Hail To The Marines!

[Noam]

and the Army and Air force too'
To the Navy and the Coast Guard..
Who sail the oceans Blue...

From a ragtag group of Patriots
a Revolution to set us Free
Who marched to Freedom's mighty ring ..
and flew ..'Don't Tread on Me'..

A Nation grows from shore to shore
and becomes a great world Power
who answers the call to honors defense?
it is the one's who see the Hour'..

They held against the British
at that place called New Orleans
Old Hickory was their General
and they broke the Redcoats seams'

Some would rise from ashes
like a phoenix ..who would know?
After they fell to the very last
At that place called ..the Alamo..

A Civil War would break them..
into camps called Blue and Grey
Brother would kill Brother
It was the hardest fight.. 'they say

At times they would be tested
as they ranged across the Land
Fighting against our own Indian braves
when Custer made his stand..

Europe would finally make its call
to save them all from Harm
America would send its very best
and hold them at the Marne'

and Barely a quarter century passed
when we returned to Europe's call
old Winston and Franklin made their pact
and then Hitler had his Fall..

As the tyrants came to power
on the island of far off japan
they tested the might of America
and America made its stand..

Korea would be our next great test
to stop the Red's great advance
Our men would battle a terrible foe
in their duty they did not blanch

sometimes we learn a lesson true
and Vietnam would prove it right
politicians will never win a War
it is for the soldiers to fight

The proof of this would come soon
and be called the great Gulf War
The men would meet the challenge
and saddam's army ..would be nore more

Today we face the challenge
a new enemy now spreads its fear
they hit us on that September morn
and 'freedom' shed a Tear..

As we rise to meet this challenge
in the 'stans and in Iraq
we fight the enemy on his own land
it is now us ..who will attack ..

It is that soldier in Army green
the Marine keeping his ammo dry
The Navy man aboard that ship tonight
and an Airman sailing the Sky

They man the front lines of this new war
and from many they get no thanks..
Some would have them all come home
and bring all their planes and tanks

Ask the soldier what he thinks
and he would probably answer thus
'To win this War we must see it through
they certainly are the ..'Right Stuff'

In war their will be those who die
our soldiers are not metal steel
They laugh and cry like all of us
and from inside their hearts can feel

So I salute the men and women brave
who decide to be in harms way
fighting the fight we did not choose
but knowing there's soon a better day

To try to honour their just cause
these words are but a small token
of bravery beyond any compare
I hope I have well spoken..

..and

when God tells Gabriel to blow his horn
and we all go to meet his Son..
God will greet our soldiers from over time
and say...'A Job well Done'

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Noam
and the Army and Air force too'
To the Navy and the Coast Guard..
Who sail the oceans Blue...

From a ragtag group of Patriots
a Revolution to set us Free
Who marched to Freedom's mighty ring ..
and flew ..'Don't Tread on Me'..

A Nation grows from shore to shore
and becomes a great world Power
who answers the call to honors defense?
it is the one's who see the Hour'..

They held against the British
at that place called New Orleans
Old Hickory was their General
and they broke the Redcoats seams'

Some would rise from ashes
like a phoenix ..who would know?
After they fell to the very last
At that place called ..the Alamo..

A Civil War would break them..
into camps called Blue and Grey
Brother would kill Brother
It was the hardest fight.. 'they say

At times they would be tested
as they ranged across the Land
Fighting against our own Indian braves
when Custer made his stand..

Europe would finally make its call
to save them all from Harm
America would send its very best
and hold them at the Marne'

and Barely a quarter century passed
when we returned to Europe's call
old Winston and Franklin made their pact
and then Hitler had his Fall..

As the tyrants came to power
on the island of far off japan
they tested the might of America
and America made its stand..

Korea would be our next great test
to stop the Red's great advance
Our men would battle a terrible foe
in their duty they did not blanch

sometimes we learn a lesson true
and Vietnam would prove it right
politicians will never win a War
it is for the soldiers to fight

The proof of this would come soon
and be called the great Gulf War
The men would meet the challenge
and saddam's army ..would be nore more

Today we face the challenge
a new enemy now spreads its fear
they hit us on that September morn
and 'freedom' shed a Tear..

As we rise to meet this challenge
in the 'stans and in Iraq
we fight the enemy on his own land
it is now us ..who will attack ..

It is that soldier in Army green
the Marine keeping his ammo dry
The Navy man aboard that ship tonight
and an Airman sailing the Sky

They man the front lines of this new war
and from many they get no thanks..
Some would have them all come home
and bring all their planes and tanks

Ask the soldier what he thinks
and he would probably answer thus
'To win this War we must see it through
they certainly are the ..'Right Stuff'

In war their will be those who die
our soldiers are not metal steel
They laugh and cry like all of us
and from inside their hearts can feel

So I salute the men and women brave
who decide to be in harms way
fighting the fight we did not choose
but knowing there's soon a better day

To try to honour their just cause
these words are but a small token
of bravery beyond any compare
I hope I have well spoken..

..and

when God tells Gabriel to blow his horn
and we all go to meet his Son..
God will greet our soldiers from over time
and say...'A Job well Done'

EXCELLENT... and true!

[KSO]

Originally posted by Noam

when God tells Gabriel to blow his horn
and we all go to meet his Son..
God will greet our soldiers from over time
and say...'A Job well Done'

God?! So according to the poem, if the US will establish a democracy in Iraq... God will appear and then it's gonna be QUESTIONS TIME!! if you thought George Tenet was nervous wait till we call God to the stand.

[Noam]

Originally posted by KSO
God?! So according to the poem, if the US will establish a democracy in Iraq... God will appear and then it's gonna be QUESTIONS TIME!! if you thought George Tenet was nervous wait till we call God to the stand.

LOL

That reminds me a WONDERFUL STORY from AUSCHWITZ:

At one point some Rabbis realized that there is a HOLOCAST going on and they could do nothing about it. So they took G-d to court.
THey covenened and sat and argued for many hours. Finally they found G-D GUILTY of major crime against humanity!
....
and then someone looked at the clock and said:

"Well, it is time for Mincha!"

