what unadulterated nonsense! how in the world do you expect anyone of sound mind to take seriously arguments that are put forth by groups with the name "jewwatch" or that are written by david duke of all people! not to mention take anything you have to say seriously any more.

my God, delsyn was right. are you going to be citeing places where we can purchase klan robes next?! sheesh!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2001-10-09 07:34 ]</font>

I've got to tell you. I have to get on a plane tomorrow morning and then probably again on Friday afternoon and I can't say I relish the prospect tremendously. This Crisis stuff is hard on the nerves at times.

JCarson:


Interesting link. Thanks for posting it.


I have, as you might expect, a critique of Jesse Walker's article. I believe he's making the quintessentially libertarian mistake of ignoring the dictates of reality. Of the six options he outlines, the only one that will work in the long term is the Caesar option. Moreover, there is a seventh option which he doesn't mention, which I will call the James Madison option; more on that momentarily.


The author says that he has "long opposed American intervention abroad." But one might as well oppose the law of gravity. We do not have the option of NOT intervening abroad, and have not had that option since 1941. If we don't intervene abroad -- if we don't play Caesar's role -- someone else will. Indeed, the reason we had the unusual option to play or not play the Great Game, at our discretion, from 1783 until 1941, was because Caesar ruled from London during those years, and the British Empire represented a superpower we could live with -- so long as it did not specifically rule us, which after 1783 it did not attempt to do.


It is simply not possible for every nation-state to behave in a civilized fashion and mind its own business, as Mr. Walker seems to prefer. Nation-states don't do that, and can't do that. Either there is a Caesar, or a group of rival Caesars, or there is chaos and global war until someone wins and becomes Caesar. In fact, that was the dynamic behind World War II. The British Empire lost the ability to succeed as Caesar; Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan attempted to assume the role; they were defeated, respectively, by the Soviet Union and the United States; and those two powers became the new rival Caesars. Now the Soviet Union is gone, and the United States either becomes Caesar or allows a power vacuum in which, after some years of horrible war, another power takes control -- and rules us, too.


Or, alternatively, we choose the James Madison option, which is to create a global federation, as Madison (and friends) did on a smaller scale from the thirteen newly independent (and most imperfectly united) states of America. Such a federation, if properly designed, would assume the role of Caesar, and we could cede our power to it confident that our own interests would receive proper representation -- though not IMproper representation as they do today.


If we do choose the Caesar option instead of the Madison option, then all the unpleasant consequences Walker describes follow. We would, moreover, have to take a leaf from the Roman playbook in order to do it successfully; the Romans were very capable imperialists. Part of their success lay in military invincibility, but much of it lay in the fact that their provinces were so well governed, peaceful, and prosperous that they were actually better off as Roman provinces than as independent nations. We would have to become a lot more generous, and our actions guided more by justice and less by greed, to succeed as Caesar in a unipolar world.


The Madison option strikes me as by far the most palatable.

On 2001-10-08 19:09, enjolras wrote:
what unadulterated nonsense! how in the world do you expect anyone of sound mind to take seriously arguments that are put forth by groups with the name "jewwatch" or that are written by david duke of all people! not to mention take anything you have to say seriously any more.

my God, delsyn was right. are you going to be siting places where we can purchase klan robes next?! sheesh!

Thank you for your kind comments.

If you read my "discussions" with Edgar Howard you know about my experiences working in Africa with a doctor's charity that provided medical and food relief. Spend a little time around religious maniacs and bigots wielding big guns and you learn to quickly start picking out various code words and concepts. If you don't you usually end up dead because you've stayed too long in the wrong place.

"Kikes control the world media" and white sheets have morphed into "Zionism is racism" and 3 piece suits in latter day America.

As for Palestine and Israel, it might be interesting to note that among the more militant members of MY Jewish family, I've always been considered crazy because I would criticize Israel and supported the notion of a Palestinian state.

I'm not crazy, though, I'm actually fairly mainstream as opinions on this issue go.

Most Jews support the existence of a Palestinian state.
Most Palestinians support the existence of a Palestinian state
Most Israelis support the existence of a Palestinian state.
Most Arabs and Muslims support the existence of a Palestinian state.

The problem is there are a number of groups who don't support the existence of an ISRAELI state.

This includes Palestinian and Arab terror groups who hate Israel way more than they love Palestine or their own people.

This also includes many of the more radical Arab governments who like having a "Palestinian problem" they can use to fan the flames against Israel. This, by the way, doesn't keep them from barring Palestinian refugees from their own countries or denying them humanitarian aid (the gun keep flowing, though).

This ESPECIALLY includes most radical Muslim terrorists like Osama Bin Laden. Do you think Bin Laden actually gives a flying fig about the Palestinians? The man is Saudi Arabian with a burning hatred for America, moderate Islam and the Saudi royal family. The Palestinians are an excuse and a source of recruits to him, nothing more.

