This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1RickHarsch
In one thread an old argument about whether Israeli settlements hinder a one-state solution was referred to.
Let me give my take without have waded through that thread. I believe that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories first and foremost violate international law, such as it is, and that they are, at their very most benign, quite clear example of good will. That is more than tactical; I think it speaks to playing for a very long and favorable, for the Israelis, endgame and in the short run blatantly diminishes Palestinian rights and the people themselves.
Let me give my take without have waded through that thread. I believe that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories first and foremost violate international law, such as it is, and that they are, at their very most benign, quite clear example of good will. That is more than tactical; I think it speaks to playing for a very long and favorable, for the Israelis, endgame and in the short run blatantly diminishes Palestinian rights and the people themselves.
2lawecon
Well, since we are giving impressions without doing any research, or even reading a previous thread, here is my impression:
(1) Most of other peoples' impressions arise from knowing zilch about Israel or the history of Jews and Arabs in the land known by the Romans as Palestine. Specifically, but without limitation:
(a) Jews existed quite peaceably in most of the Middle East since ancient times. They were even a majority in a few places - like Jerusalem for the hundred years or so prior to the establishment of the contemporary state of Israel. Most of the population of the Middle East was Arab (albeit that term covers a lot of territory). If you want to include North Africa (e.g., Egypt) and Mesopotamia in the Middle East then most of the people were Islamic, but not Arab.
(b) For many centuries prior to Israel there were effectively no nations in the Middle East. There were territories, but they were at best administrative districts of the Ottoman Empire. The Peoples of the Middle East - Jewish and nonJewish - didn't generally think in terms of nations. They thought in terms of tribes. Nations, in the sense of nation states, as opposed to nations as a synonym for a tribe or ethnic group, were a modern European thing that were imposed on the Middle East as it was colonialized by the West.
(c) Although Jews had existed as an ethnic group in the Middle East since ancient times, starting around the 1880s there were several waves of Jewish emigration to Palestine as a part of the Zionist movement. Zionism had many forms. The best survey is probably The Zionist Idea which contains an over hundred page summary survey followed by readings from the more dominate forms.
(d) After the Ottoman Empire was overthrown by the "Young Turks" and then ended up being dispossessed of its colonies as a result of being on the loosing side of WWI, the Western powers created nations by drawing arbitrary lines on maps, see A Peace To End All Peace One of the nations was Trans-Jordan, which then underwent several transformations, spawning the modern administrative district of Palestine. The British were assigned Palestine as a protectorate by the League of Nations.
(e) None of the populations of Palestine liked British rule. Unfortunately, they themselves were divided by tribe (family group) and ethnicity (Jew vs. Arab). This situation was considerably worsened by the fact that in the power struggle between families among the Arabs the family that won had a history of vehement anti-semitism. (Their Arab competitors generally did not.)
(f) Over time, things got worse between the British and their subjects and between Arabs and Jews, to the point where Britain declared it was giving up its protectorate.
(g) The League of Nations proposed a division of Palestine into Jewish and Arab areas. The Arabs rejected this arrangement. Shortly after Israel declared itself to be an independent nation and war broke out between Israel and the surrounding Arab states. Those Arabs who remained in what would become Israel are today Israelis. Those who left are Palestinians in refugee camps - since their fellow Arabs refuse to absorb them into their countries. There is no question that some Jewish groups encouraged Arabs to evacuate and that there was a limited continuation of the atrocities between Arabs and Jews that had been ongoing since the 1920s.
(h) In the next few years after the Arab nations lost their war with Israel they dispossessed and exiled their traditional Jewish populations. The effect was a population exchange, where 700-800K Arabs previously resident in the administrative district referred to as Palestine ended up elsewhere, and 700-800K Jews previously resident in Arab nations ended up elsewhere.
(2) As I keep reminding people, and they keep ignoring, Israel is not a person with a will. It is an incredibly diverse society comprised of various Jewish groups (many of which don't particularly care for one another), modern Arabs, Bedoin, Druse, and various other ethnic groups. See, e.g. The Israelis Israel has a very fine tuned democratic system of proportional representation and parliamentary government that frequently leads to long term deadlock on major issues and minority rule. For instance, Israelis have been working on a written constitution since independence, opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of Israelis have always favored adoption of a written constitution, but there is still no written constitution or any real hope that there will be one anytime soon.
(3) As noted above, Zionism is also quite diverse. The "original conception" of Theodore Hertzl was simply a state where Jews were in the majority and which thus could be counted on to be a refuge for Jews when Gentile societies went though yet another of their spasms of antisemitism. Hertzl was very clear that his Israel was to be a modern pluralistic state, not a Jewish theocracy. He even wrote a novel about the difference between a state that was majority Jewish and a Jewish State. At the other end of the spectrum are the "Zionist Revisionists" (a group that arose in the 1930s and that tried to oppose the formation of the present state of Israel by military means). These people are basically fascists (in the technical meaning of that term). They currently dominate Israeli politics, although they are numerically a minority. They are aligned with the ultra-fundamentalist Haredim parties, who, since the 1967 war, have flip-flopped from believing that contemporary Israel is a heresy to believing it is G_d's will and should be expanded.
(4) The continued existence of the Occupied Territories, which is destroying Israel and is used as a tool within Israel to promote a Reform Zionism view of reality, is a result of (2) and (3).
(5) No one cares that the settlements are a violation of international law. The fundamental question is the disposition of the Occupied Territories. It is somewhat silly and contradictory to argue that Arabs should continue to exist as citizens in Israel but Jews should not settle in majority Arab areas. If you will read the previous thread and think about it, I'm sure that you will see that you don't really want to adopt that view.
(1) Most of other peoples' impressions arise from knowing zilch about Israel or the history of Jews and Arabs in the land known by the Romans as Palestine. Specifically, but without limitation:
(a) Jews existed quite peaceably in most of the Middle East since ancient times. They were even a majority in a few places - like Jerusalem for the hundred years or so prior to the establishment of the contemporary state of Israel. Most of the population of the Middle East was Arab (albeit that term covers a lot of territory). If you want to include North Africa (e.g., Egypt) and Mesopotamia in the Middle East then most of the people were Islamic, but not Arab.
(b) For many centuries prior to Israel there were effectively no nations in the Middle East. There were territories, but they were at best administrative districts of the Ottoman Empire. The Peoples of the Middle East - Jewish and nonJewish - didn't generally think in terms of nations. They thought in terms of tribes. Nations, in the sense of nation states, as opposed to nations as a synonym for a tribe or ethnic group, were a modern European thing that were imposed on the Middle East as it was colonialized by the West.
(c) Although Jews had existed as an ethnic group in the Middle East since ancient times, starting around the 1880s there were several waves of Jewish emigration to Palestine as a part of the Zionist movement. Zionism had many forms. The best survey is probably The Zionist Idea which contains an over hundred page summary survey followed by readings from the more dominate forms.
(d) After the Ottoman Empire was overthrown by the "Young Turks" and then ended up being dispossessed of its colonies as a result of being on the loosing side of WWI, the Western powers created nations by drawing arbitrary lines on maps, see A Peace To End All Peace One of the nations was Trans-Jordan, which then underwent several transformations, spawning the modern administrative district of Palestine. The British were assigned Palestine as a protectorate by the League of Nations.
(e) None of the populations of Palestine liked British rule. Unfortunately, they themselves were divided by tribe (family group) and ethnicity (Jew vs. Arab). This situation was considerably worsened by the fact that in the power struggle between families among the Arabs the family that won had a history of vehement anti-semitism. (Their Arab competitors generally did not.)
(f) Over time, things got worse between the British and their subjects and between Arabs and Jews, to the point where Britain declared it was giving up its protectorate.
(g) The League of Nations proposed a division of Palestine into Jewish and Arab areas. The Arabs rejected this arrangement. Shortly after Israel declared itself to be an independent nation and war broke out between Israel and the surrounding Arab states. Those Arabs who remained in what would become Israel are today Israelis. Those who left are Palestinians in refugee camps - since their fellow Arabs refuse to absorb them into their countries. There is no question that some Jewish groups encouraged Arabs to evacuate and that there was a limited continuation of the atrocities between Arabs and Jews that had been ongoing since the 1920s.