[varian]

Originally posted by KSO
God?! So according to the poem, if the US will establish a democracy in Iraq... God will appear and then it's gonna be QUESTIONS TIME!! if you thought George Tenet was nervous wait till we call God to the stand.

Like the American military, the Russian military knows what it feels like to be hung out to dry by their inept "political handlers." Apparently there exists some commonality in all forms of government. Inummerable lives wasted to support the blind political ambitions of a few.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Noam
and the Army and Air force too'
To the Navy and the Coast Guard..
Who sail the oceans Blue...

"Hail" ? Why do you say that ? Because the design of their helmet ?

In our history, oppressed become oppresser, don't you thing it is time to change?

You are powerfull now, but remember the time you were weak and you will see the future.

That is right for everybody.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by TDidier
"Hail" ? Why do you say that ? Because the design of their helmet ?

In our history, oppressed become oppresser, don't you thing it is time to change?

You are powerfull now, but remember the time you were weak and you will see the future.

That is right for everybody.

an interesting point (aside form the Heil thing, which is just silly), and one with which I largely agree. There is a tendancy for those who gain power to use it to oppress those that formerly held that power.

How to prevent this?

Obviously one way is to keep the powerless group powerless, as they will then never be able to act the oppressor. Not a very palatable option.

I would think that the only solution is the sufficient enlightenment of the people BEFORE they become powerful, and the construction of a social system and political system that prevents the powerful from oppressing others once they ascend to power.

From history, this seems the only way, though it often also seems not to work.

But what about the trickly sitation where a people are climbing to a position of power but they abjectly lack the ability or the intent to avoid becoming an oppressor?

The Americans, for all their flaws, do not appear to have the intent to become oppressors like the Soviets or Nazis or Imperialist Japanses did. They do not even appear to have the same degree of intent as European countries in their expansion into the new world and eastward. But of course their power allows them to act the oppressor and in certain circumstances they do so.

On the other hand, sometimes opression is necessary. A contentious staement, and one that I believe would only apply in very limited circumstances, as populations are fluid and oppression can lead to quite serious problems, but one can come up with a theoretical scenario where oppression is necessary, at least in the short term. Genocidal expansionists might need to be oppressed, and in cetrain circumstances where biological necessity requires it (like where there are dieases that must be contained) certian groups of people would need to be, effectively, oppressed.

And then of course "oppression" is not really a state of affairs but a continuum of such states. Oppression ranges from limited oppression to brutal ball-and-chains-style oppression a la Saddam Hussein or the Nazis in occupied eastern europe. And the oppression of blakcs in America was oppression too, as is the current oppression of women in the Arab world.

Now, I know this rant doesn't seem to be going anywhere in particular, but I realized I have never really paid to much attention to this issue, and figured I could dialogue it out a bit.

OF course, all of this will eventually tie back into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians are certainly oppressed, though where they lie on the oppression continuum is I'm sure disputed.

However, given your initial statement above, and given the fact that the Palestinian became oppressed in the first place because continued existential threats to Israel required it to adopt a more aggressive posture vis-a-vis those that worked towards its destruction and the oppression of its people (to an extent at least as bad as the oppression Jews suffered in the middle east for generations), do you not think something must be done to ensure that as the Palestinian ascend to a position of power (where they have the ability to field an army and acquire munitions far superior to anything they have now) they do not use that power to oppress Israelis.

For this is what the conflict is ultimately all about. The Jews wanted a place to be free from oppression. They secured it, but in the process displaced many Arabs and absorbed others. Those in Israel as citizens are not really oppressed, any more than, say, women in western society or aboriginal people in Canada or Australia (not saying they are not oppressed, of course, just not so much). However, given the hostility to israel by its neighbours and the power to act on this hostility, Israel was in a very vulnerable position for decades. Thus the call for defensible borders in any agreement - because defensible borders allow for a nation to repel those that would seek to enter to opprress its people. And after decades of fear of continued oppression, Israel conquored the west bank, gaza, the sinai and the golan. In the process, they became occupiers of people (not land, which was disputed, but I hope we can avoid this point here) and, over time, oppressors. the degree of oppression increased as the threat of violence from the Palestinians increased, but it was surely always there, to some extent, and I figure to a greater extent than for Israeli Arabs (as this just makes sense, how could it be less?).

However, the necessity of the oppression arose in the first place because of the risks associated with losing power and becomming oppressed themselves. You may believe Israel the behemoth in all this, but it never really was and even today isn't really, given demographic realities and geography. In this light, the only way to really allow Israel to be in a position to end the occupation is to remove the intent or ability of the Arabs to re-oppress Israelis (and I use "re" loosely, the Israelis would be oppressed by different people (for ashkenazi) and by the same people for sephardics)).

But look at Palestinian society, look at the way they declare objectives (we want a state to raise our children in peace) and compare them to their actions (turning down Camp David and Taba, propagandizing their people for Jihad, diverting resources from building civil infrastructure and a civil society to funding Jihad and graft). Look at the joy they get from inflicting pain on others, and their seeming indifference to the benefits they get from things, whether Oslo or anything else. Look at how they basically do not define themselves as a people but as an anti-people, and carry this through to its logical extension were they empowered to any significant degree.

I was in favour of Oslo. However, I was under the belief that while the process weas ongoing the Palestinian people would be acclimatized to a new reality, that, like in Israel where young people were educated to peace and co-existence, the Palestinians would be educated into tolerance for diversity and respect for all man and thgat sort of thing (an imperfect device, to be sure, but it was very effective in Israel). However, they were not so educated, rather Arafat worked to make them poor and angry and ready for this war that he chose to launch and did launch at a time of his choosing. And this is as clear a warning bell as you need to know that the primary driver of the "Palestinian cause" is the oppression of the Jews living in Israel.

And so the original reason for the occupation and oppression remains. Because when it is either me or you, and you won't change, I pick you.

The fact is the only way to end the oppression is for the Palestinians to neutralize themselves, to stop posturing to be in the best position to destroy Israel (which is still their intent, if you would be at all honest in trying to come up with a consistent explanation for how the Palestinians behave) and to demonstrate that even were they in such a position, they would not (just as the US, which could oppress us Canadians in a second, does not). When that happens "land for peace" will be a lot easier.