The Arabs and all Semitic people are a tribal people with a long history of grudges against each other. I assure you, there's not a whole lot of love lost between the Saudis and the Palestinians. The only thing that approximates Arab unity is that they ALL hate the Jews.

Politically correct disclaimer - The word all in the previous sentence was used to make a point - I am quite aware of the diversity of opinion on many matters among the Arab people.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-08 21:02 ]</font>

Boy, is this thread beginning to get weird, or what?

Just as an aside, it took about 90 days for the the old (has it been that long ago?)Topic: Election 2000 beginning of the fourth turning? to reach the stage that thread has reached just three weeks following the so-called "event trigger".

Of course, hardly anyone even voted in that event so...

Just thought ya'll like ta' know.

p.s. Has anybody heard from Mr. Christopher Barger who started that old thread E2K in all this 911 mess?

However, one of those factions used upwards of a million dollars and 19 martyrs to push that button, with the 911 atrocity as its consequence.

Consequently, my politically incorrect rhetoric, (code words or not), pales in contrast to the real actors in the middle east. Without malice and without hatred toward anyone, I bring the message to the forum. Let's not assassinate the messenger, because of the message.

Truth is there is a bottom-up movement afoot in terrorism, and as fringe as my views may appear, it's the fringe that needs to be considered here.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:43 ]</font>

I'll have to echo Marc's sentiments that this thread is "beginning to get weird." But there is an important issue contained within the "weirdness" which I hope can be extracted from it and it is addressed in an excellent Wall Street Journal essay posted at the following link:

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bc1aaea5af9.htm

The author looks for the ultimate cause of the 911 attacks and debunks the "corrosive" western culture "Great Satan" theory. He demonstrates how it is our historic support for the state of Israel which has brought us to this point and I believe he makes a good case.

The point is that the problem will not be solved -- and we will not be removed from danger -- until the administration confronts this issue. A choice will have to be made: Either we abandon Israel to destruction or we declare war on the fanatical variety of Muslim fundamentalism and eradicate it. The two cannot coexist and we are no longer safe so long as both continue to exist. Although administration actions are popular at the moment, unless they confront this issue, it will soon become apparent to us that they are in fact following in Herbert Hoover's footsteps. There of course remains plenty of time for them to take on this issue. But if they do not do so by the time we approach the next election, I wager that you will find yourself looking elsewhere for a Gray Champion.

I personally come down on the side of Israel for a variety of good reasons though others may disagree. But the point is that we really need to begin to think about this issue. We simply will not be removed from the danger until we confront this and tackle it.

Things just got weirder.

Official Gen X party staement from Charlie Sheen
Urgent
Malibu, CA
Oct 9, 2001

Dearly Beloved,

We are gathered here today to get through this thing called life. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA on September 11, my cabinet members including Anthony Michael Hall, Robert Downey Jr., the guys from South Park, and Lavar Burton sat down and reconsidered our party platform for the Generation between 20 and 40. We now DO care. And we have issued our own set of decisions on how to deal with the present crisis.

First we would like to name God as the prime suspect in this atrocity. We therefore demand that God be apprehended and brought to justice.

In accordance with our new war on God we demand that the cities of Jerusalem, the Vatican, and Mecca be sacked.

We demand that the nation of Israel be fully disbanded, and its residents relocated to Southeastern Montana, where they will be safe from territorial conflict, except of course from hillbillies, Mark Fuhrman, and Native Americans.

We demand that the United States surrender to the terrorists, whoever they are, and return to a loosely based confederation of 50 independent republics, so that there is no more United States for anyone to target.

We demand that the former US infidels divest completely, in terms of military, diplomatic and humanitarian, and economic efforts from the Middle East, and cease to acknowledge its existence.

We demand a switch to more Earth friendly energy sources.

and we also demand that everyone take part in Operation Infinite Pleasure and make sure you have a good time for our nations sake.

The Gen X Party is the voice of a jaded and alienated population that is sandwiched between the Steven Spielbergs and Britney Spears of the world.
Although our voice will be forever silenced by our reactive nature, desire to drink chocolate milk and watch TV, and lack of giving a shit about Monica Lewinsky or Gary Condit, we believe our deep sense of irony, hands off indolence/induced pragmatic thinking, and general malaise will be able to guide our nation to a stable footing, without the preachy trimmings of our elders, or collective useless organization forming nature of our juniors.
We are the party for a future that works.
And we believe that having a future that exists is a vision in itself.

Thank you.
Heidi Fleiss Bless Us All.
Charlie Sheen
Party Leader, Gen X Party

Stonewall writes? I personally come down on the side of Israel for a variety of good reasons though others may disagree. But the point is that we really need to begin to think about this issue. We simply will not be removed from the danger until we confront this and tackle it.

