Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7158)

Ray in Seattle 11-13-2011 10:15 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 231458)
For anyone following this discussion, who is defending and who is the aggressor isn't an established fact.

Usually have no trouble following you but I am now. Do you mean generally or in the A/I conflict?

Quote:

Aggressor, in the sense of "the one who initiates conflict" is different from saying that one side adopts an aggressive policy. Perhaps Israel could handle the problems in the region in various ways, but decides to use aggression, excessive and disproportionate
I have no idea what you're saying.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. I would say that most of the Western world has been giving Israel the benefit of the doubt for decades. The problem is that if Israel continues to escalate its aggressive stance, one has to start wondering for how much longer it would be safe for our species to continue to give it the benefit of the doubt.
I said nothing in my reply to you about Israel. (Ooops I see I did, but as an example of the generic case) You asked the question about defenders and aggressors and that's how I tried to answer it.

Which is kind if a messed up answer. Ask me again that last part reworded for clarity and I'll give it a better effort. ;-)

Ocean 11-13-2011 10:20 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 231457)
I'm not positive but I think Israel did not sign the non-proliferation treaty and is therefor free to have nuclear weapons without violating any laws.

Well, it looks like there's supposed to be a conference in 2012 to revisit the issue. If this is to be taken seriously, Israel's position will have to be reviewed then.

Ray in Seattle 11-13-2011 10:25 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 231462)
Well, it looks like there's supposed to be a conference in 2012 to revisit the issue. If this is to be taken seriously, Israel's position will have to be reviewed then.

Did you read the last four paras?


Quote:

The United States will not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardize Israel’s national security. We will not accept any approach that singles out Israel or sets unrealistic expectations. The United States’ long-standing position on Middle East peace and security remains unchanged, including its unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

In this respect, the United States deplores the decision to single out Israel in the Middle East section of the NPT document.

The failure of the resolution to mention Iran, a nation in longstanding violation of the NPT and UN Security Council Resolutions which poses the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the region and to the integrity of the NPT, is also deplorable.

As a cosponsor charged with enabling this conference, the United States will ensure that a conference will only take place if and when all countries feel confident that they can attend. Because of gratuitous way that Israel has been singled out, the prospect for a conference in 2012 that involves all key states in the region is now in doubt and will remain so until all are assured that it can operate in a unbiased and constructive way.

Ocean 11-13-2011 10:36 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 231465)
Did you read the last four paras?

Yes, I read the whole thing.

Both countries pose problems that need resolution. There were no surprises. The only salient aspect is whether next year there will be a serious attempt to make some decisions or whether they will continue to look the other way and let Israel operate its nuclear arsenal in the dark.

Ray in Seattle 11-13-2011 10:41 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 231468)
Yes, I read the whole thing.

Both countries pose problems that need resolution. There were no surprises. The only salient aspect is whether next year there will be a serious attempt to make some decisions or whether they will continue to look the other way and let Israel operate its nuclear arsenal in the dark.

The document you linked to states in para 5 that

Quote:

In addition, we will insist that the conference operate only by consensus by the regional countries, to include agreement on any possible further discussions or follow-up actions, which will only take place with the consent of all the regional countries.
Kind of looks like nothing happens if Israel doesn't agree.

BTW - that Israeli nuclear arsenal that seems to irk you is probably responsible for several hundred thousand Arabs being alive today because Israel has not been attacked by WMD as of yet.

Also, only states that signed the NPT have to abide by it. No-one including the UN has power to tell Israel it can not have nuclear weapons.

opposable_crumbs 11-13-2011 10:55 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 231469)

BTW - that Israeli nuclear arsenal that seems to irk you is probably responsible for several hundred thousand Arabs being alive today because Israel has not been attacked by WMD as of yet.

That's a rather odd claim, but it gives me hope that people accept MAD is still applicable. Now what would a rational actor do when they are surrounded by an aggressive foreign power who has invaded at least two neighboring countries within the last decade or so, and is involved in hostilities in various other countries and is suspected in backing covert attacks against government workers.

Sulla the Dictator 11-14-2011 03:11 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs (Post 231473)
That's a rather odd claim, but it gives me hope that people accept MAD is still applicable.

Except that the history is premised on the rationality, or more accurately, the selfishness and greed of dictators in the region. You have no idea of how an extremist government that is sincere will act if armed with these weapons.

History is instructive. Hitler's attitude was that he preferred Germany to be annihilated by the whirlwind of Allied assault rather than have it live in a post-Nazi world. There is no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that had Hitler possessed atomic weapons anytime after 1942, he would have used them regardless of the consequences.