(h) In the next few years after the Arab nations lost their war with Israel they dispossessed and exiled their traditional Jewish populations. The effect was a population exchange, where 700-800K Arabs previously resident in the administrative district referred to as Palestine ended up elsewhere, and 700-800K Jews previously resident in Arab nations ended up elsewhere.
(2) As I keep reminding people, and they keep ignoring, Israel is not a person with a will. It is an incredibly diverse society comprised of various Jewish groups (many of which don't particularly care for one another), modern Arabs, Bedoin, Druse, and various other ethnic groups. See, e.g. The Israelis Israel has a very fine tuned democratic system of proportional representation and parliamentary government that frequently leads to long term deadlock on major issues and minority rule. For instance, Israelis have been working on a written constitution since independence, opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of Israelis have always favored adoption of a written constitution, but there is still no written constitution or any real hope that there will be one anytime soon.
(3) As noted above, Zionism is also quite diverse. The "original conception" of Theodore Hertzl was simply a state where Jews were in the majority and which thus could be counted on to be a refuge for Jews when Gentile societies went though yet another of their spasms of antisemitism. Hertzl was very clear that his Israel was to be a modern pluralistic state, not a Jewish theocracy. He even wrote a novel about the difference between a state that was majority Jewish and a Jewish State. At the other end of the spectrum are the "Zionist Revisionists" (a group that arose in the 1930s and that tried to oppose the formation of the present state of Israel by military means). These people are basically fascists (in the technical meaning of that term). They currently dominate Israeli politics, although they are numerically a minority. They are aligned with the ultra-fundamentalist Haredim parties, who, since the 1967 war, have flip-flopped from believing that contemporary Israel is a heresy to believing it is G_d's will and should be expanded.
(4) The continued existence of the Occupied Territories, which is destroying Israel and is used as a tool within Israel to promote a Reform Zionism view of reality, is a result of (2) and (3).
(5) No one cares that the settlements are a violation of international law. The fundamental question is the disposition of the Occupied Territories. It is somewhat silly and contradictory to argue that Arabs should continue to exist as citizens in Israel but Jews should not settle in majority Arab areas. If you will read the previous thread and think about it, I'm sure that you will see that you don't really want to adopt that view.
3RickHarsch
>2 lawecon: "Well, since we are giving impressions without doing any research, or even reading a previous thread, here is my impression: "
1. You have no idea how much research I have done. (Quite a lot, and have even lectured in a university geography course about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, which I cite freely as you often cite your own experiences.)
1.a. This point is very important and pertains to my second thread of the day about civil communication, or the elimination of nastiness in this group. You have no reason to assume that I have done no reasearch but begin anyway on that stated assumption. Why then would I discuss anything with you? You are a lawyer? I certainly believe you; but then I am compelled to assume you know that such a beginning in a discussion may be considered the use of a cheap rhetorical trick in order to gain the upper hand.
1.b. I did not read the other thread. I hoped it would be understood that the reason I did not is for me the more important point is not that which was discussed in the thread as it was referenced; i.e., being about the possibility of a one state solution being less viable, or not, given the settlements in East Jerusalem. If that wasn't clear, now I hope it is.
2. Re: your a). I am aware of all that is true and knowable in your statement. However, upon the expansion of Islam, majority Arab areas became rife, especially along the Mediterranean in northern Africa. As Braudel has described, the weakness of Arab expansion may be attributed to the dromedary, which could not tolerate cold weather and therefore was useless beyond a certain height. Hence, for one thing, the survival of far older modes of living in higher places (incuding in Lebanon). As for the Jews before the modern period, they had a multifarious, a complex, history, hardly one that may be summarised easily. During the lifetime of Mohammed they existed throughout towns in Arabia, but were often expelled from one place or another according to political exigencies of certain circumstances. That said, it should be noted that apparently they were treated more or less as various non-Jewish tribal units treated each other. Aside: while in Izmir a few years ago I picked up a few ceramic Sultan statues about five inches in height. As I wrote that last bit, Sultan Mehmet fell from his shelf, knocking down a Buddhist figure--but the collapse began with an irredentist Slovene history.
2.b. re your b). Yes. your c) yes
3. re your d) Here a divergence begins. I have read that book. And others. I would say that the British assigned themselves protectorship IN EFFECT.
4. re your e) through h) One main point of disagreement may arise from the fact that I think that it is misleading to say or imply that for the British the protectorate became untenable for any other reason than pressure applied directly by or on behalf of the Jews.
5. Your 3) rather deftly refutes your 2) in regards to the effectiveness of the democratic nature of Israel, which is much like the United States in that the will of the people is rather beside the point on issues of 'Defense', foreign affairs and internal 'security'.
6. I take it by your 4) that we are largely in agreement.
7. Back to the meat of the issue: "No one cares that the settlements are a violation of international law. The fundamental question is the disposition of the Occupied Territories. It is somewhat silly and contradictory to argue that Arabs should continue to exist as citizens in Israel but Jews should not settle in majority Arab areas."
I rarely argue at all anymore about solutions one state or two. Most of my energies go towards opposing Israel's inhumane policies. Proportionately much less goes towards suggesting that the Palestinians forge a more humane platform, and more humane tactics, even under the adverse conditions in which they exist.
Mostly, I certainly wish that people did care that settlements were a violation of international law and that Israel was treated to the same scrutiny by the same people (except each other) as Iran is.
1. You have no idea how much research I have done. (Quite a lot, and have even lectured in a university geography course about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, which I cite freely as you often cite your own experiences.)
1.a. This point is very important and pertains to my second thread of the day about civil communication, or the elimination of nastiness in this group. You have no reason to assume that I have done no reasearch but begin anyway on that stated assumption. Why then would I discuss anything with you? You are a lawyer? I certainly believe you; but then I am compelled to assume you know that such a beginning in a discussion may be considered the use of a cheap rhetorical trick in order to gain the upper hand.
1.b. I did not read the other thread. I hoped it would be understood that the reason I did not is for me the more important point is not that which was discussed in the thread as it was referenced; i.e., being about the possibility of a one state solution being less viable, or not, given the settlements in East Jerusalem. If that wasn't clear, now I hope it is.
2. Re: your a). I am aware of all that is true and knowable in your statement. However, upon the expansion of Islam, majority Arab areas became rife, especially along the Mediterranean in northern Africa. As Braudel has described, the weakness of Arab expansion may be attributed to the dromedary, which could not tolerate cold weather and therefore was useless beyond a certain height. Hence, for one thing, the survival of far older modes of living in higher places (incuding in Lebanon). As for the Jews before the modern period, they had a multifarious, a complex, history, hardly one that may be summarised easily. During the lifetime of Mohammed they existed throughout towns in Arabia, but were often expelled from one place or another according to political exigencies of certain circumstances. That said, it should be noted that apparently they were treated more or less as various non-Jewish tribal units treated each other. Aside: while in Izmir a few years ago I picked up a few ceramic Sultan statues about five inches in height. As I wrote that last bit, Sultan Mehmet fell from his shelf, knocking down a Buddhist figure--but the collapse began with an irredentist Slovene history.
2.b. re your b). Yes. your c) yes
3. re your d) Here a divergence begins. I have read that book. And others. I would say that the British assigned themselves protectorship IN EFFECT.
4. re your e) through h) One main point of disagreement may arise from the fact that I think that it is misleading to say or imply that for the British the protectorate became untenable for any other reason than pressure applied directly by or on behalf of the Jews.
5. Your 3) rather deftly refutes your 2) in regards to the effectiveness of the democratic nature of Israel, which is much like the United States in that the will of the people is rather beside the point on issues of 'Defense', foreign affairs and internal 'security'.
6. I take it by your 4) that we are largely in agreement.
7. Back to the meat of the issue: "No one cares that the settlements are a violation of international law. The fundamental question is the disposition of the Occupied Territories. It is somewhat silly and contradictory to argue that Arabs should continue to exist as citizens in Israel but Jews should not settle in majority Arab areas."
I rarely argue at all anymore about solutions one state or two. Most of my energies go towards opposing Israel's inhumane policies. Proportionately much less goes towards suggesting that the Palestinians forge a more humane platform, and more humane tactics, even under the adverse conditions in which they exist.