But until it does, you must incorporate your warning above into your world-view of this situation. Un-oppressing the Palestinians, givien g them by definition more power, would only resault in an increased ability for them to act on their pre-existing desire to assume the role of oppressor. This makes calls for immediate withdrawal and independence for the Palestinians, which I asusme you are in favour of, merely another tool of oppression, especially where it is not preceeded by a de-programming and re-educating of Palestinian society.

Because, as you say, "don't you think its time for change"? Are you of the belief that the Palestinians are ready to institute this change, or do you think that they would be more rather than less likely to seek oppression with their power than the Americans do.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Canajew
an interesting point (aside form the Heil thing, which is just silly), and one with which I largely agree. There is a tendancy for those who gain power to use it to oppress those that formerly held that power.

Why silly ? Glorification of bestial military force is a real paganic way of thinking. That is human to be fascinate by the force, as a fly by a fire. At the end the fly burn...

How to prevent this?

Great question, a huge job to achieve that... or to begin to try to respond... .

Obviously one way is to keep the powerless group powerless, as they will then never be able to act the oppressor. Not a very palatable option.

Right! :D . That is the way choose by allthe tyran... But all powerfull become decadent, and all powerless grown is force on his hate (justified for the major part... But as we know, nobody ever stop the fight for his right at ... his right. On the way of power it is usual to continue as long as a catastrophe rise...)

I would think that the only solution is the sufficient enlightenment of the people BEFORE they become powerful, and the construction of a social system and political system that prevents the powerful from oppressing others once they ascend to power.

Right, but see the exemple of USA, they seemed to be the best on this way, but today... Or look at Israel and his impresive count of nobel prizes, as israelians or just as jews.

But what about the trickly sitation where a people are climbing to a position of power but they abjectly lack the ability or the intent to avoid becoming an oppressor?

The Americans, for all their flaws, do not appear to have the intent to become oppressors like the Soviets or Nazis or Imperialist Japanses did. They do not even appear to have the same degree of intent as European countries in their expansion into the new world and eastward. But of course their power allows them to act the oppressor and in certain circumstances they do so.

Soviets or nazis never thought themself as oppressors, they just act as they were persuaded was their right to act.
It is always the same planning: I'm the best, if I'm the best the cause is that God want that, then I've right to rule my neighbours, for their own good I'll beat them...
Nothing to do with democratie/tyrany... Just stupidity.

On the other hand, sometimes opression is necessary. A contentious staement, and one that I believe would only apply in very limited circumstances, as populations are fluid and oppression can lead to quite serious problems, but one can come up with a theoretical scenario where oppression is necessary, at least in the short term. Genocidal expansionists might need to be oppressed, and in cetrain circumstances where biological necessity requires it (like where there are dieases that must be contained) certian groups of people would need to be, effectively, oppressed.

Warning Canajew, that is the starting point of fascism: oppress for the good of the peopulations... Patriarcal scheme that produce our kings along our whole history.
Just trust in democraties and in the laws accepted by the people...

And then of course "oppression" is not really a state of affairs but a continuum of such states. Oppression ranges from limited oppression to brutal ball-and-chains-style oppression a la Saddam Hussein or the Nazis in occupied eastern europe. And the oppression of blakcs in America was oppression too, as is the current oppression of women in the Arab world.

You are right but we have to remember that we know it well, we practicied that not so long ago... Both tyrany and cultural oppression (low-cast systeme that existed in occident not so long ago).

Now, I know this rant doesn't seem to be going anywhere in particular, but I realized I have never really paid to much attention to this issue, and figured I could dialogue it out a bit.

Very hard question, that's right. But it is the starting point to a real try to understand the mechanism of violence (not only in ME, this mechanism is universal).

OF course, all of this will eventually tie back into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians are certainly oppressed, though where they lie on the oppression continuum is I'm sure disputed.

The war is on propaganda of course, just look at the facts and ask you the question: if it was me? Looking at the both sides of course...

However, given your initial statement above, and given the fact that the Palestinian became oppressed in the first place because continued existential threats to Israel required it to adopt a more aggressive posture vis-a-vis those that worked towards its destruction and the oppression of its people (to an extent at least as bad as the oppression Jews suffered in the middle east for generations), do you not think something must be done to ensure that as the Palestinian ascend to a position of power (where they have the ability to field an army and acquire munitions far superior to anything they have now) they do not use that power to oppress Israelis.

The past doesn't justify present (but only teatch how to prevent a bad choise). Sorry if I don't follow you on the point that palestinians produced themself the cause of their actual oppression. Taht's right that Israel had a hard jod to exist and impose her borders, but today they seem more interrested in earning more lands and more water with the feeling of impunity, protected by US and nuke... But if wars with arabs country were in large part justified, oppression of palestinian (who were native and at least as much native as the jews-sionnist settlers in 19century or immemorial present familly-). You blame palestinians for terrorism but don't forget that it is the way the sionnists groups teach them in 40's.
Terrorism is criminal but for everybody.

The point is simple (sorry I can't respond to all your post-too long for me- and here is my "conclusion"), who will break first the ring of violence and oppressed/oppresser?

We know well human way that the undestructible feeling that producing power, but we know well that all oppresser finally fall as oppressed. Then I think that the first to stop this circle-of-satan is the humble, the poor, the oppressed. Because he has nothing to loose (contrary to the powerfull, education has nothing to do with that).

Hail to Gandhy (and not "heil")...

Maybe a good surprise will rise one day from a powerfull nation (but who?), who will look down to the poors and give them the hand...

(nice, isn't it? :D )

[Canajew]

Originally posted by TDidier
Why silly ? Glorification of bestial military force is a real paganic way of thinking. That is human to be fascinate by the force, as a fly by a fire. At the end the fly burn...


but of course this remains necessary. Where a nation does not value its protectors and does not invest in them the proper status, their standing erodes, their capabilities decrease, and the nation becomes vulnerable to a "hostile takeover" from outside.

I understand your point, I really do. But this is not a black and white issue. Believers in non-violence have no defence against foreign violence, that's just the way it works. And weakness invites a challenge, sometimes making future violence more likely rather than less. The key is to ensure that this worship of military things does not become pathological, but it is just as key to make sure that a society doesn not abndon its dedication to protection through arms, becasue both will result in the perversion of society. The first by insiders, the second by outsiders.


