Conquer Club

We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Imagine the American Revolutionary War if only the British had guns. That's the point of the second amendment. The real question is: do we need nonviolent politics?

DoomYoshi wrote:Imagine the American Revolutionary War if only the British had guns. That's the point of the second amendment. The real question is: do we need nonviolent politics?

SUCK IT, DY!!!!!

Han clearly shot first.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Han clearly shot first.


--Andy

Don't make me get politically violent with you, Andy. You won't like it when I get politically violent all over your ass!!

BigBallinStalin wrote:We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Rights are not just given or voted into law, you have to stand up for them, put your life on the line, and refuse to budge an inch; rights are earned with blood and sweat and tears, because that is how far the right-deniers are willing to go to get their slaves and their riches; not just taking half of everything you earn over your entire life, not just imprisoning you, they will kill a person and everyone they know and not lose any sleep over it to abuse your rights and take what they want.

That's why as I have always said 'there wasn't a end slavery NOW option the American Founders could simply choose in 1776, there was no on'off switch to hit in 1822, there wasn't a magic power button in 1854. The way of the world since time immemorial was the slave owners world. Nothing was going to change until people who were not even enslaved were ready to FIGHT and DIE FOR IT. Pure and simple, end of story. The American Civil War was the violence of politics.

If I were a slave in the 1800's, I would try to escape until the oppressors killed me. As many attempts as it took and as many failures ended with many tortures, even hoping I could do something so radical as to get them to kill me, By God I would escape one way or the other. And I would encourage all like minded slaves to do the exact same thing.



Granted the 1900's were not nearly as brutal as the 1800's as far as slavery is concerned. Was Martin Luther King any different? That's why the Civil Rights movement happened when it did, because it wasn't until that exact moment that people were organized and realized right then and there, if they wanted to be treated equal, they were gonna have to put their own lives on the line and stand and fight and no matter how much you lose you keep fighting and fighting until you are dead or you win PERIOD. As America's forefathers had risked their lives before them time and time again to declare their own American rights and to stand up for them and to protect them in order to be treated as equals. The time had come for them to stand up to and fight against Jim Crow Laws. And they had one joint message..."All men are created Equal!"

'The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance' The fight is NEVER over!

'Is life so dear and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty, or give me Death!'

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Rights are not just given or voted into law, you have to stand up for them, put your life on the line, and refuse to budge an inch; rights are earned with blood and sweat and tears, because that is how far the right-deniers are willing to go to get their slaves and their riches; not just taking half of everything you earn over your entire life, not just imprisoning you, they will kill a person and everyone they know and not lose any sleep over it to abuse your rights and take what they want.

That's why as I have always said 'there wasn't a end slavery NOW option the American Founders could simply choose in 1776, there was no on'off switch to hit in 1822, there wasn't a magic power button in 1854. The way of the world since time immemorial was the slave owners world. Nothing was going to change until people who were not even enslaved were ready to FIGHT and DIE FOR IT. Pure and simple, end of story. The American Civil War was the violence of politics.

If I were a slave in the 1800's, I would try to escape until the oppressors killed me. As many attempts as it took and as many failures ended with many tortures, even hoping I could do something so radical as to get them to kill me, By God I would escape one way or the other. And I would encourage all like minded slaves to do the exact same thing.



Granted the 1900's were not nearly as brutal as the 1800's as far as slavery is concerned. Was Martin Luther King any different? That's why the Civil Rights movement happened when it did, because it wasn't until that exact moment that people were organized and realized right then and there, if they wanted to be treated equal, they were gonna have to put their own lives on the line and stand and fight and no matter how much you lose you keep fighting and fighting until you are dead or you win PERIOD. As America's forefathers had risked their lives before them time and time again to declare their own American rights and to stand up for them and to protect them in order to be treated as equals. The time had come for them to stand up to and fight against Jim Crow Laws. And they had one joint message..."All men are created Equal!"

'The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance' The fight is NEVER over!

'Is life so dear and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty, or give me Death!'