Mostly, I certainly wish that people did care that settlements were a violation of international law and that Israel was treated to the same scrutiny by the same people (except each other) as Iran is.
4prosfilaes
#3: Israel was treated to the same scrutiny by the same people (except each other) as Iran is.
What makes you think that Israel isn't getting its share of scrutiny, if not more? You think if Iran started to put Persian settlements in their Kurdish areas, that there would be more then a few tsk-tsks? For a current example, when's the last time anyone cared about Transnistra? You want to compare the amount of newsprint about Israel as compared to South Sudan?
Iran gets scrutiny about its nuclear and terrorist programs. Few care what it does to people under its control.
What makes you think that Israel isn't getting its share of scrutiny, if not more? You think if Iran started to put Persian settlements in their Kurdish areas, that there would be more then a few tsk-tsks? For a current example, when's the last time anyone cared about Transnistra? You want to compare the amount of newsprint about Israel as compared to South Sudan?
Iran gets scrutiny about its nuclear and terrorist programs. Few care what it does to people under its control.
5lawecon
~3
I seem to be having the same differences with you that I was having with your friend who joined about the same time you did, namely:
(1) I try not to treat symptoms of problems or insist that a "solution" to a problem among other people is for my people to impose their will on those other people. For instance, I use "international law" (which is my world is more or less synonymous with "human rights"") as a shield rather than a spear. Nations are not advocates and protectors of rights, particularly among other peoples, they are the main enemies of rights. This has to do with several of your comments, but let me try this one. The "solution" to this "problem" is not for there to be one state or two state imposed on peoples or agreed to by some politicians. The "solution" is for the State of Israel to remove its troops from the West Bank. What then happens, happens. If "the Palestinians" are willing and able to form a state, so be it. If the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel, so be it. If not, not. There should not be foreign intervention by your favorite state or states, nor should a state be imposed on Palestinians who don't want it. Israeli armed forces should simply be withdrawn from where they have no business being in the first place.
(2) You will notice that I often put the names of states in quotation marks. That is because I was quite serious in what I said to your friend - there is no "America" or "Israel" or "the Palestinians". There are simply national governments (or not) that are temporarily under the control of a coalition of SOME Americans or SOME Israelis or SOME Palestinians. To grant some sort of metaphysical status to a shifting coalition with guns is not to deal with reality.
Obviously we have a few other differences regarding history - for instance, I think that the British "Protectorate" was quite real and very intrusive in the lives of Palestinians - both Arabs and Jews - and that it was a toss up whether Jews and Arabs hated the British more or less than they hated each other. I also think that the British left because they realized that the situation was leading up to a full scale revolution against their rule, and they were in no shape to deal with such a thing in their weakened post-WWII economic and military situation. (You might also note that they left most of their other colonies at about the same time.)
I seem to be having the same differences with you that I was having with your friend who joined about the same time you did, namely:
(1) I try not to treat symptoms of problems or insist that a "solution" to a problem among other people is for my people to impose their will on those other people. For instance, I use "international law" (which is my world is more or less synonymous with "human rights"") as a shield rather than a spear. Nations are not advocates and protectors of rights, particularly among other peoples, they are the main enemies of rights. This has to do with several of your comments, but let me try this one. The "solution" to this "problem" is not for there to be one state or two state imposed on peoples or agreed to by some politicians. The "solution" is for the State of Israel to remove its troops from the West Bank. What then happens, happens. If "the Palestinians" are willing and able to form a state, so be it. If the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel, so be it. If not, not. There should not be foreign intervention by your favorite state or states, nor should a state be imposed on Palestinians who don't want it. Israeli armed forces should simply be withdrawn from where they have no business being in the first place.
(2) You will notice that I often put the names of states in quotation marks. That is because I was quite serious in what I said to your friend - there is no "America" or "Israel" or "the Palestinians". There are simply national governments (or not) that are temporarily under the control of a coalition of SOME Americans or SOME Israelis or SOME Palestinians. To grant some sort of metaphysical status to a shifting coalition with guns is not to deal with reality.
Obviously we have a few other differences regarding history - for instance, I think that the British "Protectorate" was quite real and very intrusive in the lives of Palestinians - both Arabs and Jews - and that it was a toss up whether Jews and Arabs hated the British more or less than they hated each other. I also think that the British left because they realized that the situation was leading up to a full scale revolution against their rule, and they were in no shape to deal with such a thing in their weakened post-WWII economic and military situation. (You might also note that they left most of their other colonies at about the same time.)
6lawecon
~3
Let me say one other thing to you of an entirely different nature.
You seem to be very insensitive to your own abrasiveness (as illustrated by the review I quoted in the associated thread or your comment that my behavior is "bizarre") yet you are simultaneously very sensitive to the way things are said to you or those with whom you identify.
It doesn't work that way. If you want to communicate in a gentlemanly manner, do so consistently. No snideness. No negative characterizations of the other guy's personality. You will then discover that you are dealt with accordingly. However, start a verbal bar fight with a litigator, assume he will give you back double.
Further, as almost any cop will tell you, you shouldn't come upon a scene where one person is hitting another and presume that the hitter is in the wrong and that you should jump in and defend the "victim." You often make serious ethical errors that way.
So how is it to be going forward?
Let me say one other thing to you of an entirely different nature.
You seem to be very insensitive to your own abrasiveness (as illustrated by the review I quoted in the associated thread or your comment that my behavior is "bizarre") yet you are simultaneously very sensitive to the way things are said to you or those with whom you identify.
It doesn't work that way. If you want to communicate in a gentlemanly manner, do so consistently. No snideness. No negative characterizations of the other guy's personality. You will then discover that you are dealt with accordingly. However, start a verbal bar fight with a litigator, assume he will give you back double.
Further, as almost any cop will tell you, you shouldn't come upon a scene where one person is hitting another and presume that the hitter is in the wrong and that you should jump in and defend the "victim." You often make serious ethical errors that way.
So how is it to be going forward?
7RidgewayGirl
In the grand contest of who has consistently behaved in an abrasive and ungentlemanly manner, I don't think Mr Harsh will come close to winning.
8StormRaven
7: When confronted with evidence that shows his claims to be wrong, 'wecon doesn't reconsider his position. He just starts screaming at everyone around him, starting with the person who showed his claims were lacking in foundation. Harsch just happened to have the data showing 'wecon to be uninformed on the issue he is opining upon this time.
9RickHarsch
Quite naturally, I agree with both 7 and 8, though it would be easy for me to reconsider and recognize an uncalled for snideness if I were to be given an example. The review quoted, though, was never explicated as evidence. I also do not tend to assume right and wrong, but I do take note of various people's styles of delivery. For instance, under no circumstance that I am aware of does RG deserve to be called an ass. How is it going to be going forward? Indeed.
Regarding Israel and history, the differences Lawecon states that we have are not different except that I don't think there is much evidence that any Arab terrorist acts, or resistance of any kind, for that matter, had any effect on the British. A pretty good case can be made (and this just occurred to me so let it bear much scrutiny) that had the repulsion brought about by British rule in Palestine only been expressed by Arabs the Brits would have treated them the same as they did other brown folk; maybe it was different for them when the terrorists were European like themselves (for the most part, of course).
> 4 "You think if Iran started to put Persian settlements in their Kurdish areas, that there would be more then a few tsk-tsks? For a current example, when's the last time anyone cared about Transnistra? You want to compare the amount of newsprint about Israel as compared to South Sudan?"
The first sentence offers a bizarre attempt at a parallel. The second is far from related to the point I was making. The third, too. Here is the part of the post he refers to:
"Mostly, I certainly wish that people did care that settlements were a violation of international law and that Israel was treated to the same scrutiny by the same people (except each other) as Iran is."
The Kurds, by the way, are I think a prime example of a people getting absolutely screwed by colonizers (as they de-colonize).
Regarding Israel and history, the differences Lawecon states that we have are not different except that I don't think there is much evidence that any Arab terrorist acts, or resistance of any kind, for that matter, had any effect on the British. A pretty good case can be made (and this just occurred to me so let it bear much scrutiny) that had the repulsion brought about by British rule in Palestine only been expressed by Arabs the Brits would have treated them the same as they did other brown folk; maybe it was different for them when the terrorists were European like themselves (for the most part, of course).
