Stealing moral if starving?


Recommended Posts

The ethics of emergencies are derivative of the Objectivist ethics, not the foundation.

That "cabin" is not a 'cabin in the sky." The former has food in it (I hope), the latter is empty.

You can't eat words. Words can only guide you.

--Brant

I also hope the cabin has a workable stove and a soft bed and WiFi

(evil is as evil does)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On 12/4/2016 at 4:37 PM, RobinReborn said:

Plenty of jewish people got out of Germany before the holocaust started...  So I'd be careful, there are probably some Muslims in the US that are preparing to leave because they're afraid of Trump.

 

 

Some Jews escaped Germany early enough.  Some could have but chose to stay.  They could not believe what the Nazis had in store for them.  They were the victims or their own decency and rationality.   They found out too late how wrong they were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2016 at 0:53 AM, Brant Gaede said:

 

The biggest limitation in a human lifespan is one's conscience.

That and entropy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Some Jews escaped Germany early enough.  Some could have but chose to stay.  They could not believe what the Nazis had in store for them.  They were the victims or their own decency and rationality.   They found out too late how wrong they were.

 

They were victims of altruism, dictatorship and mysticism.  If We The Living accurately describes Rand's life, she tried to go to Germany to escape Russia...

 

They were also the victims of naivete of some jewish bankers in the US :

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-henry-goldman-on-hitlers-germany-in-1933-2016-7?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral

Quote

But he also slips in a detail about how Henry Goldman, son of Goldman Sachs' German-Jewish immigrant founder, Marcus Goldman, changed his opinion of the Nazi regime after visiting Berlin in 1933.

Nagorski writes that James G. McDonald, head of the Foreign Policy Association who later became the League of Nations' high commissioner for refugees, met with Goldman briefly before their trips to Germany.

At the time, McDonald asked Goldman whether the German government's extreme anti-Semitism was a sign that something might be wrong, to which Goldman reportedly replied, "No, there is no more anti-Semitism in Germany than in the United States."

McDonald described Goldman as a bit of an "apologist for Germany." And, in fact, Goldman initially supported Germany in World War I.

But after visiting the country in 1933, the banker reversed his position.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

They were the victims or their own decency and rationality.

Bob,

How true this is.

When we live day-to-day among decent and rational people (in general), we expect the larger society to be decent and rational, too.

The story of how the holocaust unfolded is a cautionary tale of the need to keep an eye on the ruling class and not presume they are decent and rational just because we are.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

 

They were victims of altruism, dictatorship and mysticism.  If We The Living accurately describes Rand's life, she tried to go to Germany to escape Russia...

 

They were also the victims of naivete of some jewish bankers in the US :

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-henry-goldman-on-hitlers-germany-in-1933-2016-7?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral

To some they are the victims of their own innocent faith in human nature in the face of evil. I see the "jewish banker" meme survives, not evil for once, only naive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobinReborn said:

 

 

but while we're on a related subject, can you comment on the Israel-Apartheid comparison?

I can, in short. Advance warning it doesn't play to the emotive, popular narrative.

It's the difference between keeping people in and keeping people out.

South African apartheid (a rationalization): "The blacks are not like us and don't want to be so let's restrict them to alloted townships and demarcated homelands, separately for their own good".

Israel (a basic truth): "Those Arabs who did not select to be citizens of this new State as many other Arabs have, don't want Jews around at all and some come to kill us, so we must protect ourselves with walls and checkpoints".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

South African apartheid (a rationalization): "The blacks are not like us and don't want to be so let's restrict them to alloted townships and demarcated homelands, separately for their own good".

Israel (a basic truth): "Those Arabs who did not select to be citizens of this new State as many other Arabs have, don't want Jews around at all and some come to kill us, so we must protect ourselves with walls and checkpoints".

Tony,

That about says it all.

What a fine succinct way of cutting to essentials.

:)

It all boils down to choosing to reject the other, then being a bully about it.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2016 at 0:46 PM, anthony said:

Israel (a basic truth): "Those Arabs who did not select to be citizens of this new State as many other Arabs have, don't want Jews around at all and some come to kill us, so we must protect ourselves with walls and checkpoints".