I can only agree that the thread is going ?weird.? I have been using variants of the phrase ?ethnic, religious and racial problems? for years on these forums, and have identified these as among several issues to be addressed, along with economic, ecological, security and human rights issues. I would propose that ?weird? in the case of this thread is an alternate buzz word for ?ethnic, religious and racial problems.? It is easy from America to be above the fray. It seems clear, even on this forum, that identification with one faction or another can lead contributors to favor information backing one side or the other. Emotion can filter in or out facts. Emotion can cause individuals to dig into positions, to decline to retreat further.

At least we are far enough apart physically that thrown rocks, bottles, Moltov cocktails and bullets can?t be exchanged.

How many of us have not gotten locked into irresolvable disagreements on these boards? I have crossed words with Eric Meece to no great effect on the old Philosophy of Science and 2nd Amendment threads, yet we are both liberals at heart. Individuals are reluctant to examine their worldviews objectively unless and until following their worldview leads to an emotional disaster. If a culture is a collection of people with similar worldviews, and worldviews change only with disaster, a Crisis might be described as a series of emotional disasters sufficient to change a culture.

The major lesson to be learned with regard to ?ethnic, religious and racial problems? is that hatred leads to emotional disasters. It has long been considered collective wisdom not to negotiate with terrorists. This only encourages them to become repeat offenders. However, it might also be collectively wise to attack any injustices that might potentially lead to hate and terror. In Northern Ireland, it was never sufficient for an all Protestant police force to imprison as many Catholic terrorists as possible. It might become sufficient if the people perceived a mixed religion police equally vigilant in imprisoning extremists on both sides.

The Middle East is not a place where one side are angels, the other side devils. Israel is under siege. To survive, and in response to hostility, she has wandered far from the ideal western democracy. The displaced people of Palestine are victims. Some Arabs are using the issue and using the victims to seek or maintain their own political power and to increase violence against Israel. Many on both sides of the line would as soon end the violence. There are enough on both sides who have no such desire to create a stalemate. There are many on both sides simply addicted to hate.

So long as the primary conflict is between Muslim and Jew, I see no resolution. The conflict has to be redefined as being primarily between those who want to end the hate, and those addicted to hate. It is not a question of why their side is more in the wrong than my side. It is a matter of asking if there is anything that my side is doing that could be considered unjust, and attempting to end it. The enemy is not he who practices a different religion, but he who hates.

And this is far easier said than done.

While the Palestinian problem is rising to the fore of late, the United States has been supporting royal and dictatorial regimes whose common people have been displeased. There is a perception that the US cares more about protecting the rights and lives of white people than Arabs. As an example, NATO intervened sooner in the Balkans in support of the Catholic faction than the Muslim faction. There is a perception that we care more for oil than Arabs. Support for the primarily white population of Israel increases a perception of US racism. While I do not believe in the least the US population is deliberately voting in racist politicians creating a deliberately racist foreign policy, it seems to me that the policies are perceptibly racist in effect if not in intent.

It seems inevitable that the royal and dictatorial governments will in time fall. Will they fall to ?Islamism? fanatic religious rogue governments, or to democratic governments supporting human rights? Will we be perceived as on the side of human rights, or on the side of the royalty and dictators? Will the Arab people perceive that joining a religious extremist movement is more likely to result in change, or a democratic movement?

Yes, the Israel / Palestine issue is more hot at the moment, but let?s not forget democracy and human rights. It is in our short-term interests to maintain good relationships with governments that set reasonable and stable oil policies. Is it in our long-term interest to set up favorable conditions for creation of new ?Islamist? rogue states?

I can sympathize with both sides of the ?weird? debate, here. Neither side is perfect. Both sides are in denial. In the long term, I would encourage more energy spent identifying the faults of one?s own favored faction that might be corrected, rather than taking down the other guy. And yes, even here on this thread, this might be considered wishful thinking. Exercising one?s prejudices and hatred is natural. It?s hard to seek constructive steps towards new solutions that imply old positions were imperfect. It is easier to admit one?s enemy?s faults than one?s own.

And any smug Americans that have stayed above the fray may meditate on US policy. We too are less than perfect. Have we been short term expedient, rather than working in the interests of all of the people. What might be changed?

On 2001-10-08 21:18, sv81 wrote:

Consequently, my politically incorrect rhetoric, (code words or not), pales in contrast to the real actors in the middle east. Without malice and without hatred toward anyone, I bring the message to the forum. Let's not assassinate the messenger, because of the message.

Truth is there is a bottom-up movement afoot in terrorism, and as fringe as my views may appear, it's the fringe that needs to be considered here.

Believe me, the issue the arabs advocate means more to them than it does to me. I only repeat the message, (without a gun by the way).

sv81, i think it is very possible to intelligently discuss the goings on in the middle east regarding terrorism, the israeli-palestinian conflict, etc. without interjecting the obviously biased opinions of racists, anti-semites, and apologists for neo-nazi, radical right wing christian groups (i.e. the ku klux klan, etc.), holocaust deniers, and their like, operating under the guise of objective scholarship on the subject, as support for your arguments!