> 4 "You think if Iran started to put Persian settlements in their Kurdish areas, that there would be more then a few tsk-tsks? For a current example, when's the last time anyone cared about Transnistra? You want to compare the amount of newsprint about Israel as compared to South Sudan?"
The first sentence offers a bizarre attempt at a parallel. The second is far from related to the point I was making. The third, too. Here is the part of the post he refers to:
"Mostly, I certainly wish that people did care that settlements were a violation of international law and that Israel was treated to the same scrutiny by the same people (except each other) as Iran is."
The Kurds, by the way, are I think a prime example of a people getting absolutely screwed by colonizers (as they de-colonize).
10RickHarsch
Here's an interesting tale of matters in northern Africa during the period of rapid Islamic expansion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahina
11lawecon
~9
"Quite naturally, I agree with both 7 and 8,..."
You agree with 8? Really.
"For instance, under no circumstance that I am aware of does RG deserve to be called an ass."
Well, hang around and read the threads.
In any case, Rick, I would appreciate it if you would limit your appraisal of my behavior to my behavior toward you. As I've tried to make clear several times, you simply don't have the background to appraise my behavior toward other posters. For instance, Storm is right now engaged in a thread in which he is repeatedly contending that I have never appeared in a courtroom and am incompetent as an attorney. Ever hear of such behavior from one member of the bar toward another - particularly when the accuser has no factual basis for his repeated libels? I haven't. But this is not atypical of the Librarything environment. And I assure you that the administrator of these sites will do nothing about it.
"Quite naturally, I agree with both 7 and 8,..."
You agree with 8? Really.
"For instance, under no circumstance that I am aware of does RG deserve to be called an ass."
Well, hang around and read the threads.
In any case, Rick, I would appreciate it if you would limit your appraisal of my behavior to my behavior toward you. As I've tried to make clear several times, you simply don't have the background to appraise my behavior toward other posters. For instance, Storm is right now engaged in a thread in which he is repeatedly contending that I have never appeared in a courtroom and am incompetent as an attorney. Ever hear of such behavior from one member of the bar toward another - particularly when the accuser has no factual basis for his repeated libels? I haven't. But this is not atypical of the Librarything environment. And I assure you that the administrator of these sites will do nothing about it.
12RickHarsch
I'm all for less time spent on recriminations.
Though I have to say that I actually have witnessed first hand members of the bar take far lower roads than what you are describing.
Speaking only for myself, such internecine--in one sense, at least--bouts are sort of like watching a couple of trained seals fighting.
Though I have to say that I actually have witnessed first hand members of the bar take far lower roads than what you are describing.
Speaking only for myself, such internecine--in one sense, at least--bouts are sort of like watching a couple of trained seals fighting.
13lawecon
~12
That is all very well, Rick, but this is an environment where the relationships between certain of the posters have been firmly established over months or years. It isn't going to become a gentlemanly environment, since the administration of the site doesn't demand that it be such an environment. I know of only one instance where the administrator has cracked down, and that poster has been generally much less abrasive since being slapped.
There is a short list of posters here who largely keep to facts and arguments and are worthwhile discussants, but the longer list are simply assholes who "have an opinion" on virtually everything. It is unfortunate that steps aren't taken to reverse those proportions, but they aren't.
I am sorry that you have seen members of the bar behave so badly. I apologize on behalf of my profession. But I should reiterate that in 30 years of practice in very contentious matters I have never seen anything close. The one example that is anywhere in the neighborhood is that I was present my first week of practice when an attorney from the firm I was then associated with told a judge that opposing counsel was "lying to the court." I immediately moved from the table where this attorney was seated and the judge strongly reprimanded him. Members of the Bar in Arizona simply don't act in that manner. (This fellow, incidentally, subsequently left the practice of law, apparently at the invitation of his partners.)
That is all very well, Rick, but this is an environment where the relationships between certain of the posters have been firmly established over months or years. It isn't going to become a gentlemanly environment, since the administration of the site doesn't demand that it be such an environment. I know of only one instance where the administrator has cracked down, and that poster has been generally much less abrasive since being slapped.
There is a short list of posters here who largely keep to facts and arguments and are worthwhile discussants, but the longer list are simply assholes who "have an opinion" on virtually everything. It is unfortunate that steps aren't taken to reverse those proportions, but they aren't.
I am sorry that you have seen members of the bar behave so badly. I apologize on behalf of my profession. But I should reiterate that in 30 years of practice in very contentious matters I have never seen anything close. The one example that is anywhere in the neighborhood is that I was present my first week of practice when an attorney from the firm I was then associated with told a judge that opposing counsel was "lying to the court." I immediately moved from the table where this attorney was seated and the judge strongly reprimanded him. Members of the Bar in Arizona simply don't act in that manner. (This fellow, incidentally, subsequently left the practice of law, apparently at the invitation of his partners.)
14StormRaven
I know of only one instance where he has cracked down, and that poster has been generally much less abrasive since being slapped.
Or, you know, the time Tim banned his own brother from the site because his brother was routinely acting like a TOS violating ass. But that doesn't count apparently. Possibly because even after being here for years, 'wecon still doesn't seem to understand how the TOS works.
Or, you know, the time Tim banned his own brother from the site because his brother was routinely acting like a TOS violating ass. But that doesn't count apparently. Possibly because even after being here for years, 'wecon still doesn't seem to understand how the TOS works.
15lawecon
~13
Actually, I came to this site at about the time of the incident where Tim banned his brother. While my recollection is thus somewhat less than crystal clear. I don't recall that Tim cited violations of TOS as the reason for the ban. I could look it up, but my recollection is that Tim's brother was becoming more and more "racist" (really xenophobic rather than strictly racist) and was personally harassing Tim. Perhaps you have the relevant links? The instance where a poster was slapped was, of course, Deniro's thread on how horrible lawecon is. As I recall, you were one of the major contributants to that thread. But again, I'm sure we can find the link.
Actually, I came to this site at about the time of the incident where Tim banned his brother. While my recollection is thus somewhat less than crystal clear. I don't recall that Tim cited violations of TOS as the reason for the ban. I could look it up, but my recollection is that Tim's brother was becoming more and more "racist" (really xenophobic rather than strictly racist) and was personally harassing Tim. Perhaps you have the relevant links? The instance where a poster was slapped was, of course, Deniro's thread on how horrible lawecon is. As I recall, you were one of the major contributants to that thread. But again, I'm sure we can find the link.
16StormRaven
15: Oakes garnered more red flags than any other poster in LT history because he routinely violated the TOS, and Tim got tired of cleaning up the messes that he caused. But since everything that isn't centered around you is not relevant to you, you probably didn't know that.
One bit of evidence that your accuracy isn't quite reliable is this: Oakes wasn't banned until 2010. You've been an LT member since 2006. That means that you didn't "come to the site at about the time of the incident". You had been here for years before it.
One bit of evidence that your accuracy isn't quite reliable is this: Oakes wasn't banned until 2010. You've been an LT member since 2006. That means that you didn't "come to the site at about the time of the incident". You had been here for years before it.
17lawecon
~16
A worthy distinction. I joined Librarything in 2006, as a way of trying to keep track of my library. I didn't start participating in these forums until sometime during 2010 - you can tell when since my first posts were to the Political Conservatives list (where I was promptly informed that I was not a conservative by Deniro) and, shortly thereafter, to founding the thread Who, What, Where and When Is This Thing Called "G_d". The latter was somewhat of a test. It is unfortunate that I largely ignored the results of the test, since the test results have been well corroborated subsequently.
As one of the leaders of the red flag brigade, I defer to your knowledge of who has the highest count. (As I've said many times before, my observation is that red flags are a sign of intense dislike and really have nothing to do with TOS. Witness our recent exchange.)
A worthy distinction. I joined Librarything in 2006, as a way of trying to keep track of my library. I didn't start participating in these forums until sometime during 2010 - you can tell when since my first posts were to the Political Conservatives list (where I was promptly informed that I was not a conservative by Deniro) and, shortly thereafter, to founding the thread Who, What, Where and When Is This Thing Called "G_d". The latter was somewhat of a test. It is unfortunate that I largely ignored the results of the test, since the test results have been well corroborated subsequently.