The Japanese were working on a plan to deploy biological weapons before we dropped an atomic bomb on them. Even after the first atomic weapon was deployed, the Supreme War Council wouldn't accept surrender. Even after the second atomic bomb went off, there was a coup d'etat attempt to continue the war.

Even more recently, there was a point during the Cuban missile crisis when Castro is said to have urged Khrushchev to launch the weapons before the inevitable invasion of Cuba.

You can't premise geopolitics on the assumption that everyone is a fraud or a good guy. Sometimes the enemy believes in volkish funeral pyres.

Quote:

Now what would a rational actor do when they are surrounded by an aggressive foreign power who has invaded at least two neighboring countries within the last decade or so, and is involved in hostilities in various other countries and is suspected in backing covert attacks against government workers.
This doesn't make any sense.

Florian 11-14-2011 07:34 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 231451)
Not really. Aggression is the use if force (Sometimes even the threat of force) ]for non-defensive purposes. (And it almost always involves killing and maiming.) I'm sure most occupations used some force but not all. Some are legal (defensive occupations like Israel's of the West Bank and previously Gaza) and some are illegal (occcupations of aggression) like Germany's of France according to jus ad bellum (the laws of the right to wage war).

False. As a matter of fact, the International Court of Justice has declared the occupation and settlement of the West Bank to be illegal according to international law, i.e. they are not justified by self-defense, as you state.

Quote:

The International Court of Justice concluded that Israel had breached its obligations under international law by establishing settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of imposing a régime, which is contrary to international law. The Court also concluded that the Israeli régime violates the basic human rights of the Palestinians by impeding the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception of lsraeli citizens) and their exercise of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living.
But besides being illegal, the occupation and settlements are an obstacle to peace, which is just another way of saying that they are perceived by the Palestinians, as well as by the international community (with the notable exception of the US), as forms of aggression:

Quote:

Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 84 (1): 85–86. "The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...li_settlements

Ray in Seattle 11-14-2011 12:03 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
This morning I re-read this comment I made as a reply to Wonderment on Saturday. I can see that I said things in a way that are not helpful to a reasonable discussion and I'm feeling bad about that. Wonderment and I both have strong beliefs about this topic. While Wonderment kept his comments reasonable I let mine get out of hand. I apologize for that and I hope to do better in the future.

Wonderment 11-14-2011 02:35 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 231507)
This morning I re-read this comment I made as a reply to Wonderment on Saturday. I can see that I said things in a way that are not helpful to a reasonable discussion and I'm feeling bad about that. Wonderment and I both have strong beliefs about this topic. While Wonderment kept his comments reasonable I let mine get out of hand. I apologize for that and I hope to do better in the future.

Thanks, Ray. I appreciate that.

popcorn_karate 11-15-2011 05:29 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230858)
This is where we disagree. I see nothing wrong with being a Zionist. Indeed, I probably am one (I am under my understanding of the term), so I clearly see no inconsistency with liberalism.

how can a liberal support a state founded on racial identity?


seriously, i don't see how zionism (as an idea, not as a practice!!!!!!!) is any different than an idahoan militia's desire for an aryan homeland.

its just repugnant.

stephanie 11-15-2011 06:58 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 231721)
how can a liberal support a state founded on racial identity?

I don't think Zionism is the same thing as "racial identity."

There are a few factors that play into my view here. First, at its inception Zionism was about the desire for a state where Jews wouldn't be discriminated against or worse or at the mercy of others. One place where they could be sure that was the case. Perhaps such places exist now without Israel (which still doesn't solve the problem for Jews who don't live in such places, given that open immigration is not the norm), but I don't think that makes the desire initially without merit.

Second, despite the view of many in the US and more commonly in liberalism today that nationalism is as negative a force and irrational as prejudice against those of other races or religions, I think it's worth considering that it has been seen as a liberal force at various points in time. Among other things, as a response to empires that ruled over various peoples who wanted independence and for whom independence (and sometimes unity with others of similar culture and language) was often combined with ideas about democratic government and other liberal ideas, all wrapped up with the self-determination idea. Indeed, this same idea is often behind the argument for the Palestinians -- that they have a right to "their" land, that they had a right to be angry at it being given to the Israelis (I mean the piece that is now Israel, specifically), that they have a right to self-determination. It's made often in response to other nationally-based break away groups or rebels. Clearly, nationalism was coopted by non-liberal forces in a number of major examples, but much as I like the US's model of a multi-cultural society built of immigrants, I don't think that nations built on cultural/ethnic groupings are inherently invalid.