]

So, you approve of Hamas' violent means for securing the equal political rights of Palestinians?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Rights are not just given or voted into law, you have to stand up for them, put your life on the line, and refuse to budge an inch; rights are earned with blood and sweat and tears, because that is how far the right-deniers are willing to go to get their slaves and their riches; not just taking half of everything you earn over your entire life, not just imprisoning you, they will kill a person and everyone they know and not lose any sleep over it to abuse your rights and take what they want.

That's why as I have always said 'there wasn't a end slavery NOW option the American Founders could simply choose in 1776, there was no on'off switch to hit in 1822, there wasn't a magic power button in 1854. The way of the world since time immemorial was the slave owners world. Nothing was going to change until people who were not even enslaved were ready to FIGHT and DIE FOR IT. Pure and simple, end of story. The American Civil War was the violence of politics.

If I were a slave in the 1800's, I would try to escape until the oppressors killed me. As many attempts as it took and as many failures ended with many tortures, even hoping I could do something so radical as to get them to kill me, By God I would escape one way or the other. And I would encourage all like minded slaves to do the exact same thing.



Granted the 1900's were not nearly as brutal as the 1800's as far as slavery is concerned. Was Martin Luther King any different? That's why the Civil Rights movement happened when it did, because it wasn't until that exact moment that people were organized and realized right then and there, if they wanted to be treated equal, they were gonna have to put their own lives on the line and stand and fight and no matter how much you lose you keep fighting and fighting until you are dead or you win PERIOD. As America's forefathers had risked their lives before them time and time again to declare their own American rights and to stand up for them and to protect them in order to be treated as equals. The time had come for them to stand up to and fight against Jim Crow Laws. And they had one joint message..."All men are created Equal!"

'The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance' The fight is NEVER over!

'Is life so dear and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty, or give me Death!'

]

So, you approve of Hamas' violent means for securing the equal political rights of Palestinians?

Approve is a strong word. I have always 'understood' that the Palestinians have somewhat legitimate claims and legitimate grievances, and i have always said so. When it comes to Hamas, some actions are better than others of course, but I cannot approve or disapprove of something like that while understanding so little from my perspective as one who has never been to Israel, has never studied the situation or went the extra miles beyond simple study. I have met an IDF soldier when I was in a Florida bar in Daytona Beach, dude was missing one ear and had a scar on his nose so big he looked like he had two noses, and I made sure to talk to him as long as I could. I have also heard a couple of speeches from Palestinians when I was in college, and I had at least 5 questions for him just comparing everything he said to a documentary I had recently watched to which he contradicted everything I thought I just 'learned' and the rest of the class asked him probably 50 questions total, took twice as long as the speech. But that is the end of what is the best shot I have at first-hand accounts, and how could I even know if one was lying or the other; who is telling the truth? Then there is what the average 19 year old thinks they know compared to how little they actually know, compared to a small time government official and what they would tell you the truth is compared to what the super-secret rich and suepr silent rich members who actually move pieces on the board say the truth is. That's just how I look at things.

I accept that the grievances are so deep on both side that there is going to be violence, I would say I approve of the seeming fact that there is going to need to be a fight. I have already spoke my piece on this but it was quite a few pages back so I will repeat it.

May the best man win

DoomYoshi wrote:Imagine the American Revolutionary War if only the British had guns. That's the point of the second amendment. The real question is: do we need nonviolent politics?

Interestingly, that is almost what happened at Lexington and Concord before the first shots were ever fired. Thankfully there were true patriots ready and waiting, paying attention so they knew how to act and why to act when came the moment of truth.

Good question though. non-violent politics is probably almost always preferable to most people. It's just that throughout history it seems that initiating force unto another can sometimes be so tacit, so barely seen or felt, relatively speaking. and humans seem to get used to whatever they were born into, over time, even if solely based on 'that's just the way it is/always has been.' Even slavery. That's what Fabian Socialists have figured out.




Seems like in the modern day government monopoly on force is willing to try and get away with everything they can, up until the point the masses cannot be controlled and rise up to respond and possibly turn violent.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Rights are not just given or voted into law, you have to stand up for them, put your life on the line, and refuse to budge an inch; rights are earned with blood and sweat and tears, because that is how far the right-deniers are willing to go to get their slaves and their riches; not just taking half of everything you earn over your entire life, not just imprisoning you, they will kill a person and everyone they know and not lose any sleep over it to abuse your rights and take what they want.