Great question, a huge job to achieve that... or to begin to try to respond... .


I know, but discussion can be illuminating.


Right! :D . That is the way choose by allthe tyran... But all powerfull become decadent, and all powerless grown is force on his hate (justified for the major part... But as we know, nobody ever stop the fight for his right at ... his right. On the way of power it is usual to continue as long as a catastrophe rise...)


indeed, the tyrant's choice. Sometimes necessary (have you read the Dune books, for example? Fictional example, but still, Leto's tyranny was necessary for survival of the species) but usually not.

And yes, there is a risk of becomming decadent and the rest, just like in any society, people, animal or plant (though "society" is obviously the wrong word) which sufficiently insulates itself from the threats outside - eventually it will become softer, paying more attention to luxuries instead of the neccesities of survival.

I would say it is not necessarily an outcome, however, as white Americans were hardly decadent by imperial roman standards during slavery.

As for stopping the fight at people's right, you are largely correct, though since you mention it, can you point out a people who stopped figthing closer to their right than the Jews of Israel? I can't think of any that rose to commensurate power but abused it so little.


Right, but see the exemple of USA, they seemed to be the best on this way, but today... Or look at Israel and his impresive count of nobel prizes, as israelians or just as jews.


The USA is still among the best in this, but they have serious problems, both on the macro level (international relations et al) and on the micro level (treatment of blacks, natives, women etc). They seem better than thery have ever been before, though, especially with regards to micro issues, which are probably the most important.

As for Israel, I would respectfully suggest that were Israel not perpetually faced with the threat of invasion and extermination, they would not have excersized their ability to oppress nearly as much as they have, and their curtrent oppression is less than in most places in the world, especially in the middle east. Women are far more oppressed in Saudi Arabia and in Arab culture generally, and minority groups in Arab countries are treated far worse than Israeli Arabs, even acounting for the disparity in rights among the majorities.


Soviets or nazis never thought themself as oppressors, they just act as they were persuaded was their right to act.


not sure I buy this. I think they perceived both - they poerceived they were oppressors but had the right to so act.


It is always the same planning: I'm the best, if I'm the best the cause is that God want that, then I've right to rule my neighbours, for their own good I'll beat them...
Nothing to do with democratie/tyrany... Just stupidity.


but with respect to the Americans, they do not want to directly rule, and they are not interested in removing peoiples' self determination. They just want to remove certain choice options, i.e. wage a jihad-genocide against infidels.

While I have a lot of discomfort with religious beliefs in the US, I do not think they as a whole are the we are the best because of god types. They just undertsand that no one else in the world will stand up and fix problems. So if the Americans want something done, they cannot rely on others and must do it themselves. Quite unlike Europe in the cold war, which may be one of the major contributors to the divergence in world view between these countries today.


Warning Canajew, that is the starting point of fascism: oppress for the good of the peopulations... Patriarcal scheme that produce our kings along our whole history.
Just trust in democraties and in the laws accepted by the people...


I am aware of that, but I thank you for pointing it out. However, there are many starting points for facism, and some are also necessary starting points for other things.

I understand the "benevolent dictator" is a wonderful idea but impossible in practice due to the inherent characteristics of man (well, maybe possible for 1 generation, but not for multiple ones, 3 seems to be the limit).

But just because an option has risks does not mean it should not be at least looked at. Every option has risks. Risks, when identified, can be mitigated. Alowing a bunch of enemy fanatics the freedom to publish wehat they want, to recruit who they want and to act as they want also has risks, no? Short of killing them, given they are not going to change is not oppression the least bad option? And as for killing them all, this too, of course, is a much stronger starting point for facism, and one that should be avoided at all costs, whoever "them all" may be.

And note that the Arabs, and the Palestiniasn especially ARE a bunch of facists. How does this affect your willingness to allow their empowerment, knowing what they will do with this power as soon as they can?


You are right but we have to remember that we know it well, we practicied that not so long ago... Both tyrany and cultural oppression (low-cast systeme that existed in occident not so long ago).


we did. And low key oppression continues in even the most enlightened of western countries today. I just thought to point this out becasue there is a tendancy among the well-meaning but relatively ignorant young leftist base to point to mild US oppression and scream THERE - OPPRESSION, without comparing ti to oppression that exists everywhere else. Yes it needs to be addressed and no it should not be swept under the rug, but no, it is not the biggest oppressive force that exists today. Context is often lost when people do not use a spectrum but just point and say - see, oppression - especially where they ignore oppression in other places (like in Saudi Arabia, for example, or with the apparently delusional "Queers for Palestine" (explain that one for me please?!?))


Very hard question, that's right. But it is the starting point to a real try to understand the mechanism of violence (not only in ME, this mechanism is universal).


I agree, universal.


The war is on propaganda of course, just look at the facts and ask you the question: if it was me? Looking at the both sides of course...


but what does "if it was me" mean? If I were raised a Palestinian and brainwashed into a cult-of-death shaheed worship culture? Or me as a rational objective actor put onto the board? The Palestiniasn have had so much brainwashing over the years and been fed so many lies continuously for the past 60 that it is very difficult to know who I would be were I there.

But if I knew what I know now (rather than being a brainwashed death cultist) and I were Palestinian, I would argue forcibly that Israeli oppression stemmed from and continues because of our unwillingness to allow them security. I would note that all of the Palestinians' educational institutions were built by the Israelis, and that the Israelis have noted time and time again their willingness to withdraw in exchange for peace. I would not that the oppression I have suffered since 2000 was a direct consequence of my leadership sanctioning and initiating a war of terror directed against Israeli civilians, and I would argue that it needs to stop immediately.

I would also argue that the entire approach had been wrong, becasue the PAlestinians, due to the aformentioned propaganda, truly don't undertsand Jews or Israelis at all. If they did, they would know the best way to get something from a Jew is guilt. Had the Palestinians adopted non-violent protest, fighting with songs and flowers, working to set up peacable civil infrastructure and develop a functioning civil society, they would have gotten almost all they weanted a long time ago (except for the fictional right of return, of coruse, but looking at it from their side I still know its stupid and made up and functionally impossible so I will foresake it in the name of peaceable co-existence and mutual prosperity).

