Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (101522)	6/14/2003 4:25:56 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Just because a bunch of people get together does not mean that they are a legitimate nation deserving of nationhood. Were that the case anyone living in New York City could call themselves a nationist entity." If a bunch of people in NYC did want to call themselves a "nationalist entity" they could, but they'd have a fight on their hands to make it happen. As far as the Palestinians go, they've been fighting the fight for some time. And they've gotten the Israelis to negotiate with them, several times admitting to their right to have their own country (subject to various restrictions), so since even their own enemies recognize their nationhood, I don't see why you're making a big deal out of it. Re: "And were that the case, then we have to ask why the Saudis are able to rule over the Shiites Arabs in Eastern Arabia? Why the minority Alawites are able to rule over the majority Sunnis in Syria?" Pretty much the same way that "rule" happens in any country. It's enforced with guns. Re: "And then we have to ask why the Palestinians are deserving of a nation/state, but no one feels the same "drive" to do the same for the Kurds, the LARGEST ethnic entity without there own state." A whole lot of people do feel the urge. And as long as we're on this subject, I haven't seen you making a lot of clamor to give the Kurds their own nation. At the same time, you seem very interested in making sure that the Jews in Israel are able to maintain theirs despite their tiny number. Re: "But Jordan renounced ownership of the West Bank in 1989, so it's technically in geographical limbo." Never heard that technical term before. Wish you'd explain more. Either it's a part of Israel or it's not. If it's Israeli, then Israel should give the residents the vote, if Israel wants to claim to be democratic. If it's not, then Israel should follow international law in treating it as an occupied territory. (Or get a "mandate" to rule it, declare it a territory, or whatever.) But declaring it to be in "limbo" is silly. It's not. It's in the Middle East, LOL. Re: "IT's a legitimate government." A few lines ago you were saying that Palestine was not a legitimate nation. Now you're saying that a group of guys is a legitimate government of Palestine, LOL. Re: "Being a state has responsibilities." You haven't held Israel to a single responsibility. For you, responsibility is only a tool that you use to beat up on your enemy. Re: "Good thing the French didn't see it your way, or the American revolution would probably have been crushed." For you to imagine that France did not have their own interests in mind when they assisted our revolution is unimaginable. Go back and review what the relations between France and Britain were at that time. Re: "But of course, you're now contradicting youself because you think everyone's utmost desire is to be free." As usual, you set up a strawman. Go back and read what I wrote. I never said that freedom was anyone's "utmost desire". Man's utmost desire is to be alive, LOL. But freedom is important to man, this I do say. What I don't say is that just because freedom is important to man, we should get involved in other people's fights for freedom. And as long as I'm on the subject, why don't you go back in the history books and find out what happened to the French government that helped the US rebel from Britain, LOL. Re: "Something tells me you'll just say anything so that you don't have to agree with me." Must have been the same thing that told you how easy it would be to find the WMDs, LOL. Actually, we agree on many things. But those things are boring to talk about, so here we are. Your inability to notice our agreements is a sign that you have great difficulty understanding other people's points of view. Re: "I think everyone wants to be free too, but generally it's only when they haven't been brainwashed into militant suicidal fanatics, or repressed by regimes who lock them up or shoot them the minute they voice an opposing political viewpoint." If "Hawkmoon" were the defining definition of what "freedom" means, then your statement would make a lot of sense. The fact is that all humans are fallible in many ways, and even if they were not they'd still have differing opinions on what freedom means. But one thing that they would agree on is that a country is not free when its politics are determined by a far distant foreign country that is occupying it. This is just as true in Iraq now as it was in the colonies in 1776. -- Carl