As one of the leaders of the red flag brigade, I defer to your knowledge of who has the highest count. (As I've said many times before, my observation is that red flags are a sign of intense dislike and really have nothing to do with TOS. Witness our recent exchange.)
18StormRaven
17: Tim revealed that Oakes was at the top of the list for red flags. And I recall that Tim asserted that many of Oakes' flags were examined and found to be well-deserved. It was this sort of review that was what Tim seems to have meant by "cleaning up Oakes' messes".
Red flags are a sign of violations of the TOS. While LT staff doesn't examine every red flag, they examine enough to keep the system honest. You get flagged because you routinely violate the TOS. Others don't because they don't. That you continually fail to comprehend this simple fact, and instead claim some sort of conspiracy against you, is why so many people have observed that you continuously fail to understand the TOS.
Red flags are a sign of violations of the TOS. While LT staff doesn't examine every red flag, they examine enough to keep the system honest. You get flagged because you routinely violate the TOS. Others don't because they don't. That you continually fail to comprehend this simple fact, and instead claim some sort of conspiracy against you, is why so many people have observed that you continuously fail to understand the TOS.
19RickHarsch
To try to merge topics: what do you suppose a Pro and Con group would be like in Israel versus one in Gaza?
20prosfilaes
#9 Which evades the point; Israel gets more scrutiny then about any other nation in the world, particularly in their internal politics. They're already getting far more attention for the internal acts then Iran.
21RickHarsch
>20 prosfilaes: "... that Israel was treated to the same scrutiny by the same people (except each other) as Iran is."
Shortening the quote: "...by the same people..." that is, for example, the global powers capable of, say, torturing the people of a country with sanctions..Sorry I didn't make my point more clearly.
Whatever attention Israel gets changes nothing. What Iran gets, changes quite a lot.
Shortening the quote: "...by the same people..." that is, for example, the global powers capable of, say, torturing the people of a country with sanctions..Sorry I didn't make my point more clearly.
Whatever attention Israel gets changes nothing. What Iran gets, changes quite a lot.
22prosfilaes
#21: What Iran gets, changes quite a lot.
Er, wha? As far as I can tell, US-Iran relations have been been static for 30 years. Biden is trying to open a line of communication, and the Ayatollah blew us off. Iran is pretty far out on the screw-the-world axis. I do believe, for example, if they aren't the largest, wealthiest nation to have not signed an international copyright treaty, they're pretty close.
Er, wha? As far as I can tell, US-Iran relations have been been static for 30 years. Biden is trying to open a line of communication, and the Ayatollah blew us off. Iran is pretty far out on the screw-the-world axis. I do believe, for example, if they aren't the largest, wealthiest nation to have not signed an international copyright treaty, they're pretty close.
23SimonW11
14> MrKris was the first banned that I recall. A parolee much given to threatening malicious lawsuits and Giving Tim sleepless nights as Tim plugged security and stubbornly refused to introduce moderators.
24SimonW11
as I recall Tim got someone else to review his brothers flaggings to ensure impartiality.
25RickHarsch
22> All right. So after decades of being treated like a piece on a game board, the Iranians had their own leader, Mossadegh, and he was offed by the CIA/MI5 or 6, and the Shah and Savak took his place, and the place was as deadly a dictatorship as there ever was. so the backlash was the revolution of the Ayatollah. What has the US done to make up for its crimes?
26prosfilaes
#25: What has the US done to make up for its crimes?
I don't know; why doesn't Iran have a conversation with us and tell us what it wants us to do?
I don't know; why doesn't Iran have a conversation with us and tell us what it wants us to do?
27RickHarsch
A bit naive, pal. Iran is being bullied.
28BruceCoulson
Iran would like the U.S. to drop sanctions, allow it to refine nuclear material to the point of being able to use it in reactors, (quite probably with the intent of being able to build nuclear weapons if necessary; not to build them immediately), and basically stop attacking it (cf cyberwarfare) and recognize its current government as the legitimate, legal government of the country.
(cf Juan Cole's Informed Comment for more details.)
In return, Iran will recognize Israel as a (unpleasant) fact of Middle Eastern countries, and go about its internal affairs without further internation distractions.
I don't see any of the above happening anytime soon.
(cf Juan Cole's Informed Comment for more details.)
In return, Iran will recognize Israel as a (unpleasant) fact of Middle Eastern countries, and go about its internal affairs without further internation distractions.
I don't see any of the above happening anytime soon.
29prosfilaes
#27: On one hand, non-Iran nations have a valid concern that Iran is engaging in terroristic actions and that nuclear proliferation is a pretty scary thing. (And no, "Susie started it" and "she's doing it too" are not valid responses.) On the other, then what? What's the path forward? I fail to see how Iran not talking to the US is a step forward. I fail to see how it creates a better world or one where Iran gets more of what it wants.
#28: The nuclear subject is pretty much a sticking point. The sanctions should be solvable and the cyberwarfare is completely denied (and I thought it was mostly thought to be Israeli, not US). Do we not recognize its current government as the legitimate, legal government? That's silly and unproductive.
#28: The nuclear subject is pretty much a sticking point. The sanctions should be solvable and the cyberwarfare is completely denied (and I thought it was mostly thought to be Israeli, not US). Do we not recognize its current government as the legitimate, legal government? That's silly and unproductive.
30RickHarsch
Israel's 200 or so nuclear weapons are indeed a fair point to consider. Again, the victim is not carrying the burden.
31prosfilaes
#30: As I said, Susie is doing it too is not an argument. Whining about who the victim is does nothing. What do you want to happen? What do you realistically think can happen? How do you think Iran should act to maximize their prosperity?
32RickHarsch
31> Interesting rhetorical tactics. You dismiss an argument that is very important to the peoples of non-nuclear nations as well as vast numbers in nuclear nations before it is made and then use that very odd assertion itself to argue its counterpoint. I am sure there is a logical fallacy named for this.
Second tactic, resort to calling an argument whining. The historical victimhood of the Iranians vis a vis the US led to the current state of affairs. I believe Iran should--now THIS may be naive, but it is what would please me most--project itself as a non-nuclear, yet potential nuclear leader, directing its attentions through the UN, at the UN bring charges against the US and publicize and demand action on Israeli nuclear weapons, as well as unpunished international crimes. Fuck the US as global arbiter. Attention should be brought to the relative passivity of Iran as opposed to both the US ad Israel.
I think it is inherent in the rational mind to find hypocrisy intolerable; and I also believe that it is inherent in the rational mind to be resent losing 'arguments' because of power relationships rather than merit.
Second tactic, resort to calling an argument whining. The historical victimhood of the Iranians vis a vis the US led to the current state of affairs. I believe Iran should--now THIS may be naive, but it is what would please me most--project itself as a non-nuclear, yet potential nuclear leader, directing its attentions through the UN, at the UN bring charges against the US and publicize and demand action on Israeli nuclear weapons, as well as unpunished international crimes. Fuck the US as global arbiter. Attention should be brought to the relative passivity of Iran as opposed to both the US ad Israel.
I think it is inherent in the rational mind to find hypocrisy intolerable; and I also believe that it is inherent in the rational mind to be resent losing 'arguments' because of power relationships rather than merit.
33RickHarsch
It's ridiculous to expect people to read everything we post, but if you have the inclination at all, I think this is related to the discussion and I agree with it entirely (it's centrally about the drone base in Saudi Arabia): http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/2013213102133615365.html
34prosfilaes
#32: project itself as a non-nuclear, yet potential nuclear leader,
Is there a single nation in the world besides Iran that wants Iran to have nuclear weapons? Iran has spoken of dismantling the global nuclear arsenal; a lot of us would be positive to that, though that doesn't seem likely.
unpunished international crimes
As in the seizing of the US embassy in Tehran?
Seriously, stop whining. You want something, name it. What point does it do them to complain that a bunch of dead men from the US and UK put a dictator into power before most people on the planet were born? Reciting the story is going to gain Iran nothing.
Fuck the US as global arbiter.
And turn to the organization that is 1/4th paid for by the US and where the US has a permanent veto. That'll work well.
In any case, if Iran wants the US to drop sanctions, as BruceCoulson says they do, they need to talk to the US.
Attention should be brought to the relative passivity of Iran as opposed to both the US ad Israel.