[Canajew]

Israel would have been, and still can be, the most valuable tool for the Arab world's development, it just has to be willing to learn from it and share in an atmoshpere of mutual recognition. From agricultural innovations to heath to manufacturing to investment, the Arabs, had they befriended the Jews long ago, would today be at least Asian tigers and likely far more. But they chose reactionary fundamentalism, and it has gotten them no where.

Were I a brainwashed Palestinian, I would not be in a position to learn from past mistakes, as I would have been tought that they were not really mistakes, and that anyways everything is the fault of the Jews. Were I a brainwashed Palestinian my perception would have no cinnection to relaity and would be of little value, except to better informed people who need to forecast how I will react to things.


The past doesn't justify present (but only teatch how to prevent a bad choise).


of course, but this is a cop-out. Where past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour, and where past behaviour necessitated past behaviour of others (i.e. occupation), it is entirely relevant, and the core solution to the problem is to correct for the root cause of the past incidences.


Sorry if I don't follow you on the point that palestinians produced themself their actual oppression.


I do not think they casued it themselves. I think the ARABS caused it themselves. Back then the Palestinians were indistinguishable from the larger body of Arabs, and largely preceived themselves as such.

Of course the baby born into occupation did not bring about the consequences itself, but as a member of society that baby is unfortunately party to its prior sins. If you come and try to kill me, you are responsiuble for the oppression of your children. Should I sacrifice my own well being and my childrens for yours when you are the aggressor?


Taht's right that Israel had a hard jod to exist and impose her borders, but today they seem more interrested in earning more lands and more water with the feeling of impunity,


you perceive this because of your biased media. Where every thing Isarel does is cast in the most negative light and editorializers with agendas dominate the public discourse, of course you will perceive things this way. But Israel wants peace. The body politic is fractured, like any democracy, but Israel wanted peace in 1993, they wanted peace when they offered it in 2000, and they want it today. Just peace means peace to them, not surrender to Arab terrorism or allowing the APlestinians to import weapons and kill civilians at will.

As for "more lands", Israel returned a vast majority of those lands captured in the six day war. It has already offered to return 97+% of the lands captured from Egypt and Jordan in Gaza and the "west bank". It had been in the process of continuing to find a diplomatic solution and agreement when the Plalestinians launched their dirty little war too. But of course your editorial community largely ignores this when pontificating, so it is little surprise that you perceive the world as you do. But you are very wrong, and the dehumanization that has occurred in the Arab world with respect to Israelis is comming closer and closer in Europe too. You guys are already largely there with respect to "settlers" (even though several "settlements" were inhabited Jewsih communities that were ethnically clensed in the 1940s, and these territories are leaglly "disputed", not occupied and these people do have the right under international law to live there,l regardless of the falsehoods spread by AFP and the BBC).


protected by US and nuke


yes, protected by allies and force of arms. Without these, the Arabs would have destroyed Israel long ago, and would still seek to do so today.


... But if wars with arabs country were in large part justified, oppression of palestinian (who were native and at least as much native as the jews-sionnist settlers in 19century or immemorial present familly-).


The oppression is justified by the larger context. you cannot disconnect the Aplestinians from their Arab bretheren, it is an artifical distinction, especially in the context of this dispute, where the Palerstinians were never sovereign and the west bank was captured from Jordan and gaza from Egypt. In this light it is oppression of a portion of the population of an enemy state that sought to oppress the Israelis. Still not the best state of affairs, but gets around your artificial disconnect between your position and the historical reality.


You blame palestinians for terrorism but don't forget that it is the way the sionnists groups teach them in 40's.


sorry, wrong again. Arab terrorism against Jews was routine when Jews were dhimmis in Arab lands and was initiated by Arabs against Jews in 1929 and before. And don't confuse militayr activity with terrorism (yes, like Israel supporters often do). Attacking the King David hotel and other British military infrastructure is not terrorism. Yes there was anti-Arab Jewsih terrorism, but Arab terrorism against Jews predated it in Israel by deacdes and in the larger Arab world by a millenium.


Terrorism is criminal but for everybody.


I agree, and people like B. Goldstein and various Jewsih terrorist cells cannot be tolerated and are not tolerated by Israel's governing authority, unlike the PAlestinians who hero-worship theirs.


The point is simple (sorry I can't respond to all your post-too long for me- and here is my "conclusion"), who will break first the ring of violence and oppressed/oppresser?


thanks for your reply, even if mine was (and usually will be, sorry :( ) too long.

But this "cycle of violence" is a false paradigm. The Jews who settled in Israel dreamed it would be a place thery could attend to their own affairs in peace. That is still the zionist ideal. This is not a "cycle". It is a continued and unabated drive by the Palestinians to destroy isarel (note their focus on the fictional "right of return") and Israeli actions designed to prevent this. Even if Israel stopped everything today, the PAlestinians would STILL seek its destruction. The cycle paradigm rests on the absence of an intent to carry out attacks in the absence of the trigger. Palestinain terrorism is the trigger for Israel. Israel's existence is the trigger for the Palestinians. There is no cycle.

Analogy: you come at me with a knife. Maybe I did something to you first, maybe not, but a knife is excessive. I forcibly restrain you from stabbing me (occupation). I say "I will let you go, just promise not to stab me." You say "o.k.", but when I start letting you go you posture to stab me again, so I grab you again. This time, you struggle to get the knife free, and I smack you when you get close to being able to get the knife free so that I can keep you subdued. Is there a "cycle of violence"? Not really. It is not the smacking which leads to your trying to stab me, rather this was your intent all along.

The world community, especially Europe, likes to focus on the grabbing, but seems incapable of recognizing the stabbing. That is why it has no idea what is really going on or how to act constructively to remedy it. They are focussing on getting the stabber free, rather than taking away his knife or keeping his arms behind his back.

"Cycle of violence" is a stupid moniker and a false paradigm. Israeli oppression does not lead to Palestinian violence, rather Palestinian violence led to Israeli oppression. When Palestinian violence stops for real, the Palestinians can be let go to join the community of nations. Until then, Israel will keep its grip as tight as it needs to be. It is the cycle of Palestinian pathology that needs to be broken.