Third, I see Zionism as based more on a cultural claim that an ethnic one, anyway, even though it's all centered around a particular religious identity. There is not a common racial or ethnic background. Although Israel is a Jewish state, no particular level of practice or, of course, belief is demanded. As Gershom said, part of what it means to live in a Jewish state is that there's an argument about what Judaism is, a hashing it out. I don't think it's fair for me to pretend that's not somewhat true about Christianity in the US, for example, without any need for or desire for a religiously-identified state, simply because it's been the majority here. There's something of the casual privilege of the majority to me in saying people just shouldn't care about that, there's no big deal to always living somewhere where another religion is dominate and defines days off, holidays, etc.

Fourth, there's still an element of refuge to it. The experience pre WW2 was that countries weren't willing to open their doors to Jewish refugees in large enough numbers. And with respect to actually stopping Germany, etc., the number one aim of other countries was their own national security interests, not doing enough soon enough to stop what happened. Part of the point, then, of Zionism and a homeland would seem to be that this not happen again. This is why I don't think it's wrong or illiberal for Israel -- when exercising the rights over their own borders that other countries also exercise -- prioritize its national/moral interests not specifically in the way that the US does, but by opening the doors to any Jew, including those defined only by the kinds of ethnic connection that might have justified persecution. I don't see this as the same as the US imposing racial barriers, as we did at times.

I am not saying that all the implications of this as practiced in Israel today are great, obviously. But I think the idea that having a Jewish state is, by definition, bad, illiberal, racist, is wrong. It's claiming as likes things that really aren't the same -- for example, there's a difference between valuing one's Judaism as a part of one's culture and valuing one's whiteness as a sign of superiority. Indeed, there's a difference in the US specifically between being attached to a particular ethnicity or culture (e.g., my friend whose family is into the St. Andrew Society and goes to the Highland Games and so on) and being attached to "whiteness."

ledocs 11-15-2011 11:30 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
I was offline for a few days. Great to be back in the edifying and entirely one-sided world of RISible. "Abandon all hope, 'ye who enter here."

ledocs 11-16-2011 10:33 AM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
I just discovered this article by a very notable Israeli military historian (look him up in Wikipedia).

http://forward.com/articles/133961/

I was unaware of this article, or even of Martin van Creveld's very existence, until my challenge to RISible to explain to us how Israel's settlements on the West Bank conduce to its long-term security went unanswered, just as every direct question I posed to him went unanswered. Back to the Epicurean garden for me.

Florian 11-16-2011 11:07 AM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 231793)
I just discovered this article by a very notable Israeli military historian (look him up in Wikipedia).

http://forward.com/articles/133961/

I was unaware of this article, or even of Martin van Creveld's very existence, until my challenge to RISible to explain to us how Israel's settlements on the West Bank conduce to its long-term security went unanswered, just as every direct question I posed to him went unanswered. Back to the Epicurean garden for me.

Good article. It takes a military historian to cut through the BS.

Florian, my epicurean namesake and 18th century fabulist wrote:

"Il en coûte trop cher pour briller dans le monde, combien je vais aimer ma retraite profonde! Pour vivre heureux vivons cachés. "

Ray in Seattle 11-16-2011 01:13 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 231793)
I just discovered this article by a very notable Israeli military historian (look him up in Wikipedia).

http://forward.com/articles/133961/

I was unaware of this article, or even of Martin van Creveld's very existence, until my challenge to RISible to explain to us how Israel's settlements on the West Bank conduce to its long-term security went unanswered, just as every direct question I posed to him went unanswered. Back to the Epicurean garden for me.

I try to answer every question. If I miss one feel free to remind me. But in your case I find it difficult to follow your long comments that talk about many different things that interest you but never seem to have a coherent point. If you really want my opinion (of which I am a bit skeptical) just state the question clearly and don't bury it in a lot of run-on sentences that don't seem to relate to it. Do you really want me to respond to this one or are you satisfied just pointing out my "cowardice"? ;-)

TwinSwords 11-16-2011 01:30 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 231812)
I try to answer every question. If I miss one feel free to remind me. But in your case I find it difficult to follow your long comments that talk about many different things that interest you but never seem to have a coherent point. If you really want my opinion (of which I am a bit skeptical) just state the question clearly and don't bury it in a lot of run-on sentences that don't seem to relate to it. Do you really want me to respond to this one or are you satisfied just pointing out my "cowardice"? ;-)

I know you didn't mean for this statement to be factual, at all; you are just trying to be insulting. But I'll state for the record anyway that nothing ledocs has written to you matches your description above. Everyone who follows the forum knows this. Well, except for the two who can't parse sentences with more than seven or eight words.