On 2001-10-05 14:03, Delsyn wrote:
SV81 -

After 911, the issue of American culture has now become more important than ever. It seems to me that the roots of our current issues with Islamic fundamentalists fall into three categories:

1. America's support for Israel - a Jewish civilization the Arabs are determined to wipe off the face of the Earth. This is an age old hatred that began with the battle of two brothers - Isaac and Ishmael - detailed in a story.

2. America's tendency to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East to ensure ourselves a steady supply of that most addictive drug - oil.

3. What is percieved as America's constant assault on fundamental Islamic values - our "decadent" pop cultural output and the American values and principles that underlie both it's content and it's very existence.

Having lived very close to Arab people of different religious backgrounds ? and most closely to Lebanese Shiite Muslims - I feel I can assure you that they are not interested in wiping the Jews, Israel, or anyone else from the face of the Earth. They are interested in the same things the rest of the sane inhabitants of the Earth are ? in securing a chance for their children for a decent future. I?m sure, too, that they consider the attack of 911 to be an act of murder that no respectable people would approve of. I?d also like to remind you, as we mobilize against world terrorism, that all the same assumptions were made when the Oklahoma City crime was committed.
On the subject of this forum, it was inspiring to a young ?idealist? to live with these people in the thick of a violent conflict, living in the most modest conditions (no plumbing or electricity), who treated all points of view as important, and never took them personally. When introduced to a visitor, they would interrogate them on all opinions, political and religious, and their only demand was sincerity. They wanted to know why one believed as he/she did, and believe me, all viewpoints were represented. There were Marxists educated in Moscow, and Palestinian Arabs who had served in the Israeli army. Their open-minded acceptance was backed up by their amazing hospitality, and their genuine concern for strangers. All this under frequent raids from the Israeli military.
Since that time, I?ve looked in vain for similar attitudes in the land of the First Amendment, and I?ve tried, with very limited success, to live up to their example.
That was 30 years ago, and I?ve watched with horror and grief at what?s happed to Lebanon since then, and the rest of that part of the world. And it?s certainly not necessary to imagine secret Jewish or any other conspiracies to explain it.

The tribal, feudal mentality that inflames all these conflicts is the ancient human practice in which a member of one clan/tribe/nation/religion feels that a wrongful death has to be avenged by inflicting casualties on the perpetrators? family group. This may be approaching a definition of terrorism. It seems to be a natural human reaction common to all traditions. I like to believe our culture is rising out of this, in favor of individual responsibility. Of course, this means giving up the impulse for revenge, because once an individual has committed or conspired in more than one murder, he/she can only be executed once, and ?justice? is shortchanged. The objective then becomes neither justice or revenge, but simply ending the terror. Though sometimes this means killing those who appear committed to continuing the cycle.
This may be one of the differences in culture between the West and the Islamic world. They may prefer the concept of collective responsibility, and certainly many of them are rejecting the idea that the US and Europe are specifically fighting terrorists, and not attacking Islam. I?ve always felt that it?s important to take great pains to respect different cultures in every way possible. But on this point, we can?t compromise. They?re going to have to see it our way.

On 2001-10-09 09:06, Carl Fitzpatrick wrote:
Having lived very close to Arab people of different religious backgrounds ? and most closely to Lebanese Shiite Muslims - I feel I can assure you that they are not interested in wiping the Jews, Israel, or anyone else from the face of the Earth. They are interested in the same things the rest of the sane inhabitants of the Earth are ? in securing a chance for their children for a decent future. I?m sure, too, that they consider the attack of 911 to be an act of murder that no respectable people would approve of. I?d also like to remind you, as we mobilize against world terrorism, that all the same assumptions were made when the Oklahoma City crime was committed.

I am reminded of a Star Trek episode where Captain Picard has snuck onto Romulus and is eating lunch in a typical Romulan open-air market

"What do you think of your enemy?" Picard's Romulan contact asks him.

Picard looks around at the common people in the market and says, "These people are no one's enemy."

I don't believe I've ever said that every Arab everywhere burns for the destruction Israel, nor are Israel's or America's hands clean. The problem is we are dealing with cultures and governments that base many of their policies on not only the destruction of Israel, but on the extermination of the Jewish people.

Regardless of the things Israel has done in order to defend itself (and I'm not saying they're always right) it has never been the stated policy of Israel or the feelings of most Israeli Jews to exterminate all Arabs, destroy Arab nations. Arabs may become fully equal Israeli citizens and Israel has frequently offered breathtaking compromises toward the creation of a Palestinian state.

The one thing they've never been able to compromise is their own security, though, which is the one thing that Israels' enemies always want.

Let me just, for argument's sake, throw a little fertilizer on this debate.

What if the Muslim-Jew Arab/Israeli confrontation / ongoing skirmish war never ceases? This IS a distinct possibility.

Ok, if they were family members, how would any family handle this? First, they would be separated. What if they were two of your children sharing a room? Well, you would build a new bedroom onto your house if you had to (or move to a bigger house) and give each his own bedroom, right?