We know well human way that the undestructible feeling that producing power, but we know well that all oppresser finally fall as oppressed.


not necessarily, as can be seen by bthe continued male-dominance of most societies. And you should be telling the Arabs this. For the past 1000 years they oppress pretty much everybody they can get their hands on, unless they think ethnic clensing or genocide is a better alternative, in which case they will do that.


Then I think that the first to stop this circle-of-satan is the humble, the poor, the oppressed.


first, only when the oppressor is enlightened or capable of being so, and yes I agree, but this means the Palestinaisn must stop. Were the situation reversed the APlestinaisn are not nearly enlightened for this to work for the Jews.


Because he has nothing to loose (contrary to the powerfull, education has nothing to do with that).


there is a difference between oppressing for personal gain and oppression for personal survival. May not matter to the oppressed, but the pathology of the oppressor is very different.


Hail to Gandhy (and not "heil")...


yes. If the Palestinaisn had a ghandi they would be free and prospering right now. But Arafat is no Ghandi.


Maybe a good surprise will rise one day from a powerfull nation (but who?), who will look down to the poors and give them the hand...

(nice, isn't it? :D )

maybe. But until resources are unlimited or we are all unified by an external alien threat (and even then), this paradise will evenutally fall as people vie for resources and for quality of life. Such is the way of things, but we can, indeed should strive for this. Just not to the point where we blind ourselves to reality, and others' intents, to the point where it is this quest for justice that makes us weak and vulnerable to those that would do us harm with no compunction.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by varian
Like the American military, the Russian military knows what it feels like to be hung out to dry by their inept "political handlers." Apparently there exists some commonality in all forms of government. Inummerable lives wasted to support the blind political ambitions of a few.

You can say that again. No where is it more true then in Israel.
And to be honest with you, I voted from the old Genera, Sharon!!! Falsely believing he will etleast war the terrorist and bring us swift victory and end to the blood bath.

But no, he fears for his credit in international media, for his public image, fears responsibility for taking seriouse meussre against terrorism, fears the reactions in Europe and America...

Too many young lives were wasted to preserve a horrible bloody status quo. To preserve a stand off in place where justice and victory are needed the most.

I concure, this is Achiles hill of every modern democracy. The Army must be liberated from political decisions. The Army must operate on designated MILITARY rather then political, objectives and full freedom of action.

It is not so. Politicians greatest joy is to play with GI's. They games cost us lives. It doesn't help us that some leaders are general themselves.

[red crabtree]

"War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."
- Karl von Clausewitz


“Given the same amount of intelligence, timidity will do a thousand times more damage than audacity”
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The majority of people are timid by nature, and that is why they constantly exaggerate danger. All influences on the military leader, therefore, combine to give him a false impression of his opponent's strength, and from this arises a new source of indecision."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The first and most important rule to observe...is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly. Finally, the fourth rule is to follow up our successes with the utmost energy. Only pursuit of the beaten enemy gives the fruits of victory."
- Karl von Clausewitz

This Prussian General is considered one of the greatest military minds that existed. He is required reading at West Point. Every quote here is pertainent to what is happening now, HOWEVER none of these lessons can be utilized because we have too many that quibble and sway. Those who insist we play nice or those who want constant apologies. The people on the far left who would rather give up MY freedoms than to have to make the hard choices to keep them. Thank God for the US Marines, Soldiers, and Sailors. In the quest for a utopia that cannot ever exist, it is not politicians who are tying the hands of the military this time around, it is those who are so left wing PC that they endanger not only the American GI but the very Western freedoms and society that allows this spineless node to attempt to give away what is not his to give.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Canajew

but what does "if it was me" mean? If I were raised a Palestinian and brainwashed into a cult-of-death shaheed worship culture? Or me as a rational objective actor put onto the board? The Palestiniasn have had so much brainwashing over the years and been fed so many lies continuously for the past 60 that it is very difficult to know who I would be were I there.

But if I knew what I know now (rather than being a brainwashed death cultist) and I were Palestinian, I would argue forcibly that Israeli oppression stemmed from and continues because of our unwillingness to allow them security. I would note that all of the Palestinians' educational institutions were built by the Israelis, and that the Israelis have noted time and time again their willingness to withdraw in exchange for peace. I would not that the oppression I have suffered since 2000 was a direct consequence of my leadership sanctioning and initiating a war of terror directed against Israeli civilians, and I would argue that it needs to stop immediately.

I would also argue that the entire approach had been wrong, becasue the PAlestinians, due to the aformentioned propaganda, truly don't undertsand Jews or Israelis at all. If they did, they would know the best way to get something from a Jew is guilt. Had the Palestinians adopted non-violent protest, fighting with songs and flowers, working to set up peacable civil infrastructure and develop a functioning civil society, they would have gotten almost all they weanted a long time ago (except for the fictional right of return, of coruse, but looking at it from their side I still know its stupid and made up and functionally impossible so I will foresake it in the name of peaceable co-existence and mutual prosperity).

You are reasoning as if palestinian were a nation prepared for war since many years fitted, geared and trained for war...
You simply forget that palestinians (as israelians but in a best position) are victims of the events.

Their nation was built on their misfortune in the blood and in the shame. They are a deplaced people and despite the propaganda we heard here, in a recent past.
It is wrong to see them as aliens on Israel/territories ground, they are native at least as much as israelians.

That is why they seem to be "brainwashed" or following extremist: they have no hope.

They have real griefs against israelian occupation on the rest of what was their country...

But don't you think that you are a bit "brainwashed" on your side to not see so simple constatations?

I think that the both sides are wrong, but misery is on palestinians one and this misery is a weapon used by sionnist extremists in israelian government (I'm sure that jews would suffer too under a palestinian government but our point isn't to break the circle of violence?).