I dispute your facts.  First, palestinians are not all Arabs.  Second, they coexisted with jews for hundreds of years during the Ottoman Empire.  Third, it was the jews who were terrorists before 1948 (look up King David Hotel).    Fifth, Israel is fairly explicitly a jewish state (which practices conscription), why would somebody who isn't jewish want to be a citizen of it?

 

The similarities between Apartheid South Africa and Israel that I see is that they are both supported by the US and allegedly promote 'western' values (though they do a poor job in it and have systemic problems).  They make the west look bad to the victims of their violence and thus do more harm than good.  I would hope that there exists a peaceful solution to the problems in Israel similar to how Mandela led a (relatively) peaceful solution to Apartheid but I'm not sure it's possible.  That part of the world has existed in perpetual violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/12/13 at 6:41 PM, RobinReborn said:

I dispute your facts.  First, palestinians are not all Arabs.  Second, they coexisted with jews for hundreds of years during the Ottoman Empire.  Third, it was the jews who were terrorists before 1948 (look up King David Hotel).    Fifth, Israel is fairly explicitly a jewish state (which practices conscription), why would somebody who isn't jewish want to be a citizen of it?

 

The similarities between Apartheid South Africa and Israel that I see is that they are both supported by the US and allegedly promote 'western' values (though they do a poor job in it and have systemic problems).  They make the west look bad to the victims of their violence and thus do more harm than good.  I would hope that there exists a peaceful solution to the problems in Israel similar to how Mandela led a (relatively) peaceful solution to Apartheid but I'm not sure it's possible.  That part of the world has existed in perpetual violence.

I not only dispute your facts, I dispute the evaluation you place in the facts. Coexistence between Arab and the expelled Jews from Spain (in particular) was dependent upon one thing: Jew knowing his place and remaining second class - dhimmi status - in Arab/Ottoman countries. Sometimes repressed, always just tolerated, forced to pay dues and ghetto-ized -  this was real 'apartheid', de facto and de jure - to a degree SA didn't have. (It was this way my mother's family managed to survive in Egypt, way back for many generations, in the Jewish community in Alexandria).

At the point of Jews (early 1900's) seeking self-determination and beginning to leave Arab countries for 'Palestine', was when they were turned upon violently and many murdered (historical facts you can Google for yourself). To many an Arab/Muslim, the despised Jew should remain subservient. Much of the ensuing hatred for Jews/Israeli is linked by scholars to Israel being the victors in several wars. The worm turns, as they say. If one knows the psychology of Arabian blood-pride at being defeated by inferiors, it gets easier to understand.

Yes, some militant Jews (Irgun, Stern gang, etc.) resisted the tight British control of refugee European Jews' access to then Palestine and launched attacks and bombed military targets. (My father was one of those Brits).

To this day there are loads of applications from West bank Palestinians for Israeli citizenship. The country already has a significant proportion of Muslim Israelis who enjoy full benefits and rights - without the penalty of having to serve the IDF. They are excused on moral grounds. (Although some Muslims choose to enlist anyway). And why not want to become Israeli despite the stigma? Apart from the only democracy in the Middle East, one of the best (state-subsidized) education systems, it has Rule of Law and a representative Parliament many other nations can envy. A "poor job" at promoting western values?? Considering -too - where the country is situated, in between sharia-practising and some terror-sponsoring, countries? I don't believe you know what you're talking about, and your understanding of South Africa is cursory as well.

I've often expressed that it's past time that Israel cuts the financial aid from the USA. The funds come with strings attached (a percentage must be spent on US armaments), and actually the country can get along without the aid. I argue that only then, with financial independence from America, can the traditional alliance -and friendship - be properly established ( and some like yourself will have nothing to moan about).

I don't quite know what you mean by making the West "look bad". Please explain.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/12/11 at 9:14 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

That about says it all.

What a fine succinct way of cutting to essentials.

:)

It all boils down to choosing to reject the other, then being a bully about it.

Michael

Yes! Who - precisely - is the bully here? Those who don't want to have their values taken, or those who demand to walk in and take them?

In Israel terms, the Palestinian Liberation Front (Fatah) first with Arafat and now Abbas have been laughing up their sleeves at the West's gullibility.

A simple formula: 1. provoke Israel with attacks. 2. Israel has to put up more fences and security measures. 3. The world turns upon Israel for the perceived policy of "Apartheid". 4. Sympathy, support and cash roll in from the soft headed lefties. 5. Return to 1.