Seems to me that in the near future, we may have to (as a sole nation power or as part of the UN community) look at separating them. After we've bombed Afghanistan (and others, possibly) to their knees, smoked out all the foxholes and caves, paid off countless countries for cooperation, what's left? Especially if every time we do this, we get another terrorist event on our soil? And, through it all, we give up civil liberties and all become suspects of the greater terrorist good? Where's the line between temporary and permanent, as far as losing what America's all about?

Wouldn't it be prudent to add up the cost in dollars, lives and trauma of all that this current war gameplan would cost, 5-10 years out, and then comparatively add up the cost of relocating Israeli Jews to a more protected homeland?

If, just if, we were to get a consensus over here to break off part of New Mexico or Arizona or Nevada, and make it an Jewish Israeli or American territory the size of New Jersey. The climate and terrain are similar, the population per square mile in these states is small enough to accomodate 4 million Israeli Jews, and they would have the protection of America, as well as a more secure spot on the earth. Even creating the physical infrastructure that they now have in Israel, I imagine the costs wouldn't be too uncomparable. We are spending HUGE sums right now. I don't see why the rest of the UN world cannot help out, because everyone benefits.

Sure, there would be problems in this. Israeli Jews wouldn't want to move, of course, but they've only been there 50 years, anyway. It's for their own preservational and peaceful good. Sure, the area is not as holy, but it wasn't as holy in Germany and Poland, either. Hindsight is a vile bugger, but it does look now to have been a pretty stupid idea to force the children Isaac and Ishmael to share such a small space back in 1947-8.

I am attracted to this possibility because it is so pragmatic and sensible. Plus, it really makes America look like the fair and wise problem-solver that we should be.

But to do this, we FIRST must make the statements and actions we are now making, as in you cannot terrorize NYC and DC and PA and get away with it. So, here's a pox on your Afghan house, and maybe one fatal one for Saddam Maddas while we are at it. Bomb Bang Boom

Then, we proceed to provide the new Jewish homeland, and get some great neighbors in the process. The Israeli Jews are on the whole an intelligent, peaceful, reverent, hardworking people. Just look at their cousins who are and have been transplanted and native Americans.

Why cannot America put its money and "bedroom" where it's mouth is, and teach the world (and ourselves) a great lesson in the process?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-09 12:00 ]</font>

Actually all these thread deteriorate into foolishness. I used to find S&H's theory interesting and believe they may be on to something. Howeve, if the quality of these posts is indicative of the quality of those who accept this theory, then I am about to conclude it is crap.

On 2001-10-09 12:16, smcd wrote:
Actually all these thread deteriorate into foolishness. I used to find S&H's theory interesting and believe they may be on to something. Howeve, if the quality of these posts is indicative of the quality of those who accept this theory, then I am about to conclude it is crap.

Isn't that sweet. If you think it's all crap then why don't you just stay away from this discussion forum?

Don't you ever post any of your own crap on here again!

You got it asshole?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: William on 2001-10-09 12:57 ]</font>

On 2001-10-09 11:57, Barbara wrote:
Let me just, for argument's sake, throw a little fertilizer on this debate.

What if the Muslim-Jew Arab/Israeli confrontation / ongoing skirmish war never ceases? This IS a distinct possibility.

Ok, if they were family members, how would any family handle this? First, they would be separated. What if they were two of your children sharing a room? Well, you would build a new bedroom onto your house if you had to (or move to a bigger house) and give each his own bedroom, right?

Seems to me that in the near future, we may have to (as a sole nation power or as part of the UN community) look at separating them. After we've bombed Afghanistan (and others, possibly) to their knees, smoked out all the foxholes and caves, paid off countless countries for cooperation, what's left? Especially if every time we do this, we get another terrorist event on our soil? And, through it all, we give up civil liberties and all become suspects of the greater terrorist good? Where's the line between temporary and permanent, as far as losing what America's all about?

Wouldn't it be prudent to add up the cost in dollars, lives and trauma of all that this current war gameplan would cost, 5-10 years out, and then comparatively add up the cost of relocating Israeli Jews to a more protected homeland?

If, just if, we were to get a consensus over here to break off part of New Mexico or Arizona or Nevada, and make it an Jewish Israeli or American territory the size of New Jersey. The climate and terrain are similar, the population per square mile in these states is small enough to accomodate 4 million Israeli Jews, and they would have the protection of America, as well as a more secure spot on the earth. Even creating the physical infrastructure that they now have in Israel, I imagine the costs wouldn't be too uncomparable. We are spending HUGE sums right now. I don't see why the rest of the UN world cannot help out, because everyone benefits.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-09 12:00 ]</font>

As a Mom (even though my child is a one and only), I can understand your post.

About those holy sites; under Muslim rule, Christians complained that they couldn't get to their holy sites.