[TDidier]

Originally posted by red crabtree
"War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."
- Karl von Clausewitz


“Given the same amount of intelligence, timidity will do a thousand times more damage than audacity”
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The majority of people are timid by nature, and that is why they constantly exaggerate danger. All influences on the military leader, therefore, combine to give him a false impression of his opponent's strength, and from this arises a new source of indecision."
- Karl von Clausewitz

"The first and most important rule to observe...is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly. Finally, the fourth rule is to follow up our successes with the utmost energy. Only pursuit of the beaten enemy gives the fruits of victory."
- Karl von Clausewitz

This Prussian General is considered one of the greatest military minds that existed. He is required reading at West Point. Every quote here is pertainent to what is happening now, HOWEVER none of these lessons can be utilized because we have too many that quibble and sway. Those who insist we play nice or those who want constant apologies. The people on the far left who would rather give up MY freedoms than to have to make the hard choices to keep them. Thank God for the US Marines, Soldiers, and Sailors. In the quest for a utopia that cannot ever exist, it is not politicians who are tying the hands of the military this time around, it is those who are so left wing PC that they endanger not only the American GI but the very Western freedoms and society that allows this spineless node to attempt to give away what is not his to give.

And his precepts failed dramaticaly (for germans) on the Marne river in 1914...

That is just what everybody know about how to use military power. Nothing new under this last century sun...

All nation or empire had their general... And all falled.

[minusthejihad]

No, most of your movements falled. But Zionism has truely magnificently succeeded. Much to your chagrin!

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Canajew
indeed, the tyrant's choice. Sometimes necessary (have you read the Dune books, for example? Fictional example, but still, Leto's tyranny was necessary for survival of the species) but usually not.

And yes, there is a risk of becomming decadent and the rest, just like in any society, people, animal or plant (though "society" is obviously the wrong word) which sufficiently insulates itself from the threats outside - eventually it will become softer, paying more attention to luxuries instead of the neccesities of survival.

I would say it is not necessarily an outcome, however, as white Americans were hardly decadent by imperial roman standards during slavery.

As for stopping the fight at people's right, you are largely correct, though since you mention it, can you point out a people who stopped figthing closer to their right than the Jews of Israel? I can't think of any that rose to commensurate power but abused it so little.

I've read Dune yes. But Letto is nothing but the rewriting of messia, the providencial man in what all tyran want to be compared.

At this time no one man achieve to mix powerness and wiseness.
Maybe tomorrow...
We will wait... longtime :D

For the jew in Israel you are right as long as they were in defence position, when (after 1967) the feeling the taste of real power (and the coming of some old propheties) they just wanted to impose their rules. Clearly the conquest of temple's mount is the goal of men like Sharon.
You see here that the "messianic" madness touch everybody who had the tast of victory...

[Mediocrates]

I think we live in a post Clauswitz world were law is war fought by other means or perhaps everything is conflict prosecuted by any and all means. If you look at it from someone else's perspective you'll find for example that St. George Soros that knighted beacon of wonderment to the liberal west is considered in Asia to be a war criminal for what he did to contribute to the 'Asian Flu" financial collapse of the '90's. That set their economies back 15 years. Of course in the post modern world, economics is merely another form of warfare.

But MTJ gets it right. Of all the 'liberation' movements of the 20th C. The only one that didn't end in failure, cannibalism and armageddon is Zionism. This is more or less what Fukyama alluded to in his famous "The End of History and the Last Man" work. Radical national 'identity' movements all for the most part failed and failed badly. Capitalism, liberal representative democracy won. Endgame. Someone should tell they Iran/Arabs that.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by TDidier
You are reasoning as if palestinian were a nation prepared for war since many years fitted, geared and trained for war...
You simply forget that palestinians (as israelians but in a best position) are victims of the events.


bull. Yassir Arafat used the Oslo years to gird for war. Period. He immediately broke commitments with respect to weapons and "security personnel" limits, and when Israel made 1993 the "year of peace" and began a rigorous effort to prepare citizens for peaceable co-existence, the Palestinians increased their virulent teachings, developed the terrorist infrastructure, and readied for war. When they thought violence would be of political value, they manufactured a dispute and called on their people to drive themselves into a frenzy. taht is what happened with the "al-aqsa tunnel" incident in 1996. The tunnel wasn't even near the Islamic holy site, but the PA told the people they MUST rise up to protect it, and, being the brainwashed death-cult they were, they obliged.

Oh, and due to mismanagement and corruption, the PAlestinians experienced economic decline wherever they got control. It has been argued elsewhere that this is something Arafat actually wanted as it fit well in the whole discontent leads to radicalization which leads to mobilizing the "palestinian people" as a force to attack Israerl, which is exaclty what he ended up doing.

The Palestinians are victims of their own leadership and their own errors in judgment far more than of events, though of course events were a factor too.


Their nation was built on their misfortune in the blood and in the shame. They are a deplaced people and despite the propaganda we heard here, in a recent past.


but they are the ones not interested in a better future (i.e. the camp david/taba offer) and more interested in fighting a war of terrorism agaisnt Israeli civilians.


It is wrong to see them as aliens on Israel/territories ground, they are native at least as much as israelians.


this has nothing to do with their behaviour in 2000. It is irrelevant.


That is why they seem to be "brainwashed" or following extremist: they have no hope.


this is a foolish over-simplification. they have no hope becausae of their leadership and their absence of civil society. They have been brainwashed because they are taught from birth that the highest one SHOULD aspire to be is a shaheed, murdering Israeli civilians for the cause. The trading cards and streets and soccer tournaments named after suicide bombings, the reverence paid by Arafat to "martyrs", the institutionalized rabid hatred and dehumanization of Jews, ALL OF IT, is what has led to the brainwashing.

Is the act of brainwashing made easier because of circumstances, well, yes, of course. But much of these circumstances are due to the actions of their leaders since 1993, and it is arguable that this is what their leadership WANTED to accomplish the whole time.

Israel used the Oslo period to wean the civilian population off the idea of a "greater Israel", and it largely worked. the Palestiniasn sought to entrench their maximalist demands into a militantized population, and triggered them to go off if the Israelis did not give them everything, including the patently absurd fictional "right of return". If the Palestinians were ever really interested in a genuine peace with Israel qua Israel, they would have worked to bring expectations back down to planet earth, instead of expecting the moon.