Who are the right-deniers? Is it possible that you are one of them?

I like that for the most part, I don't have to fight for my rights anymore. It's all a bit silly.


--Andy

Israel needs to stop the settlers and go back to 1967 borders. It's that simple.

notyou2 wrote:Israel needs to stop the settlers and go back to 1967 borders. It's that simple.

The 1967 borders allow the Arabs to have military bases within easy striking range of every major Jewish city. It would be suicide for Israel to agree to that. Isreal needs clear command of everything from the Jordan River to somewhere in the Sinai mountain ranges. Any Arabs left in that area need to either accept peace and swear an oath agreeing to respect Israel, or they have to pack up their shit and get out.

It's what they should have done in 1948. That's the way war is supposed to work. You get together in a field, shoot it up, winner-takes-all, loser either either gets down on one knee and swears fealty, or packs up his shit and rides into the sunset, never to return. It's the best not only for the winner, but for the loser too. The winner gets his winnings, obviously, but for the loser it also means a clean break with the past and a chance to start fresh somewhere else. This hanging about, demanding a rematch year after year after year, benefits nobody. The Jews don't get to start enjoying the fruits of their victory, and the Arabs, who by now could have started happy and productive lives somewhere else, are stuck in their camps building more bombs.

Churchill said the most merciful way to wage war is to go all-in, winning swiftly and decisively, not to drag it out year after year. He was right, and nations like Germany and Japan that were completely trashed in World War II were able to put their past behind them and are now happy and prosperous again. Can you imagine if the Germans were emotionally invested in continuing to hold Rotterdam, for instance, and if a diehard swarm of Germans camped out beside Rotterdam and threw bombs at the Dutch, and every year the Dutch army had to go into their camps and beat them up yet again? How corrosive would that be to both sides!

The Jews won a fair fight in 1948. The Arabs should have either swallowed their pride and agreed to accept the new government, or they should have ridden off into the sunset. Hanging about and demanding a Mulligan, while cynical power brokers in the rest of the world egg them on, is just destroying not only their enemy but also themselves.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Rights are not just given or voted into law, you have to stand up for them, put your life on the line, and refuse to budge an inch; rights are earned with blood and sweat and tears, because that is how far the right-deniers are willing to go to get their slaves and their riches; not just taking half of everything you earn over your entire life, not just imprisoning you, they will kill a person and everyone they know and not lose any sleep over it to abuse your rights and take what they want.

Who are the right-deniers? Is it possible that you are one of them?

tyrants.

No, it's not possible I am one of them, as I do not want to take anything from other people, I do not lay a claim to a certain % of their time and labor. But you most definitely do, don't ya Mets? You most definitely are one of them We aren't going to agree, because we've already established that I believe rights are sacred and don't get overruled but other people's rights, and established that you are all too eager to trample another's rights based on what your personal priorities are and which rights you don't like.

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Phatscotty wrote:No, it's not possible I am one of them, as I do not want to take anything from other people

So you believe that the tax rate should be zero? People should not be forced to pay for any government services, including police and fire protection?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No, it's not possible I am one of them, as I do not want to take anything from other people

So you believe that the tax rate should be zero? People should not be forced to pay for any government services, including police and fire protection?

The federal tax rate on our incomes should be zero, yes.

The states shouldn't tax our income either. But income taxes aren't the only taxes, are they? If the states and the federal government are wise about their spending, there shouldn't be any reason to tax our incomes.

It's always the same argument- "well! What about roads! You want roads don't you!" in regards to federal taxes. And when you look at the numbers you realize that it's bullshit.

Let me enlighten you, mets. You might actually find this interesting.

Here is the 2013 budget for the federal government-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Now let's look at roads first. Roads is a great example because it's the one concrete thing that people can point to that government has done. And to which people think we must devote vast amounts of money for said roads.

Let's look at the numbers.
In 2013 the US government spent $60 billion on highway transportation, about 1.7% of the entire budget. If you go through every year prior you'll find that is in line with spending for roads for the last 50 years.

So where are you going to get the money to pay for all that? Income taxes? Why?