Maybe we should do what I do when my daughter doesn't share during a play date or clean up her toys and say "If you can't play fair or share, NONE of you can have it!" In other words, have all of Palestine taken over by the United Nations as an internationally-owned zone. Kind of like the Vatican.

Of course, Jordan and the other Arab nations would have to be willing to accept the Palestinian Arabs, something they haven't done yet.

actually, in the early days before there was a jewish state, there was some debate about whether it would be better to establish a new jewish state in argentina or palestine. for obvious reasons, palestine was chosen over argentina even though i am sure the people making the decisions then realized that this would be a far more hazardous undertaking than establishing a new homeland in argentina. but great britain controlled the territory in palestine at the time and made it possible for jews to settle there in the 1920s. this is also probably what osama bin laden was referring to in his diatribe to the world when he referred to the palestinians' sufferings of the last 80 years.

i suspect that it would be easier to switch the planetary positions of uranus and pluto than it would be to dislodge the israelis from israel to some new homeland. they believe that God gave them that land milleniums ago and i doubt that any amount of persuasion would ever convince them to leave.

Enjolras writes? i suspect that it would be easier to switch the planetary positions of uranus and pluto than it would be to dislodge the israelis from israel to some new homeland. they believe that God gave them that land milleniums ago and i doubt that any amount of persuasion would ever convince them to leave.

A serious paper was written suggesting that as the Sun warms up many millions of years in the future, asteroids could be broken from orbit and slingshot to pass just ahead of Earth. Gravitational effects would speed up Earth, bring the orbit out, keeping the Earth cool. This technique could be used to keep Earth habitable for millions of years longer. Similar techniques might be used to switch the planetary positions of Uranus and Pluto.

Thus, I tend to agree with enjolras. Exchanging the positions of Uranus and Pluto is in theory possible. Moving the Israelites out of Israel?

On the other hand, politically and militarily it is possible to move unwilling population groups around. One need only study the careers of Hitler and Stalin to understand the techniques. I?d rather move planets about, thank you.

Mind you, we shouldn?t dismiss outside the box ideas too lightly. Perhaps other nations could offer to accept refugees, Jewish, Palastinian, Afgan or other. A readiness to do this might not hurt. Perhaps a UN organization could accept custody of Temple Mount, leaving Islamic religious control intact. Political control of Jerusalem has been a hot potato issue blocking final settlements.

It is a lot easier to preach love, ecology, sharing, peace, brotherhood and rock ?n roll than to offer concrete solutions to difficult problems. While I don?t think Jenny?s and Barbara?s proposals are the correct Final Solution to the Jewish Problem, I wouldn?t shoot them for voicing unconventional ideas, either.

I will follow on enjolras' post to point out that I just read an article in the past 24 hours which revealed that the relevant British mandate in Palestine took effect on 11 Sep 1922. Obviously the author was suggesting that this was the basis for the 911 attack. Wish I could remember where I saw the article.

Another relevant point is that there were Jews who never left the area. There were still some there when the mandate was established. Obviously many more moved in later but it is not like the place was exclusively populated by Arabs before the British acted.

Ok. I stopped posting for a few days and everything turned crazy. Let me remind y'all what this thread is about. Here is the summary from page 1 and my current read on our position:

1. A desire to describe the problem in maximalist rather than minimalist terms--in ways that would sweep other problems (fiscal, economic, cultural, moral) into this one big problem.

NO. STATE DEPT CONTINUALLY SAYS "THIS IS NOT A WAR AGAINST _X_ COUNTRY OR _X_ PEOPLE OR _X_ RELIGION - IT IS AN ACTION AGAINST AL-QAEDA AND TERRORIST GROUPS."

A movement toward grand solutions that would permanently solve the problem rather than solutions that could be interpreted as delay or diversion.

SEMI-YES. OUR CURRENT ACTION IS TO DESTROY GLOBAL TERRORISM, BUT I'D SAY THIS IS A "LIMITED SOLUTION".

An impulse toward total reaction (total war, destruction of enemies) as opposed to calibrated action (legalistic enforcement of rules, "justice" for enemies).

NO. WE ARE TAKING MEASURED AND CALIBRATED ACTION.

A distinct shift, in public life, away from individualism (civil liberties) and toward community purpose (survival).

NO. GREAT DEBATE. NO ONE IS GOING FOR MOVEMENT AWAY FROM CIVIL LIBERTIES. NOTE WEST WING QUOTE OF BEN FRANKLIN.

The end of the petty arguments of the Third Turning-the blue-zone / red-zone "culture wars," rooted in old Second Turning debates--that may begin to feel ridiculous, even dangerous.

RIDICULOUS YES, DANGEROUS NO.

The increasing irrelevance of the celebrity culture. Will anyone care about Michael Jackson, or Michael Jordan, in the familiar Third Turning way? Recall how, once the last Fourth Turning started, the flagpole sitters came down, less because they themselves felt any great new purpose than because the public just stopped paying attention.