They have real griefs against israelian occupation on the rest of what was their country...


was never really their country, of course, because it was never a country, but no matter, I get the point, and I can agree to a limited extent. But their efforts over the years to entrench these positions in their people rather than preparing them for compromize is largely to balme for why they still fell this way. For as much as you would like to argue the palestinaisn are a distinct people, and as much as they very well may now BE a distinct people, they were not in 1948. It is far more analogous to an expulsion of the Sudeten Germans after WWII than an expulsion of all Germans from Germany. And if you haven't noticed the Sudeten Germans have not taken to a pathological obsession with seeking vengance on innocent children living in their former territory. The level of pathology among the Palestinians is unique to them.


But don't you think that you are a bit "brainwashed" on your side to not see so simple constatations?


no. Not sure what "constatations" means, but while I have my leanings, I am capable of rationally analyzing arguments qua arguments, and am capable of recognizing when information or statements are not consistent with reality. And there is quite a bit of difference between being "brainwashed" that a side is right and being brainwashed to believe that killing Jews is the best way to be a role model to the younger generation, that it is what god wants, that actually reality does not exist and that the Palestinaisn are absolutely blameless for anything that ever happens, notwithstanding that they have done nothing to advance any sort of real peace and have never lived up to ANY commitments they have ever undertaken.


I think that the both sides are wrong, but misery is on palestinians one and this misery is a weapon used by sionnist extremists in israelian government (I'm sure that jews would suffer too under a palestinian government but our point isn't to break the circle of violence?).

misery among the PAlestinians is a weapon that has been used by BOTH sides, and you should be able to see that. Arafat wanted all along for this sort of thing to happen, so that they could get what they want without having to make peace and then move to the next "phase" of his master plan. To do this he made his people poor and discontented, while brainwashing them to viciousness and at the same time inculcating them with the view that everything bad with their lives is the fault of the Israelis and that the Israelis have never made any genuine overtures for peace.

Sure the Israelis try to use the misery of the PAlestinaisn to their advantage, arguing that the PAlestinaisn should recognize that their misseryt will only end when they stop fighting. But really, this statement is completely accurate (well, sort of, it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one - if Arafat and his corrupt-style government remains in place, they will always be miserable).

The increased level in misery the Palestinians have experienced since they rejected a peaceable alternative and launched their war of terrorism against Israeli civilians is entirely attributable to the Palestinaisn themselves. Part of the reaosn they keep going is becasue the world is so indulgent of them, like they are stupid little children, who must never suffer the consequences of their actions. Let them recognize that all of this is THEIR fault, and when they stop they can have the peace they were offered YEARS ago. Still wont get the fictional "right of return", and wont get all of the land they claim (and they should not get as much as they were offered in 2000, there is no argument for why they should get more after acting so abysmally and with such sustained and relished barbarity) but they will be able to finally start paying more attention to the betterment of their own collective rather than destroying the Israeli collective.

But this will only happen when the international community stops excusing all their actions and ignoring all the natural consequences that flow from them. It is time the Palestinaisn grow up, no?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by TDidier
I've read Dune yes. But Letto is nothing but the rewriting of messia, the providencial man in what all tyran want to be compared.


I know, just thought it was a good illustration of how oppression, at least theoretically, is not necessarily a bad thing, but of course has little to do with real life where priescence is a fiction.


At this time no one man achieve to mix powerness and wiseness.
Maybe tomorrow...
We will wait... longtime :D


indeed.


For the jew in Israel you are right as long as they were in defence position, when (after 1967) the feeling the taste of real power (and the coming of some old propheties) they just wanted to impose their rules. Clearly the conquest of temple's mount is the goal of men like Sharon.
You see here that the "messianic" madness touch everybody who had the tast of victory...

it probably does, except the most humble, but the Israelis have been much better with their power than any other state, possibly ever. And it is important to remember that first some degree of oppression post 1967 was necessary, and that in the current phase of this dispute what needs to be discussed is the oppression that has been instituted since 2000 and WHY such oppression was necessary. Are you arguing that when the PAlestinaisn decided to begin a total war against the Israeli civilian population that the Israelis should not have acted to limit their ability to inflict casualties? The only other alternative was oppression, given the intent of the Palestinians and an inability on behalf of Israel to give them what they want (i.e. the fictional right of return which equals the destruction of the modern state of Israel). And the oppression imposed has been harsh, yes, and at times could probably have been less in particular facets or instances, but on the whole there hads been far less oppression than in other conflicts when other nations, both democratic and non-democratic, have been involved.


Oh, and as a side note, I largely agree with your position of Clauswitz. A total war is the best way to increase the willingness of the enemy to maintain the fight. A targeted strike that eliminates their war-making capability while shouwing civilians they have a way out is the best way to sap their collective will to fight. However, if one side starts a total war (as the Palestinaisn did here, targeting civilians from the first instance), then totla war by the other side becomes a more favourable alternative. Where nations will never stop fighting regardless of the "outs" presented to them, carpet bombing their cities into oblivion may be necessary, particularly where they are trying to do it to you first. I am thinking of WWII, but this applies equaly well to the PAlestiniasn, who, due to the aformentioned brainwashing, do not seem poised to ever stop fighting. They have tried many times to inflict mass casualties on civilians, trying to kill thousands at at a time. If they are ever successful, and come out to glory in the slaughter, using it to shore up their collective will to fight, they should be obliterated. Only that would eliminate their will to fight.

[red crabtree]

"If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient - at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve."

Karl Von Clausewitz

Didier, the concepts that Clausewitz used held him in good stead when defeating Napoleon. The first battle of Marne had taxi drivers from Paris desperately rushing reinforcements to the front, had that not occured it is likely that the Germans would have occupied Paris. Next, while the French were able to keep the Germans out of Paris, this particular battle allowed the Germans a successful retreat, ending all hope that the war would be a short one. That was the first battle of the Marne, the second one is considered the turning point of WWI, resulting in the final defeat of Germany. So explain to me exactly how either one of these battles proved Clausewitz wrong, or were you only thinking in terms in the fact the Germany lost both times? Clausewitz was published posthumously, and his thoughts were not employed by just Germans. Oh, and just to remind you since the French are so damn good at forgetting-the first battle of Marne had 250,000 American expediary forces there and the second Battle of Marne even more. Otherwise the Germans would have likely overran the French.
Militant Islam has threatened the West since at least 1979, personally I think it is time we quit playing. Of course I don't expect someone who admires Communism to understand that.