In what manner is Iran passive relative to Israel?
I think it is inherent in the rational mind to find hypocrisy intolerable; and I also believe that it is inherent in the rational mind to be resent losing 'arguments' because of power relationships rather than merit.
I think having an emotion like intolerance is irrational. A reasonable person will understand that bias is inherent in the human condition and people will always see their own actions in a different light then other people's. I think it amazingly irrational and unreasonable to act like power relationships aren't going to be a huge part of politics and to fail to understand that governments are, at best, constituted for well-being of their citizens, not the world. Nor do I find it sane on the part of a person or government to get hung up on the past; figure out what you want from tomorrow and plan how to get it. Wasting time on what other people did to you when there's nothing you can do about or gain from it is pointless.
Is there a single nation in the world besides Iran that wants Iran to have nuclear weapons? Iran has spoken of dismantling the global nuclear arsenal; a lot of us would be positive to that, though that doesn't seem likely.
unpunished international crimes
As in the seizing of the US embassy in Tehran?
Seriously, stop whining. You want something, name it. What point does it do them to complain that a bunch of dead men from the US and UK put a dictator into power before most people on the planet were born? Reciting the story is going to gain Iran nothing.
Fuck the US as global arbiter.
And turn to the organization that is 1/4th paid for by the US and where the US has a permanent veto. That'll work well.
In any case, if Iran wants the US to drop sanctions, as BruceCoulson says they do, they need to talk to the US.
Attention should be brought to the relative passivity of Iran as opposed to both the US ad Israel.
In what manner is Iran passive relative to Israel?
I think it is inherent in the rational mind to find hypocrisy intolerable; and I also believe that it is inherent in the rational mind to be resent losing 'arguments' because of power relationships rather than merit.
I think having an emotion like intolerance is irrational. A reasonable person will understand that bias is inherent in the human condition and people will always see their own actions in a different light then other people's. I think it amazingly irrational and unreasonable to act like power relationships aren't going to be a huge part of politics and to fail to understand that governments are, at best, constituted for well-being of their citizens, not the world. Nor do I find it sane on the part of a person or government to get hung up on the past; figure out what you want from tomorrow and plan how to get it. Wasting time on what other people did to you when there's nothing you can do about or gain from it is pointless.
35RickHarsch
Look, if you want to have a discussion, don't use pre-teen words like whining. If you have to resort to that kind of thing you obviously have no real interest in thinking. My guess, you are very insecure with a thin veneer of bravado as a prophylactic.
I will discuss this with more thoughtful people.
(Now you will say, Oh yeah! It's real polite to...and so on, disregarding the fact that I did politely address the issue of rhetorical matters, and specifically, that embarrassing habit of calling people whiners when you don't like what you say.)
I will discuss this with more thoughtful people.
(Now you will say, Oh yeah! It's real polite to...and so on, disregarding the fact that I did politely address the issue of rhetorical matters, and specifically, that embarrassing habit of calling people whiners when you don't like what you say.)
36BruceCoulson
#34
Iran has stated that it does not want nuclear weapons; so what other nations say about the point is moot. What Iran wishes is to refine nuclear materials to use in nuclear reactors, which is permissable under various international laws and treaties.
As speculation, it is possible that Iran wants the ability to obtain nuclear devices if necessary. However, that's much like speculating that someone who buys fertilizer intends to at some future time to build a bomb, without having any real proof that this is so, along with a respected leader of the country saying 'We aren't building a bomb because that would be illegal and immoral'.
Iran would be willing to talk to the U.S.; however, the U.S. doesn't want to talk. That would be diplomacy, and the U.S. isn't very good at it.
"...the cyberwarfare is completely denied (and I thought it was mostly thought to be Israeli, not US)..."
Denying a charge is what everyone does, the guilty as well as the innocent. So, a denial does not equal 'we didn't do it'. And although Israel does not march in lockstep with the U.S., our interests coincided in this matter, so hiding behind Israel isn't going to help.
Iran has stated that it does not want nuclear weapons; so what other nations say about the point is moot. What Iran wishes is to refine nuclear materials to use in nuclear reactors, which is permissable under various international laws and treaties.
As speculation, it is possible that Iran wants the ability to obtain nuclear devices if necessary. However, that's much like speculating that someone who buys fertilizer intends to at some future time to build a bomb, without having any real proof that this is so, along with a respected leader of the country saying 'We aren't building a bomb because that would be illegal and immoral'.
Iran would be willing to talk to the U.S.; however, the U.S. doesn't want to talk. That would be diplomacy, and the U.S. isn't very good at it.
"...the cyberwarfare is completely denied (and I thought it was mostly thought to be Israeli, not US)..."
Denying a charge is what everyone does, the guilty as well as the innocent. So, a denial does not equal 'we didn't do it'. And although Israel does not march in lockstep with the U.S., our interests coincided in this matter, so hiding behind Israel isn't going to help.
37prosfilaes
#36: that's much like speculating that someone who buys fertilizer intends to at some future time to build a bomb
We lock down large sales of ammonium nitrate for a reason.
Iran looks to be trying to join the nuclear-armed ICBM club. Arguments of the type you're making have a hard time overcoming the simple fact that we'd rather not get blown up by an Iranian nuke. Fairness is a hard argument against survival. And even post-Cold War, in 1995, Boris Yeltsin activated his nuclear briefcase and prepared to launch nukes on the US; I'd rather not go back to full Cold-War, one false step or misread radar and the end of the world.
Iran would be willing to talk to the U.S.; however, the U.S. doesn't want to talk.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-nuclear-talks-opportunity-wes...
"Earlier this month, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Washington was ready to hold one-on-one talks with Iran, an offer that was later rejected by Iranian leaders."
Denying a charge is what everyone does, the guilty as well as the innocent. So, a denial does not equal 'we didn't do it'.
I didn't mean that it did. But if you deny you ever did something, it's hard to assure someone who thinks you did that you won't do it again.
And although Israel does not march in lockstep with the U.S., our interests coincided in this matter, so hiding behind Israel isn't going to help.
Interests coinciding doesn't necessarily mean we knew anything about that. Israel has frequently played its own hand in matters like this. Again, not that that would be particularly convincing to someone distrustful of the US.
We lock down large sales of ammonium nitrate for a reason.
Iran looks to be trying to join the nuclear-armed ICBM club. Arguments of the type you're making have a hard time overcoming the simple fact that we'd rather not get blown up by an Iranian nuke. Fairness is a hard argument against survival. And even post-Cold War, in 1995, Boris Yeltsin activated his nuclear briefcase and prepared to launch nukes on the US; I'd rather not go back to full Cold-War, one false step or misread radar and the end of the world.
Iran would be willing to talk to the U.S.; however, the U.S. doesn't want to talk.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-nuclear-talks-opportunity-wes...
"Earlier this month, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Washington was ready to hold one-on-one talks with Iran, an offer that was later rejected by Iranian leaders."
Denying a charge is what everyone does, the guilty as well as the innocent. So, a denial does not equal 'we didn't do it'.
I didn't mean that it did. But if you deny you ever did something, it's hard to assure someone who thinks you did that you won't do it again.
And although Israel does not march in lockstep with the U.S., our interests coincided in this matter, so hiding behind Israel isn't going to help.
Interests coinciding doesn't necessarily mean we knew anything about that. Israel has frequently played its own hand in matters like this. Again, not that that would be particularly convincing to someone distrustful of the US.
38BruceCoulson
http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/intensifies-economic-democracy.html
"We're going to continue beating you until you agree to talk with us about our demands" is perhaps not the best negotiating stance to take...
'We' getting blown up by a nuke? Don't you mean Israel? Iran lacks the capability to launch a strategic weapon to U.S. territory (embassies exempted). So, it's not a threat, even if the U.S. refuses to believe the statements made that Iran does not wish nuclear weapons. As for the Cold-War stance; sorry, the genie is out of the bottle. Your very statement (' in 1995') means we don't get to go back.
Too many countries have nuclear capability for us to play dog in the manger and insist that only select countries (either the ones we like (Israel) or the ones we couldn't stop from getting nukes (Russia, China)) get to have them.
Besides, Iran has leaders who have stuff. Launching a nuke, at anyone, means they won't get to keep their stuff, even if they survive the retaliation. Never underestimate avarice as a motivator for preventing, as well as starting, wars.