Well, there is a federal excise tax on gasoline which goes to the highway trust fund. In 2013 the government collected $36.4 billion.
Add in the federal excise tax on alcohol ($9.25 billion) and the federal excise taxes on tobacco ($15 billion) and BAM! You've paid for all your roads.
So if you really want roads then everybody needs to keep smoking and drinking and we don't have to tax a single penny from people's income to pay for it.

Then you'll say "Well, we want government to do more than just roads, like roads and the FAA (FAA budget 2013- $76 billion), education (dept of education budget 2013- $40 billion), a space program (Nasa- $16.9 billion), the EPA (budget- $9), science foundation (national science foundation budget- $7.4 billion).

All of that cost $151 billion in 2013.

If you refer to that 2013 budget and look in government income in the category of "other", you'll find the government took in $153 billion in 2013.

All that stuff paid for without taxing a single penny from anyone's income. Not a dime. That's how insignificant this money is to them that they just categorize it officially as "other".

Social security? Why talk about that? It's self funded, right? Same with medicare. Each person pays part of their paychecks to go to the trust funds to fund those programs.

So you can have all your favorite programs without having a single dime of income taxes or a single dime of corporate income taxes.

So what do we need those income taxes for?

A massive military, department of homeland security to take naked pictures and cop feels from anyone taking an airplane ride and a domestic spying program dedicated to spying on every single person on earth!

So you can blabber on about how we need to pay taxes, but for me I just don't like what they spend the money they take from me on. To spy on my countrymen and every person in the world, to bomb brown people the world over, to fund tyrannical regimes and buy cooperation from enemies, to finger traveler's a-holes and take picture's of everyone's junk and pay interest to private banks who loaned us money that they created out of thin air with credit that Uncle Sam extended to them in the first place. Talk about a scam! Haha!

Now maybe you still think the government should be used to help the downtrodden and unfortunate but I'm pretty sure that you could give your money to a charitable organization that wouldn't spend $600 billion a year on missiles, bombs and various ways of delivering them.
You can call out mismanaged non profits all you want, but I'm pretty sure that even the worst run charity wouldn't commit to wiretapping everyone on earth.

But, that's just my opinion. But everything you like that the government does, doesn't rely on a dime from income taxes. And everything you probably hate that the government does, well, they get that money from taxing your labors.

patches70 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No, it's not possible I am one of them, as I do not want to take anything from other people

So you believe that the tax rate should be zero? People should not be forced to pay for any government services, including police and fire protection?

The federal tax rate on our incomes should be zero, yes.

The states shouldn't tax our income either. But income taxes aren't the only taxes, are they? If the states and the federal government are wise about their spending, there shouldn't be any reason to tax our incomes.

It's always the same argument- "well! What about roads! You want roads don't you!" in regards to federal taxes. And when you look at the numbers you realize that it's bullshit.

I don't see much value in the argument that taxing income is different from taxing sales transactions, from a rights perspective. In either case, the state is taking money from you for engaging in a voluntary business transaction, and so you should feel a similar magnitude of rights violation in either case, given a similar amount of tax revenue collected.

Let me enlighten you, mets. You might actually find this interesting.

...

I do find it interesting, but also irrelevant to the point I was trying to make (Phatscotty's being unjustifiably self-righteous).

Then you'll say "Well, we want government to do more than just roads, like roads and the FAA (FAA budget 2013- $76 billion), education (dept of education budget 2013- $40 billion), a space program (Nasa- $16.9 billion), the EPA (budget- $9), science foundation (national science foundation budget- $7.4 billion).

...

So you can have all your favorite programs without having a single dime of income taxes or a single dime of corporate income taxes.

...

But, that's just my opinion. But everything you like that the government does, doesn't rely on a dime from income taxes. And everything you probably hate that the government does, well, they get that money from taxing your labors.

You can probably guess that I think some of these programs (NASA, NSF, etc.) are woefully underfunded. Underfunded by an order of magnitude? Probably not, but I haven't thought about it much.

A massive military, department of homeland security to take naked pictures and cop feels from anyone taking an airplane ride and a domestic spying program dedicated to spying on every single person on earth!

I do sometimes wonder about the relative economic benefits of this. I have read that we gain substantial economic benefits from maintaining such massive military and diplomatic power -- for example, we earn several billion dollars per year just in seigniorage from the wide usage of American currency in other countries. When you add up the economic benefits I receive of being a citizen of a dominant world power, how does that compare to my individual tax burden?