A Wall is one big emotional symbol (you might know...). It apparently keeps us from loving our neighbors, or something vaguely sentimental like that. Ask a liberal why he locks his front door or has a fence around his house and he doesn't see the connection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/13/2016 at 5:26 PM, anthony said:

I not only dispute your facts, I dispute the evaluation you place in the facts. Coexistence between Arab and the expelled Jews from Spain (in particular) was dependent upon one thing: Jew knowing his place and remaining second class - dhimmi status - in Arab/Ottoman countries. Sometimes repressed, always just tolerated, forced to pay dues and ghetto-ized -  this was real 'apartheid', de facto and de jure - to a degree SA didn't have. (It was this way my mother's family managed to survive in Egypt, way back for many generations, in the Jewish community in Alexandria).

At the point of Jews (early 1900's) seeking self-determination and beginning to leave Arab countries for 'Palestine', was when they were turned upon violently and many murdered (historical facts you can Google for yourself). To many an Arab/Muslim, the despised Jew should remain subservient. Much of the ensuing hatred for Jews/Israeli is linked by scholars to Israel being the victors in several wars. The worm turns, as they say. If one knows the psychology of Arabian blood-pride at being defeated by inferiors, it gets easier to understand.

Yes, some militant Jews (Irgun, Stern gang, etc.) resisted the tight British control of refugee European Jews' access to then Palestine and launched attacks and bombed military targets. (My father was one of those Brits).

To this day there are loads of applications from West bank Palestinians for Israeli citizenship. The country already has a significant proportion of Muslim Israelis who enjoy full benefits and rights - without the penalty of having to serve the IDF. They are excused on moral grounds. (Although some Muslims choose to enlist anyway). And why not want to become Israeli despite the stigma? Apart from the only democracy in the Middle East, one of the best (state-subsidized) education systems, it has Rule of Law and a representative Parliament many other nations can envy. A "poor job" at promoting western values?? Considering -too - where the country is situated, in between sharia-practising and some terror-sponsoring, countries? I don't believe you know what you're talking about, and your understanding of South Africa is cursory as well.

I've often expressed that it's past time that Israel cuts the financial aid from the USA. The funds come with strings attached (a percentage must be spent on US armaments), and actually the country can get along without the aid. I argue that only then, with financial independence from America, can the traditional alliance -and friendship - be properly established ( and some like yourself will have nothing to moan about).

I don't quite know what you mean by making the West "look bad". Please explain.

 

 

I'm not quite convinced of your narrative and you haven't adequately condemned Apartheid for me to believe that you and I see the same flaws in it.  It seems like you support the bad parts of Israel, which makes me question whether you're really opposed to Apartheid or just certain parts of it.

 

Dhimmis weren't exactly second class citizens, they were treated differently than most Muslims (though obvious Sunni and Shia' Muslims have had many conflicts).  By many metrics, jews were treated better in the Ottoman Empire than in various other parts of Europe.

 

Any large immigration will be met with resistance, look at people's reactions to Mexican immigrants.  The US is relatively civilized so there's not widespread violence against Mexicans.  But the middle east is not so there's violence against migrants.  You haven't convinced me that the violence against jews from 'Arab Countries' (that's a horrible term you seem to be equivocating Arabs with Muslims which is a sophomoric mistake, there was an empire controlled by Turks, who are ethnically and linguistically distinct from Turks) was any worse than the violence against 'Palestinians' by Jews.  If you look at the numbers of any modern conflict in Israel, there are about one hundred times as many Palestinians/Arabs killed as there are Jews killed.

 

As for making the west look bad... I acknolwedge that Israel has brought some western values to the Middle East, but they've also brought lots of violence (the Ottoman Empire brought relative peace to the middle east, though they did start many conflicts in Eastern Europe).  If you know somebody who was killed by an Israeli armed by US weapons, you're probably going to have negative feelings towards the West.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...brought lots of violence..." "...one hundred times as many...killed..."

Not much left to say after that. This is the common narrative of the Left's double standards and post-colonial guilt. Do you even know the difference between violence and self-defensive force? Do you recognize that Israel has, at one time, controlled and administered (won) the entire region - Gaza, Sinai, West Bank - as result of ~defensive~ wars, and has given it nearly all back? ("Land for Peace"--look it up).

