

Why is changing a border worse than murdering millions of innocent people? I've never heard anyone argue this before. Is this idea taught in Sweedish schools?

quote: However, this all started with your original thesis, that the french resistance didn't care at all about germany occupying france, but only killed nazis for their political ideology. I think this is not only wrong, but actually terrifying in that it shows how little you undertsand about human motivations...

I did not say that was the motivation of the French resistance - I said that it is the reason they are praised. Do you think that the Polisario front, Hamas, and the Jaish e Muhammed are highly praised?

quote: Well, it is important of your original thesis. On the contrary, I'm stipulating that most French couldn't care less whether germany carried out a holocaust or not, as they were dealing with german occupation, a much more immediate problem from the french point of view.

Again, it's not my position that the French were motivated by their desire to end the Holocaust - but the reason they are praised is that they fought against the Holocaust's perpetrators. I am discussing the motive of those who speak well of the French resistance (and other WWII combatants), not of the motives of the actual actors in the war. Everyone praises the Partisans who fought against Hitler, many fewer (although admittadly some) praise the very same Partisans who kept on fighting to liberate Ukraine and the baltic republics from the USSR after the war.

quote: And as far as I know, EVERY SINGLE OCCUPYING POWER IN HISTORY HAS BEEN BRANDED AS 'EVIL' BY THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE. Even the english were branded as 'evil' by american revolutionaries...

It's not actually true (I know of no protests by the inhabitants of Sakhalan against Russian occupation), I don't see why it would be so surprising - I know of very few wars in which both sides did not brand each other 'evil.'

quote: The situation in Africa is a lot more stable than it could be. While there are several civil wars, there are, AFAIK, only one actual interstate war, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea? and that one is partly a civil war as well.

There's the attempt of the Polisario front to liberate Western Sahara, and guerillas with Rwandan support are fighting in Zaire. It's not clear to me why you brought up Africa, but I would point out that the civil wars are just as bad if not worse than interstate ones, and that further division into states might in at least a few cases prevent war.

quote: You might claim that the international community doesn't care enough, but it is a fact that does care.

Why do you say that?

quote: so, you are basically saying 'If jews take land, it is OK, but if jews lose land, it is not OK'. That is pretty much what I figured.

No, I'm not arguing that Jews should have a right of return to Poland or Iraq.

	11-04-2002 04:39									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Only in the last 50 years.

It's a much longer time than that, at least since the begining of the 1900's if your going to advance the theory of the Democratic Peace.

Personally, I'd go back further than that though.