And prior encounters with the U.S. would give Iran ample reason to distrust us; not merely the overthrow of a democratically-elected leader and replacing him with a ruthless dictator, but supporting a mortal enemy (Iraq) against them for 10+ years. As for holding grudges...perhaps you ought to go in the Southern United States sometime, and see how well they've accepted the failure of the Noble Cause. Stones, glass houses... whether Iran SHOULD remain resentful and distrustful of U.S. intentions is an irrelevant question.
"We're going to continue beating you until you agree to talk with us about our demands" is perhaps not the best negotiating stance to take...
'We' getting blown up by a nuke? Don't you mean Israel? Iran lacks the capability to launch a strategic weapon to U.S. territory (embassies exempted). So, it's not a threat, even if the U.S. refuses to believe the statements made that Iran does not wish nuclear weapons. As for the Cold-War stance; sorry, the genie is out of the bottle. Your very statement (' in 1995') means we don't get to go back.
Too many countries have nuclear capability for us to play dog in the manger and insist that only select countries (either the ones we like (Israel) or the ones we couldn't stop from getting nukes (Russia, China)) get to have them.
Besides, Iran has leaders who have stuff. Launching a nuke, at anyone, means they won't get to keep their stuff, even if they survive the retaliation. Never underestimate avarice as a motivator for preventing, as well as starting, wars.
And prior encounters with the U.S. would give Iran ample reason to distrust us; not merely the overthrow of a democratically-elected leader and replacing him with a ruthless dictator, but supporting a mortal enemy (Iraq) against them for 10+ years. As for holding grudges...perhaps you ought to go in the Southern United States sometime, and see how well they've accepted the failure of the Noble Cause. Stones, glass houses... whether Iran SHOULD remain resentful and distrustful of U.S. intentions is an irrelevant question.
39RickHarsch 
Pardon a time-honored form of gibe, the limerick:
A poster who's called prose-fillet-us
Thought without thought he could slay us
But his wit it was dim
All knew it but him
This creature unknown to Linnaeus
A poster who's called prose-fillet-us
Thought without thought he could slay us
But his wit it was dim
All knew it but him
This creature unknown to Linnaeus
40prosfilaes
#35: don't use pre-teen words like whining.
The action is preteen, not the word. Though I do admire someone who says "Fuck the US" complaining about other people's words.
that embarrassing habit of calling people whiners when you don't like what you say.
I didn't. I called people whiners when they go on and on about what others did to them in the past. It's done. Ask for repayment, try and prevent it from happening again, whatever, but stop living in the past.
The action is preteen, not the word. Though I do admire someone who says "Fuck the US" complaining about other people's words.
that embarrassing habit of calling people whiners when you don't like what you say.
I didn't. I called people whiners when they go on and on about what others did to them in the past. It's done. Ask for repayment, try and prevent it from happening again, whatever, but stop living in the past.
41BruceCoulson
#40
That's a fine sentiment for a parent adressing a child. However, when dealing with adults who are nursing past grievances, this approach is less than helpful. 'You have to behave the way I deem suitable!' doesn't work if you lack the power (or will) to enforce your demand, or your opponent simply refuses to accede to your demands despite your punishments, and instead views your punishments as additional injustices.
That's a fine sentiment for a parent adressing a child. However, when dealing with adults who are nursing past grievances, this approach is less than helpful. 'You have to behave the way I deem suitable!' doesn't work if you lack the power (or will) to enforce your demand, or your opponent simply refuses to accede to your demands despite your punishments, and instead views your punishments as additional injustices.
42RickHarsch
An egghead whose head had been cracked
Thought Ahmednijad lacking in tact
but his patriotism
proved so much machism
For he feared nuke-less nuclear attack
Thought Ahmednijad lacking in tact
but his patriotism
proved so much machism
For he feared nuke-less nuclear attack
43SimonW11
34>
"Seriously, stop whining. You want something, name it. What point does it do them to complain that a bunch of dead men from the US and UK put a dictator into power before most people on the planet were born? Reciting the story is going to gain Iran nothing."
That reciting the story gains them little with the west is not the point. Expecting a country to forget about being ruled by a dictator while it still has survivors living is unreasonable. One cannot simply forget that uncle Mo was tortured.
Hell Americans Still call King George a tyrant and he was constitutional monarch rubberstamping a parliaments acts.
One might as well tell someone to forget their grandmother was a slave.
"Seriously, stop whining. You want something, name it. What point does it do them to complain that a bunch of dead men from the US and UK put a dictator into power before most people on the planet were born? Reciting the story is going to gain Iran nothing."
That reciting the story gains them little with the west is not the point. Expecting a country to forget about being ruled by a dictator while it still has survivors living is unreasonable. One cannot simply forget that uncle Mo was tortured.
Hell Americans Still call King George a tyrant and he was constitutional monarch rubberstamping a parliaments acts.
One might as well tell someone to forget their grandmother was a slave.
44RickHarsch
Well said, SW11.
45RickHarsch
Pro thought man can live in the past
Like Slim Pickens have a nuclear blast
But to Pro's horror
time it goes forror
Which is why we say the die has been cast
Like Slim Pickens have a nuclear blast
But to Pro's horror
time it goes forror
Which is why we say the die has been cast
46jjwilson61
43> The US is on pretty good terms with GB now. I'm not sure how long it took, but we did get over it.
And about the US South, I really doubt their lose to the North is still much of a day to day influence.
And about the US South, I really doubt their lose to the North is still much of a day to day influence.
47BruceCoulson
#46
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/confederate-flag-at-center-of-...
Then again, that was nearly two years ago; ancient history, I guess...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/confederate-flag-at-center-of-...
Then again, that was nearly two years ago; ancient history, I guess...
48prosfilaes
#38: Iran lacks the capability to launch a strategic weapon to U.S. territory
They're working on that technology. If you can launch a monkey into space, it's not that far to full ICBM capability.
Too many countries have nuclear capability for us to play dog in the manger and insist that only select countries (either the ones we like (Israel) or the ones we couldn't stop from getting nukes (Russia, China)) get to have them.
First place, I think Israel falls under the category of "we couldn't stop from getting nukes". Secondly, I fail to see that 9 nations having nuclear weapons. means that we should go ahead and let everyone have nukes; in fact, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is signed by all but 5 states, indicating broadspread international support for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Iran has leaders who have stuff.
Which is why I brought up 1995. Yeltsin had stuff, we had stuff, everybody had stuff. And yet Yeltsin sat there with his finger on the big red button, not knowing why we had launched a missile at Moscow but believing we had.
And prior encounters with the U.S. would give Iran ample reason to distrust us
Which snowballs; you don't trust us, so we don't trust you, so you have less reason to trust us, etc. And all the less reason for Iran to wait and see if the incoming ICBMs really are ICBMs instead of launching.
whether Iran SHOULD remain resentful and distrustful of U.S. intentions is an irrelevant question.
It's international politics; they should remain distrustful of US intentions, for the exact same reason the US is not swallowing this whole peaceful nuclear program. They can resent as they will. That doesn't mean that that complaining about what we did to them is productive or something a rational player would do.
They're working on that technology. If you can launch a monkey into space, it's not that far to full ICBM capability.
Too many countries have nuclear capability for us to play dog in the manger and insist that only select countries (either the ones we like (Israel) or the ones we couldn't stop from getting nukes (Russia, China)) get to have them.
First place, I think Israel falls under the category of "we couldn't stop from getting nukes". Secondly, I fail to see that 9 nations having nuclear weapons. means that we should go ahead and let everyone have nukes; in fact, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is signed by all but 5 states, indicating broadspread international support for stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Iran has leaders who have stuff.
Which is why I brought up 1995. Yeltsin had stuff, we had stuff, everybody had stuff. And yet Yeltsin sat there with his finger on the big red button, not knowing why we had launched a missile at Moscow but believing we had.
And prior encounters with the U.S. would give Iran ample reason to distrust us
Which snowballs; you don't trust us, so we don't trust you, so you have less reason to trust us, etc. And all the less reason for Iran to wait and see if the incoming ICBMs really are ICBMs instead of launching.
whether Iran SHOULD remain resentful and distrustful of U.S. intentions is an irrelevant question.