Not trying to say that the economics can justify what we have done to residents of other nations, just curious about this.

mets wrote:but also irrelevant to the point I was trying to make (Phatscotty's being unjustifiably self-righteous).

Oh? You mean this point?-

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:No, it's not possible I am one of them, as I do not want to take anything from other people

So you believe that the tax rate should be zero? People should not be forced to pay for any government services, including police and fire protection?

Since the Federal income tax didn't come until 1913, mets, do you think that prior to that there wasn't a such things as police, fire brigades and government services?




Anyway, as you opined, those listed services are woefully underfunded you say. It should really burn you up that the US government took in some $2.5 trillion in income and corporate taxes and decided to spend exactly zero ($0) of that money on said underfunded programs.

And we should pay income taxes, why? Oh, that's right, because if you don't you go to jail.



Taxes are insidious, but government's require them. After all, shouldn't the government be able to get some money to fund programs? But some taxes are more insidious than others. The income tax as bad as it is, isn't the worst tax of them all. The worst tax is inflation (in today's world what you mean by seiniorage).

Which is kind of funny. The US government not only takes money from your labors, but also systematically reduces the spending power of your currency month after month, year after year. Talk about a double whammy! They take 1/3 of your money and make what they leave you with worth less and less.

The point being as taxes may be necessary, this call that somehow we have to pay more because road/police/fire et al, is ridiculous.

mets wrote: I have read that we gain substantial economic benefits from maintaining such massive military and diplomatic power

You think that spending on military and having diplomatic power at the point of a bayonet is a net money maker? The source of our economic power is the fact that the US dollar is the reserve currency of the world. When that comes to an end (and it will come to an end eventually), that fact will become quite obvious to even you.


And that eventually leads to the necessity of violent politics. (had to get back to topic, I don't want to derail BBS' thread lest he have a fit, you understand). Gotta protect that dollar hegemony even if it means dropping bombs on people, wars, police actions and making certain world leaders dead. Violent politic indeed! We are pretty decent at it I have to admit.

But, as I said, it's my opinion based on certain facts. Like the fact that income taxes are spent on shit that I absolutely don't agree with. Like Homeland security, the Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA screening, NSA spying program, proxy wars, propping up totalitarian regimes, etc etc.

patches70 wrote:Roads is a great example because it's the one concrete thing that people can point to that government has done

Aside from defence, police, the legal system etc.?

BigBallinStalin wrote:We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

It was Martin Luther King and his non-violent methods who achieved the most. People were frightened by Malcolm X, but church-going average white Americans were shocked to see dogs and water guns used against people, even kids, peacefully marching.

mrswdk wrote:Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

Study Ghandi.

Guns work for those who already have power, not for those who lack it.

AND, Irael, the Jews are a good example. They HAD power, lots of support whereas those already claiming the land, though not with large cities and croplands, did not. Adding to it is the Western perception that anything other than a western way of life is simply inferior. The holocaust opened up people;s minds to the full humanity of Jews, but not necessarily to "others"

PLAYER57832 wrote:Guns work for those who already have power, not for those who lack it.

Building your physical power adds to your political power. The Qing government, which was militarily weak, had little say in anything and had its sovereignty repeatedly violated during invasions by foreign powers. By contrast, the CCP can demand the world recognize it as the legitimate government of China and has the power to block UN Security Council resolutions. It came from nothing and achieved this power by becoming and remaining armed to the extent that other actors cannot mess with it militarily - they must engage politically.

Other than the above quote, most of what you said is wildly irrelevant and I don't want to get bogged down in some pointless tangent.

Dukasaur wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Israel needs to stop the settlers and go back to 1967 borders. It's that simple.

The 1967 borders allow the Arabs to have military bases within easy striking range of every major Jewish city. It would be suicide for Israel to agree to that.

As long as folks like you insist that Palestiniens will act like terrorists because "that is how they are", rather than something they have become in RESPONSE to Iraeli actions.. then yeah.

As long as its OK to consider Palestiniens somehow subhuman, more violent than anyone else, less reasonable, etc.. yeah.