"...haven't adequately condemned Apartheid..." - LOL! 

Show your credentials at the door...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "deligitimization" of Israel is in full swing. Even the original historical roots of Jews in the land and their construction of the Temple (not to mention, innumerable artefacts and written records) is lately being disputed by some western and many Islamic "scholars". Start with Israel's right to exist, and Jews everywhere are a soft target. Pretend it is only "anti-Zionism", not non-PC anti-semitism, when there is plainly no longer any distinction between Jew-prejudice and Israel-prejudice. If it is any measure of the future, the social prejudice against Jewish students on campuses in totally safe countries like the US (e.g. UCLA) and Canada (U of Toronto) is on the rise. European countries are further along with bigoted assaults in open society, to a point of no return for France and its Jewish population.

It seems Jews are going to need a homeland as much as they did once before, after the War.

The liberal, "compassionate" Left has (along with some Church groups) self-righteously sided with a large, well-funded Muslim propaganda campaign (signs of which I noted 3-4years ago with the odd behavior change of some Muslim acquaintances and anti-Jew diatribes on a local Islam TV station, and reported at the time on OL).

As with Israel freeing Gaza not long ago to its independent self-rule, which merely encouraged Hamas' declarations to eradicate Jews and their ensuing attacks on Israel - so it will be with the West Bank, if and when there arrives a "Two State Solution". How can it be different? Most Palestinians at this point and particularly the PLO don't want peace and reconciliation - that is all bluff for the visiting pols and media. They want the cities and land from river Jordan to the sea, and genuinely believe they'll get it all one day by way of media publicity, world opinion and the UN and/or by force. There have been several opportuninites for peace they've refused. The facts are clear to anyone following events there for long, and this is the most important fact.

To that cause of annihilation and banishment, it is people elsewhere in the west who knew little about the reality of living in Apartheid in SA, and want to hear only one-sided, selected items about Israel's recent history - and tacitly oppose its legal and moral right to exist (and its actual existence) - who buy into the false Apartheid-equivalence and are the useful and foolish pawns of evil people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, anthony said:

As with Israel freeing Gaza not long ago to its independent self-rule [...] so it will be with the West Bank, if and when there arrives a "Two State Solution". How can it be different?

The first world war pitted the Ottoman Empire against the British Empire and allies among which France. The end of the Ottoman empire 'freed' its citizens from the old system, but no treaties were signed between the subject peoples and the subsequent enforcers.  For the lands we know now as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel (+ Gaza and West Bank), the peoples had no say in the matter of drafting new states and borders.

This is important to consider -- that the land borders were not a result of a peace between peoples/nations, but between Empires, or rather imposed by the 'winning side' that took military control of the Holy Lands.  Readers will recall the famous Sykes-Picot plan, which partitioned the former Ottoman lands into Mandates. The peoples had no say at the time.

The point here for me is not to argue against history, but to point out that some of the problems in these lands exist  because the borders were 'artificial,' not conforming to actual 'nations' as we would understand the world today.

To equate Hamas-led Gaza with the West Bank is an error.  While there is little democracy in either enclave, the West Bank uses the framework of law and jurisprudence to counter expansion of Jewish settlements into 'their' territory. 

The last thing to bear in mind is that there is no nation in either the West Bank or Gaza.  There is no citizenship of a national sense, no passports, no "rights of a nation" for either enclave. 

What makes the comparison between the two somewhat difficult for prediction is the issue of "settlement."  Our imaginations can give us a future where the Palestinian Authority comes to the table again for a final treaty of sorts -- on that puts Israel on one side of the border and Palestinya on the other. 

How does one piece together the bits of the West Bank into a functioning country?

Here are two maps that illustrate the degree of difficulty:

image.adapt.990.high.West_Bank_Map_ocha.

Jewish-Settlements-in-West-Bank-Map.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Image result for ottoman empire map at its height

William, we should also zoom out your map to show Asia Minor and North Africa, etc. and gain a perspective of the Ottoman Empire's reach.

See the speck of land under contention?

You say rightly, "the land borders were not a result of a peace between peoples/nations..."

Yes, that is the effect of war and total defeat.