It's international politics; they should remain distrustful of US intentions, for the exact same reason the US is not swallowing this whole peaceful nuclear program. They can resent as they will. That doesn't mean that that complaining about what we did to them is productive or something a rational player would do.
49SimonW11
43> The war of 1812 did a lot to normalise relations. It might not have been significant enough to register as a loss from a British perspective but it stopped us treating you like shit. and instead give you the respect as sovereign nation deserves. It was win win, we preserved our borders making it just another policing action from our perspective. While you got a seat at the table with the big boys.
50RickHarsch
A lackey scolds the naysayer
using cliches like 'rational player'
unaware of the farce
he pulls from his arse
arguments fit for a barnyard brayer
using cliches like 'rational player'
unaware of the farce
he pulls from his arse
arguments fit for a barnyard brayer
51RickHarsch
A monkey who was shot into space
Thought he saw in the moon an odd face
he said, Allah! oh damn
That's uncle sam
that expansionist greedy disgrace
Thought he saw in the moon an odd face
he said, Allah! oh damn
That's uncle sam
that expansionist greedy disgrace
52vy0123
reciting the story gains them little
for others, reciting the story gains them much too much
for others, reciting the story gains them much too much
53prosfilaes
#43: That reciting the story gains them little with the west is not the point. Expecting a country to forget about being ruled by a dictator while it still has survivors living is unreasonable. One cannot simply forget that uncle Mo was tortured.
I don't ask that they forget. Just don't imagine that others care. Don't present the fact that your grandmother was a slave to me and expect me to treat you differently. If you want reparations, then say so.
So, RickHarsch, not serious about this whole civility thing, eh?
I don't ask that they forget. Just don't imagine that others care. Don't present the fact that your grandmother was a slave to me and expect me to treat you differently. If you want reparations, then say so.
So, RickHarsch, not serious about this whole civility thing, eh?
54RidgewayGirl
I was just enjoying how a heated discussion could be civil.
55RickHarsch
Granny wants reparations, Granny
Granny wants reparations, Granny
She asked Pro for a dime
He didn't have the time
so he kicked my Granny square in the fanny
Granny wants reparations, Granny
She asked Pro for a dime
He didn't have the time
so he kicked my Granny square in the fanny
56RickHarsch
>54 RidgewayGirl: My dear RidgewayGirl, I hope you recognise the limerick as a respectable form of both argument and gibe. It sure beats rhetoric/dishonesty/rhetoric...
57BruceCoulson
#48
Again, we're back to 'Iran is not behaving the way I deem a rational country should act, so we're going to continue to beat on them until they stop acting that way'. Again, irrelevant; how someone else thinks you should voice your complaints is unlikely to change how you're doing things, especially if (as you admit) you distrust the other party.
From your statements on Yeltzin and 'less reason for Iran to wait', it almost seems that you would prefer that Iran remain a helpless target in the face of nuclear aggression. Presuming that this is NOT the case, doesn't it seem reasonable that Iran might not care for that state of affairs? After all, Yeltsin thought a missle was launched at him; not the other way around... Just as the U.S supported a proxy war against Iran.
I'm sorry, I just can't be that fearful of a small (comparitively) Middle-Eastern country with a lot of internal problems.
Again, we're back to 'Iran is not behaving the way I deem a rational country should act, so we're going to continue to beat on them until they stop acting that way'. Again, irrelevant; how someone else thinks you should voice your complaints is unlikely to change how you're doing things, especially if (as you admit) you distrust the other party.
From your statements on Yeltzin and 'less reason for Iran to wait', it almost seems that you would prefer that Iran remain a helpless target in the face of nuclear aggression. Presuming that this is NOT the case, doesn't it seem reasonable that Iran might not care for that state of affairs? After all, Yeltsin thought a missle was launched at him; not the other way around... Just as the U.S supported a proxy war against Iran.
I'm sorry, I just can't be that fearful of a small (comparitively) Middle-Eastern country with a lot of internal problems.
58RickHarsch
Please uncle Sam, give Mossadegh back to us
We'll forget what the Shah and the SAVAK did to us
please take away the years
and we'll allay your fears
And hop on that Jerusalem bus!
We'll forget what the Shah and the SAVAK did to us
please take away the years
and we'll allay your fears
And hop on that Jerusalem bus!
59RickHarsch
I asked him to if he could be civil
but he repeated the self-same drivel
He tried to ignore
to the point it might bore me
But that chair of the righteous it must swivel
but he repeated the self-same drivel
He tried to ignore
to the point it might bore me
But that chair of the righteous it must swivel
60prosfilaes
#57: Iran is not behaving the way I deem a rational country should act, so we're going to continue to beat on them until they stop acting that way.
Beat on them how? We certainly have no obligation to trade with anyone we don't want to; that's sovereignty. Do you mean opposing and interfering with them getting nuclear technology?
you would prefer that Iran remain a helpless target in the face of nuclear aggression.
Yes. Ultimately, I'm not seeing any gain to me, and I think I stand as an average citizen of the world in saying that. Iran having nuclear weapons increases the chance that nuclear weapons will be used.
doesn't it seem reasonable that Iran might not care for that state of affairs
Yes. But given the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of the other states in the world, all but 5 of them said that's the state of affairs they prefer, and all but 10 of them have agreed to give up plans to build nuclear weapons in exchange for that state of affairs.
After all, Yeltsin thought a missle was launched at him; not the other way around...
In 1979, it was the other way around, with NORAD scrambling in the face of an apparent all out-attack by the Soviets. Warning system failures can and do happen all around.
Edit: I'll note that a lot of the fuss Iran has about its nuclear program is coming from the IAEA, not (at least directly) from the US. It's a lot more complex then the US versus Iran on their nuclear program.
Beat on them how? We certainly have no obligation to trade with anyone we don't want to; that's sovereignty. Do you mean opposing and interfering with them getting nuclear technology?
you would prefer that Iran remain a helpless target in the face of nuclear aggression.
Yes. Ultimately, I'm not seeing any gain to me, and I think I stand as an average citizen of the world in saying that. Iran having nuclear weapons increases the chance that nuclear weapons will be used.
doesn't it seem reasonable that Iran might not care for that state of affairs
Yes. But given the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of the other states in the world, all but 5 of them said that's the state of affairs they prefer, and all but 10 of them have agreed to give up plans to build nuclear weapons in exchange for that state of affairs.
After all, Yeltsin thought a missle was launched at him; not the other way around...
In 1979, it was the other way around, with NORAD scrambling in the face of an apparent all out-attack by the Soviets. Warning system failures can and do happen all around.
Edit: I'll note that a lot of the fuss Iran has about its nuclear program is coming from the IAEA, not (at least directly) from the US. It's a lot more complex then the US versus Iran on their nuclear program.
61RickHarsch
Israel has 200 some nukes
but Iran must put up its dukes
The Us is free
to be what it be
For nukes are subject to flukes
but Iran must put up its dukes
The Us is free
to be what it be
For nukes are subject to flukes
62jjwilson61
RH, please stop. It's getting real annoying.
63RickHarsch
Since you said please...
64BruceCoulson
We are also encouraging (in everyway we can think of) other countries to not trade with them. Our not trading with them is merely foolish; trying to prevent Iran from trading with others is sanctions, economic warfare. (Which Juan Cole suggests may be raising gas prices in the U.S...)
Iran isn't going to accept being helpless, no matter how much it might please you and others. So, Iran turns to biological/chemical weapons research instead (which is cheaper and can be done more secretly). This is better how?
And yet, we've managed to survive multiple false alerts despite the world being 20-30 minutes from annihilation for 60 years. (We still are, which means the treaties are just a make people feel good policy.)
Iran isn't going to accept being helpless, no matter how much it might please you and others. So, Iran turns to biological/chemical weapons research instead (which is cheaper and can be done more secretly). This is better how?
And yet, we've managed to survive multiple false alerts despite the world being 20-30 minutes from annihilation for 60 years. (We still are, which means the treaties are just a make people feel good policy.)
65RickHarsch
An example of how the US encourages: During the 'extraordinary rendition' program, Ireland said no, you can't use Shannon for this. The US pulled business out, Shannon said OK. The reference is an Irish woman who worked for the EU.