Sulla the Dictator 11-16-2011 04:10 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 231793)
I just discovered this article by a very notable Israeli military historian (look him up in Wikipedia).

http://forward.com/articles/133961/

I was unaware of this article, or even of Martin van Creveld's very existence,

Meh. I read his book "The Sword and the Olive" and was pretty surprised at how anti-Israeli it was. He is very political.

Ocean 11-16-2011 05:36 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 231796)
"Il en coûte trop cher pour briller dans le monde, combien je vais aimer ma retraite profonde! Pour vivre heureux vivons cachés. "

Nice.

ledocs 11-18-2011 02:12 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
It is difficult to know what RIS thinks in this regard, i.e. whether he is sincere in saying that my posts are rambling and incoherent. But he did employ this same characterization as his way of introducing himself to me:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...0&postcount=90

How the following ten-line, two-paragraph post of mine could accurately be described as “rambling” (or as incoherent, for that matter) baffled me initially, and baffles me still:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...7&postcount=86

I found RIS’s opening salvo, cited above, to be insulting, whether or not it was intended to be so (but only a delusional person or a completely incompetent writer could not have so intended), and I have responded in kind ever since, so our little dispute has mirrored the Israel-Palestinian dispute in that way.

RIS apparently thinks that one of us is probably delusional (see post #90 above). I have the impression that RIS is delusional in many ways. One of these ways is to think that he is a rational free-thinker and that I, on the other hand, am a slave to the “dominant leftist narrative” as regards Israel, and probably with respect to many other matters, for it is in the nature of most men who are not RIS, both liberals and conservatives, to be unable either to think clearly or to think for themselves:

Quote:

I used to believe that as a liberal I was moire [sic] prepared to use reason and reference to some objective reality to justify my beliefs about the world - than those on the right. I now realize that only very few liberals are prepared to do that and the same is true for conservatives. I'm afraid the great majority on both sides are quite willing to create fantastic narratives about any number of things to justify believing whatever it is that feels good to them - for motives that come from a deeper psychological level.
So RIS, it turns out, is privy to deep psychological truths that enable him to evade the shibboleths of both liberal and conservative. He is, by inference, and due to his esoteric psychological insight, an embodiment of clear and reasonable thinking beyond ideology,.

RIS, in the interest of stating things as clearly and distinctly as I possibly can, may I say that you are an ass. I say this not on the basis of insight into psychological processes, but on the basis of my unmediated access to the essences of things. I have seen your like here before, quite recently in fact, and your likeness goes by the sobriquet sugarkang. The two of you should collaborate on a book, “The World as It Really Is, Beyond the Simple but Incorrect Presuppositions of Left and Right.” As I said to sugarkang, you write the book, and I will be happy to read it and pan it.

Ray in Seattle 11-18-2011 02:21 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 232042)
It is difficult to know what RIS thinks in this regard, i.e. whether he is sincere in saying that my posts are rambling and incoherent. But he did employ this same characterization as his way of introducing himself to me:

I don't remember just what got us off on the wrong foot. Perhaps it was my fault. Sometimes when some other person calls me insulting names it makes me defensive for a few minutes and I assume an insult from the next person to reply to my comment where there was none intended. Let's forget it. I am interested in your ideas and your challenges to mine if you'd like to pursue that. Many folks here have beliefs that I think are incorrect and I'm sure they think the same of mine. For me, that's what makes it interesting to be here. Insults are just a distraction. I apologize for any of mine that hurt your feelings.

thouartgob 11-18-2011 03:46 PM

Israel's fundamentalist problems continue...
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...dox-billboards

Quote:

Over recent months, women's faces have disappeared from billboards across the city amid mounting pressure applied by the powerful ultra-orthodox lobby, who find the female image offensive.

Several advertisers have erased female models from their posters in Jerusalem. Elsewhere in Israel, the winter campaign of Israeli clothing brand Honigman features a model cosily dressed in winter knits. In the capital, the woman's head has been removed from the image, leaving just her arm and a handbag.

Companies that do not fall in line with the standards of the extreme ultra-orthodox have frequently fallen victim to direct action. Across Jerusalem, female figures have been blacked out of billboards with spray-paint, or vandalised with graffiti branding the image "illegal". Other posters are simply torn down.

stephanie 11-18-2011 03:53 PM

Re: Israel's fundamentalist problems continue...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thouartgob (Post 232060)

I read about that recently in connection with a story about the objections to women singing.

TwinSwords 11-18-2011 03:58 PM

Re: The Unmaking of Israel (Robert Wright & Gershom Gorenberg)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle (Post 232044)
I don't remember just what got us off on the wrong foot. Perhaps it was my fault. Sometimes when some other person calls me insulting names it makes me defensive for a few minutes and I assume an insult from the next person to reply to my comment where there was none intended. Let's forget it. I am interested in your ideas and your challenges to mine if you'd like to pursue that. Many folks here have beliefs that I think are incorrect and I'm sure they think the same of mine. For me, that's what makes it interesting to be here. Insults are just a distraction. I apologize for any of mine that hurt your feelings.