And as long as folks like you dismiss any and all Israeli actions as "fully reasonable", consider basically any response to any Palestinien response as reasonable .. then yeah, there will be no peace.

Dukasaur wrote:Isreal needs clear command of everything from the Jordan River to somewhere in the Sinai mountain ranges. Any Arabs left in that area need to either accept peace and swear an oath agreeing to respect Israel, or they have to pack up their shit and get out.

hmm... so your saying that all the Palestiniens have to do is not fight and suddenly Israel will let them live where they have for millenia? Why didn't Irael do that 60 years ago?

Dukasaur wrote:It's what they should have done in 1948. That's the way war is supposed to work.

What war do you believe was decided in 1948? WWII?.. well, its aftermath, yeah. How does Europe not wanting to deal with Jews and wanting a convenient way to get rid of them while seeming magnanomous have to do with forcing Palestiniens off the land they have occupied for millenia?

Dukasaur wrote: You get together in a field, shoot it up, winner-takes-all, loser either either gets down on one knee and swears fealty, or packs up his shit and rides into the sunset, never to return. It's the best not only for the winner, but for the loser too. The winner gets his winnings, obviously, but for the loser it also means a clean break with the past and a chance to start fresh somewhere else.

Hmm, I see... well we clearly defeated Japan and Germany.. how come those countries are still independent?

Dukasaur wrote: Churcill said the most merciful way to wage war is to go all-in, winning swiftly and decisively, not to drag it out year after year. He was right, and nations like Germany and Japan that were completely trashed in World War II were able to put their past behind them and are now happy and prosperous again. Can you imagine if the Germans were emotionally invested in continuing to hold Rotterdam, for instance, and if a diehard swarm of Germans camped out beside Rotterdam and threw bombs at the Dutch, and every year the Dutch army had to go into their camps and beat them up yet again? How corrosive would that be to both sides!

LOL... you DARE bring up treatment of Germany? Germany was GIVEN money to help rebuild their country, despite committing what is still put forward as a textbook example of evil. Japan was not much better in their treatment of occupied Asia. BOTH countries were given assistance and now flourish on the their own.

Palestiniens, who's "crime" was to say "we want to stay in the land of our forefathers", get relegated to "refugee camps", denied most basic freedoms, faced very serious restrictions on movements, commerce and general freedoms.

Dukasaur wrote: The Jews won a fair fight in 1948.

LOL... that doesn't even match Israeli versions.

In fact, the whole deal was based on a BRITISH "Balfour declaration" -- of dubious legal grounding, considered only because of he heavy "Europe can and should own/control all, regardless of what local people feel" bias.

Know how the boundaries were "decided?" Jews were given time to occupy whatever land they could, then at the end of the time period, the areas they were deemed to have a majority in were given to Israel and the rest was supposed to be made Palestine. No one consulted with, even really notified the Palestinians of this plan. When it was all said and done, the areas that became Israel had, at the very most just over 50% Jewish settlers and at least 48-49% Palestinians. Even if you trust those figures, it was highly skewed, nothing like the reasonable and fair allocation you are trying to assert. AND, the "allocation" was mostly promoted by European and American world leaders.

Oh, sure, you will find some signatures of "Arab representatives"...except they were not the true representatives of the Palestinians that would be expected if this were a European nation in question.

Shoot... there would never have BEEN a question if it were Europe. Its only the fact that these were Palestinien and Arabic peoples, people who often (not always!) lead nomadic lifesyles that gave this any credence. Even the UN did not recognize Israel for years, precisely because the formation of their state was unjust.

[quote="patches70"
It's always the same argument- "well! What about roads! You want roads don't you!" in regards to federal taxes. And when you look at the numbers you realize that it's bullshit.
[/quote]

I fucking HATE road taxes.

In the 1800s, Canada had land taxes in the form of servitude on the roads which was tied to how much land you owned. If you only owned a little land, you only had to spend 1 day per year working on the roads.

Then they changed the law to a cash-based tax. Subsistence farming became illegal overnight and cash crops now rule. We need to revert back to labor-based roads. I would prefer if they ended all the bullshit modern roads too. Make people drive cordorouy and clay roads so that they slow the f*ck down.

I just want to bomb the whole world. I can't imagine anything better than nuclear war right now. Or ever.