IT SEEMS THIS WAY TO ME BUT I COULD BE MISTAKEN. I CALL THIS ONE A SEMI.

A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally.

NO. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE UN AND EXPLAINING WHAT WE HAVE DONE. WE ARE BEING VERY CAREFUL TO DO IT IN THE CONTEXT OF A GLOBAL COMMUNITY, NOT ISOLATED.

A movement by each generation toward a new archetypal role, in keeping with the phase of life it is about to enter. Are Boomers overcoming narcissism? Gen Xers circling the wagons around family? Are Millennials emerging as young heroes. (Keep an eye on media treatment of Millennials. Will the criticism give way? Will the pop culture change? Will youth fare be less gross, less violent?)

SEMI, BUT NO MORE THAN *BEFORE* THE CRISIS.

A new willingness to pay a human price to achieve national purpose. Will military plans resemble Kosovo-or Iwo Jima? Will we try to rely on exquisite technologies to reduce the risk of military deaths, or will we rely on human courage to reduce the risk of technological failure?

SEMI. WILLING TO PAY *SOME* PRICE BUT MUCH TALK ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. "HOW HIGH ARE THOSE PLANES FLYING - ARE THEY OUT OF REACH OF ANTI-AIRCRAFT FIRE? HOW MANY TROOPS HAVE TO GO IN? WHAT ABOUT THE SOVIET EXPERIENCE?"

A shattering of consumer confidence.

I DON'T THINK IT IS "SHATTERED" BUT IT IS DOWN. CALL THIS A SEMI.

______________________

The topic of this thread is, "Is the 9/11 event a catalyst for the 4T? Are we in a 4T?" I say that according to these points, we are not yet in a 4T. What say you? Anyone have any pro/con along these points - to get us back on topic?

By the way George Barna (evangelical pollster, barna.org) has a new book out about the new "Mosaic" (Millennial) generation. He subdivides the Mosaics into various compartmentalized types. (Dynamos, Stabilizers, etc.) This is an interesting theory, and I wonder if a generation is defined overall by the relative strengths of each of these 4 types.

J

hey justin long,

STOP YELLING, my ears (or whatever) hurt. :wink:


TK

On 2001-10-09 14:28, Stonewall Patton wrote:
I will follow on enjolras' post to point out that I just read an article in the past 24 hours which revealed that the relevant British mandate in Palestine took effect on 11 Sep 1922. Obviously the author was suggesting that this was the basis for the 911 attack. Wish I could remember where I saw the article.

Another relevant point is that there were Jews who never left the area. There were still some there when the mandate was established. Obviously many more moved in later but it is not like the place was exclusively populated by Arabs before the British acted.

stonewall, you are quite correct. the controversy with the palestinians seems to arise concerning exactly what happened during the 1948 israeli war for independence. one view is, and this is likely the majority view in israel, is that the palestinians left voluntarily because the arab leaders advised them that once they had defeated israel's forces then they would be able to return. since the arabs did not win that war the palestinians lost their land. a second view is that the israeli military just kicked the palestinians out.

i suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. it seems to me perfectly plausible that many palestinians would have deserted their homes in 1948 under the assumption that the seemingly overwhelming arab military forces would have had no problem conquering israel, thus allowing them to return without any israelis to deal with. those that did not leave were quite likely kicked out later by the israeli military under the pretense that they were security risks or they just wanted them out, period.

either way, i suspect all of these events have been difficult for the arab world to swallow for decades. they had overwhelming force at their disposal in every past war with israel yet have never been able to defeat them. and they probably blame the u.s. and great britain for much of this too because they backed israel during these conflicts, providing them with essential military and financial aide and support. this may explain the eagerness of the radicals to have us "infidels" leave the area because without our support of israel they would have defeated them in the past, or so they believe ( a dubious conclusion at best), and would certainly have a far greater chance now if they could just get us out of the way.

centuries ago, the muslims ruled much of the world. much of europe was controlled by muslim forces and the middle east at the time was the cultural and scientific capital of the world. this was the heyday of islamic government and culture and is one of the reasons, i would suggest, that the idea of islamic theocracies and the puritanical beliefs associated with them carry such force because they were predominant back when islam ruled the known world. and this is the world that i believe that radical islam wants to take its people back to. one in which they were the dominant force in the world both economically, socially and militarily. this is, i believe, the source of a lot of their allure amongst their own people.

the existence of israel is a constant reminder to the arab world of its impotence and failure, thus their hatred of them. until it learns to swallow its pride on this issue and concentrate on making the kind of peace that will allow all in the region to prosper then i fear this conflict will continue to be a great black hole that threatens to suck the entire world into it.