After 600 years of partially brutal and partly benign rule, the Ottoman Empire lost, backing Germany in WW1 and leaving a vast vacuum.  No matter how callous it sounds, in reality, to the victor belongs the spoils. What remains is how humanitarian the victor is. I maintain there is not a person alive today whose forefathers did not come out sometimes on the 'right' (winning) side of conquest and sometimes on the wrong side, and both. We the descendants don't blame Genghis Khan, Rome, Spain, the Ottomans, the Vikings, Britain, etc.etc. nor play the victim-forever card. One just has to get over it and on with it. The two countries we live in now are largely the result of European colonialists - and in distinction - settlers - and yes, warfare.

Britain and France (with Russia, partly) certainly had a field day carving up that one vast territory after Sykes-Picot, into 'countries'. One very small country was deemed to be Jewish. People's ethnicities were not taken into account overmuch, and people will always pay in upheaval as a result of a defeated State or patron. But notice that not much blame is attached to the Ottomans' conquering colonism the way the Arabs and Palestinians still blame England and France and Israel - for winning. They too, have to get over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the victor belong the spoils? No.  That is not an applicable existing law of war.

In reality, in today's world of wars, no -- to the victors belong the spoils (women, land, water, resources, private goods) only in ISIS-tainted lands.  Property seizure, summary execution, attempted genocide, sexual slavery and other forms of bondage -- this is a premodern and savage  law of war that we cannot rely upon to justify itself.  It removes any notion of justice and individual rights ... it ratifies murder, torture, thievery, rape and pillage.

Consider Iraq and the Trump notion that 'we' (meaning the US-led coalition) should have 'taken the oil.' Or the last war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon -- did the victor take the spoils?  No.

Today, for better or worse, there are the Geneva Conventions and other internationally binding 'laws of war.' And there are state laws as well, in the case of Israel.  So, that is why the settlement issue is so contentious. A reliance on a doctrine of 'spoils' does not pass muster in Israeli courts.
 

Regarding South Africa and Canada as a result of European colonialism and military conquest, sure ... and the growth and development of individual rights under a federal democracy and rule of law.   Today, still, in my province, some of the indigenous peoples remain legally under tutelage, although they do now enjoy all the civil liberties denied to them under previous legal regimes.

Re Sykes-Picot, my mention was to bring into consideration the individual, the persons, the social communities who live under this regime or that without effective self-rule, self-representation. In our understanding, they will not lack rights of man, and they need not dispose of national-state rights gained by treaty. The right to national self-determination ... is what led to Israel becoming a nation like any other.

Being a military 'occupier' should have nothing to do with the individual rights of the people under occupation. The western Allies post WWII for example -- did they sack Japan and Germany, did they take 'spoils'? On the whole, no, and there would be no justification for them if they had. Germany woke to a democratic republican federalism, Japan a constitutional monarchy with bicameral republicanism. Each have the suite of Western individual rights -- to worship, assembly, speech ...

Back to the present central cockpit of war ... can one recognize the rights of man while 'taking what is rightfully the victor's by ancient law of war'? I'd say no.  You violate rights of those who are 'spoil.' 

In this sense, then, the Iraq war resulted in constitutional recognition of all the rights of man invested in the Iraqi peoples.  The victors are at peace with the successor state and its allies against ISIS.  These modern victors did not seize territory as spoil. It was neither the aim of the Iraq war nor its consequence.  This constitutional order granted no 'spoils' in the sense oil as plum of victory -- today the nation is plugged into the system that delivers energy resources to customers. Customers, not conquerors.  The victors 'buy,' they do not seize as has ISIS.

My larger point is moral:  at what point do you justifiably 'steal' territory or resources without breaching the rights of the individuals heretofore resident or owner? At what point is a victor's grasp oppressive to individual freedoms?

To use an earlier  or pre-modern justification for any conquest is to evade the moral points at issue.  It delivers us justification of ISIS 'war law,' the law of the fist, the law of might.

Down that slippery slope I do not want to venture.

....................

To the eventual victors in Syria, which will be a front of Iran, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militia, Assadists, what spoils will remain?  A gutted physical reality, depopulated, pounded clear of 'terrorists.'  Almost sixty percent of the original inhabitants gone from their homes and half those fled abroad to neighbourhood and beyond. A ruthless authoritarian dictatorship in the saddle. Under what circumstance would we return the 'losers' to the 'victors' there?