Gosh, that almost seemed sincere ... until you wrote the last three words. Not subtle enough, RIS.

Ocean 11-18-2011 04:25 PM

Re: Israel's fundamentalist problems continue...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 232062)
I read about that recently in connection with a story about the objections to women singing.

There must be a religious insanity virus spreading throughout the world. Disturbing.

thouartgob 11-18-2011 04:28 PM

Re: Israel's fundamentalist problems continue...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 232062)
I read about that recently in connection with a story about the objections to women singing.

I just do not understand it... How much beauty in the world do you have to hide from yourself ?? Worse when you try to destroy it for others.


Funnily enough when I clicked on the link a streaming add starting playing Lady Gaga.

thouartgob 11-18-2011 05:06 PM

Re: Israel's fundamentalist problems continue...
 
Wonder if RIS and apple will be training their "... So Did Hitler" fire in some other direction for while ;)

Ray in Seattle 11-18-2011 10:57 PM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 231412)
Yeah. In 1948. On the day the 1948 war was launched. Furthermore, there's some question whether he really said it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Hassan_Azzam

Actually, he said it but not when it was previously thought to have been said. It was said a few months earlier before the Partition vote apparently which is why the source was not found. Until recently as reported in the Fall, 2011 Issue of ME Quarterly . . .

Link to article

Excerpt:

Quote:

Yet, the original document does in fact exist. It has eluded scholars for so long because they have been looking in the wrong place.

In his account of Israel's birth, Stone alluded to the possibility that the threat was made on the eve of the U.N. vote on partition, with the aim of averting this momentous decision, rather than before the pan-Arab invasion of Israel six months later.[7] Following this lead, David Barnett found a Jewish Agency memorandum, submitted on February 2, 1948, to the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked with the implementation of the partition resolution, and yet again to the U.N. secretary-general on March 29, 1948.

Describing the panoply of Arab threats of war and actual acts of violence aimed at aborting the partition resolution, the memorandum read:

Quote:

(6) … The "practical and effective means" contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco. "This war," he said, "will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."[8]
The Jewish Agency memorandum cites an October 11, 1947 article in the Egyptian newspaper Akhbar al-Yom as the quote's source. An examination of the original article readily confirms the quote's authenticity, laying to rest one of the longest running historiographical debates attending the 1948 war.
The full quote is shown and is interesting to read in context.

Sulla the Dictator 11-21-2011 04:22 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 231413)
Conservative Americans talk this way about Arabs -- whether in Iran, or Iraq, or in Palestine, or elsewhere -- all the time. As long as any of us have been alive we've had to listen to conservatives talk about turning Iran into a parking lot, for example. The fact that Iran can find plenty of examples of American conservatives talking about obliterating their country certainly shouldn't be construed as justification for Iranian war against the US.

That is not only false, it is dumb. Maybe you hear people in a bar talking like that, but the notion that conservatives have seriously discussed exterminating the Muslim populations of these places is just stupid.

Wonderment 11-21-2011 04:41 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 232364)
That is not only false, it is dumb. Maybe you hear people in a bar talking like that, but the notion that conservatives have seriously discussed exterminating the Muslim populations of these places is just stupid.

Ba-ba-bomb Iran.

TwinSwords 11-21-2011 06:18 AM

Re: inconsistency?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 232364)
That is not only false, it is dumb. Maybe you hear people in a bar talking like that, but the notion that conservatives have seriously discussed exterminating the Muslim populations of these places is just stupid.

Can something be both true and dumb? When it comes to Republicans, yes, I would say it can. This is one of those times. And you're right: it is dumb the things that were said by Republicans.

But let's make no mistake: Among the base, the GOP rank and file to whom I was primarily but not exclusively referring, the language of mass murder of Arabs was exceedingly normal during the past ten years -- especially as the Bush War in Iraq floundered into disaster between 2004-2006. Many conservatives responded to the unfolding embarassment and disaster with the quite serious question "why don't we just nuke the place?" Or "turn it into a parking lot?" Or at the very least, allow the troops to "take off the handcuffs and really engage the enemy?," which meant slaughter even more people than they were already slaughtering.

But, of course, this "stupid" rhetoric was by no means limited to the Bush years: pretty much any time we get into any conflict (hot or cold) with anyone, the conservative base responds with the same fantasies of mass violence.

It's just who your people are.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.