On 2001-10-09 15:13, TrollKing wrote:
hey justin long,

STOP YELLING, my ears (or whatever) hurt. :wink:


TK

Anyone REMEMBER PAUL BEAVERS? :wink:

On 2001-10-09 15:49, enjolras wrote:
....centuries ago, the muslims ruled much of the world.....

someone on the radio today had a theory that at about the time of the renaissance, the muslim world was poised for its own renaissance. in the case of the western world, the renaissance moved forward because secular influences were accepted as equal, if not superior, to the religious influences of the day. but in the muslim world, no such allowances were granted. religion continued to dominate at the expense of the secular influences. so in a sense, this whole thing is about not being able to have one's cake and eat it too.

sorry if that was not a great explanation. i was trying to park my car, and therefore at least somewhat distracted, at the time.


TK

Bush is known for floating trial balloons, and his comments suggesting that the Palestenians deserve their own state may be just another example.

Cynics can say he has said this only to cement his alliance with the regimes of the Middle East that he needs for the war on terrorism.

But I think there is more to this. The position on Israel has been central to US politics and foreign policy for five decades. Why is it now up for grabs?

This position, I believe, reflects a split between global financial interests and traditional US imperial interests. The US always backed Israel because it served its interests in competing with the Soviet Union for influence in the oil-rich Middle East. Isreal provided the US with a democratic (for Jews) client state in the heart of the region (the Holy Land) that would be a persistent thorn in the side of the Arab nationalist states (like Iraq, Syria and Egypt) which were backed by the Soviet Union's own geopolitical manouvers. By arousing the nationalist states while keeping them off-balance militarily, Isreal helped the US cement relations with the feudal regimes (like Saudia Arabia). There is no question but that Israel could not have sustained its own existence, much less expanded its territory through a series of wars, without extensive US military support (Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid and military assistance).

However, with the end of the Cold War, contention with the Soviet Union disappeared. Israel no longer served its strategic purpose. However, the Israeli lobby in the US remained powerful, and the force of diplomatic habit kept established US-Israeli relations intact.

Now, however, the events of 9/11 sharply accelerated everyone into the 21st century reality. Suddenly, the financial sector awakened to the possibility that US policy toward Israel needed a major, fundamental adjustment if its desire to pursue profits in the Muslim world (which necessitates controlling terrorism) was to be pursued.

The global financial sector (ie, the largest banks, most of which are US-based, but several are based in Japan or Europe) finds its strategic interest, now, different than in the age of imperialism. In the service economy, hegemony is impractical; it is too rigid and unadaptable. Rather than a hegemony backed by the might of US force, the financial services sector desires a peaceful, stable market and world in which it, as the lynchpin of global investment and development, can pursue strategic business opportunities.

Of course, it wishes that US force be deployed against terrorism and against genocide (as well as the invasion of one nation by another) because all of these are actions that destabilize global markets and society. But it doesn't want the use of any more force than is absolutely necessary (ie, avoid civilan casualties and social displacements) because this, too, is destabilizing.

In particular, now, the financial services sector realizes that Israel, though important, is not more important to their strategic interests than the entire Islamic world. Thus, it is prepared to move away from blanket support of Zionism, especially the support of settlements in the occupied territories (which is required for a real Palestinian state). It is because of this recognition (unfortunatley, not because of the power of progressive people) that Bush is now reigning in Israel and considering endorsement of a Palestinian state.

The fact that the financial services sector could be leading efforts to restrain US violence and to create a Palestinian state may be surprising to Boomers and others who were trained by the Viet Nam era to see US imperialism as the policy of finance capital.

But the shift in the mode of production since WWII from mass (industrial) to niche (service) production caused a rift in the foundation of imperialism. As the new mode emerged, the banks and other financial services shifted their investment focus away from traditional, large-scale, hegemonic mass production industries to the new, flexible, fluid, dynamic sectors of the service economy. For US and Soviet imperialism, respectively, the defeats in Viet Nam and Afganistan proved the strategic weakness of the imperialist agenda. After that, we've just been waiting for the advent of the fourth turning to make clear the necessity to break with hegemonic, nationalist policy and its international alliances. Hence, this month's endorsement of the Palestinian state.

Since bin Laden gains much of his popular support by his constant exposition of US support for Israel, the Bush announcement promises, if carried through, to do considerable damage to the terrorist base of popular support.

However, quite a lot of work will need to be done, both to find a way to implement a reversal of US policy without adding to the chaos and death in the Holy Land and to implement a positive program of social investment for the developing world. Neither of these are strictly US-concerns; indeed, they are matters that need to be take up by a new, popular global government.

Which brings me to Brian's endorsement of what he calls the James Madison option -- create a global federation. I think a better option might be called the John Locke option -- a global social contract among NGOs, global corporations and the world's people to address, evaluate and solve the key problems facing the world's vast majority. We could start by demanding the the financial services sector impose a surcharge (tax) on all electronic commercial, financial and currency transactions to generate the funds we need to catalyze NGO-corporate partnerships to solve these problems.

Nation-states can keep doing whatever they must (including applying force to maintain peace and stability), but the people and the other global constituencies can get on with our global problem-solving.

Steve