Fridays at OL. Deeeeep thoughts.  War, carnage, policy, rights, schmights. Spoils, schmoils.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

To the victor belong the spoils? No.  That is not an applicable existing law of war.

In reality, in today's world of wars, no -- to the victors belong the spoils (women, land, water, resources, private goods) only in ISIS-tainted lands.  Property seizure, summary execution, attempted genocide, sexual slavery and other forms of bondage -- this is a premodern and savage  law of war that we cannot rely upon to justify itself.  It removes any notion of justice and individual rights ... it ratifies murder, torture, thievery, rape and pillage.

 

 

Don't be getting all precious on me, William. "Savage law of war"! "Pillage"! You understand the context I meant.

A victor has every right to disarm a belligerent, defeated enemy. He can occupy his country. He can place an interim Administration in control. He may hold land of tactical importance adjacent to his for as long as he considers necessary. In short, morally he can do everything to ensure that the enemy cannot rise again and return.

1. France and England were quite justified in dismantling the Ottoman Empire. How would you have had it? To leave everything in place and face uprising, small wars and revolts in an immense, amorphous, ungoverned area? With hindsight it's very easy to detect 'causality' of some events that went badly later on, up till today.

2. Israel was aggressed upon several times by surrounding countries intent on eliminating it. It had been a legally constituted and created state (some might not remember). In those desperate wars it won territories, critical - in that confined space - as buffers and protection against the next attacks. Then it gave back much in hopes of peace and peace treaties and promises of treaties. (Only with Sadat and Egypt has that so far worked out, but it came close; if Morsi and the MB had stayed in power he made it plain that the treaty would be nullified - then, Israel would now be certainly facing a southern threat on the Sinai border. Israel shrewdly has held on to the Golan as a strategic point to defend against Syria, their most avid enemy).

3. When one's only currency for peace is ~ the land won in defensive wars ~ you've every moral right to hold onto some portions of land. In that region you have to try to look ahead for many generations. Their's is not a rational and constant western culture (or respected "Geneva Conventions"!).

And so, as a precondition to talks, the Palestinian losers/innocent victims/killers have been demanding a return to pre-1967 borders. Do they have the right to demand anything? Especially from Israelis who know that any deal may well be broken once again? If conceded to, it's a good bet the PA will demand Israel returns to the smaller 1948 borders, and if conceded to ... on and on. I repeat, at this stage it's not peace and a separate state that many Palestinians want. It requires pressure put on them, not on Israel, by the diplomats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2016 at 4:14 AM, anthony said:

The "deligitimization" of Israel is in full swing...

Jews are going to need a homeland... 

[people who disagree are] useful and foolish pawns of evil people.

First of all, you're talking your own book, as they say, selling crap that puts cash in your pocket, lets you claim the high moral ground. Second, Israel was created by Harry Truman to win the 1948 election, which he privately resented, because it "legitimized" Zionist terrorism. Palestinians were driven out, their lands seized by making deals with expat Turks who had no more right to Palestinian property than the Jews did. Your claim that Jews need a homeland is outrageous -- a divine right to rule? -- no different than Boers who battled and subjugated blacks. If you want to characterize someone as evil, start with murderous Mandela and the ANC, another gang of tribal thugs put in power by useful and foolish American demagogues who awarded themselves the high moral ground of "one African one vote" without having to live with the consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

the Iraq war resulted in constitutional recognition of all the rights of man invested in the Iraqi peoples

Gad. It's like a happy face drawn in chalk on a sidewalk. Cheney's secret energy commission met in 2000, plotted military seizure of Iraq long before 9/11 gave them political cover. After killing 100,000 Iraqis and driving Saddam from power, the U.S. imposed a protectorate by decree, proceeded to auction oilfield leases, spread payola to tribal leaders and CIA stooges. Then Anbar exploded and Shias demanded control of Basra or else. Total farce: $2 trillion down the drain, no spoils. Oil went to $100 and U.S. majors continued to lose conventional reserves, forced them into stupid shale deals that were cashflow negative and are currently $50 billion underwater. The "rights of man" in Iraq? hahahahaha - maybe the rights of imam.

Same shit in Vietnam. Diem was pressured into carving up offshore oil leases (I saw the maps). We killed 2 million Vietnamese, and our boys came home with balls of opium and Thai sticks. Defense contractors and CIA operators had a nice payday. American oil companies got nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now