The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Yeah and as long as they, like you do, justify massive acts of violence with violence directed at them the cycle of hatred will continue.

Really you're saying Israel is dealing right with it? I'd define "right" as "hostility stops and people are friends again". The current situation is as far as it can get from that.
Is your right really defined as "we've killed so many of them, they're no longer a big threat"?!

No human can deal with those situations. When constantly put in situations of death and destruction any human will break down to become a murderous beast. I am not blaming soldiers for the crimes they commit, but the people who put the soldiers into a situation that killed their own humanity.

<sarcasm>clearly blaming the super power that really started the war is totally naive</sarcasm>
Yes the USA started the war. The terrorists do not even have a nation. They cannot declare war in the name of a nation.
Theoretical question: If a German right wing radical group were to crash a plane into an US skyscraper would you support a war against Germany? Same principal.

I really do not know what to say anymore. I just hope that not too many people end up with views like yours. Too many of that and we'll really see a WWIII someday. Sad.

Idk, everytime Americans talk about politics, it makes me cringe. Here is a lot of history leading up to ranting, unfortunately the longhand history is relevant and necessary, yet I don't trust most Americans to know any of it.

In 1621, Protestant Refugees were given permission to go from Sweden (?) to the New World. Well, 1621 was when they made landfall and established a town anyway. They at first tried getting along with the natives, but more people, requires more land, and cultural differences made both sides uncooperative for long, and by 1830, the policy were to unarm the natives and move them onto small pieces of land, imprisonment if you will.

The founding fathers could not gain cooperation from all 13 original colony leaders unless they agreed to slavery, knowing good and well slavery was evil. So, they agreed to it under the condition it could be phased out, and that was good enough since the British were already passing laws against slavery themselves. Between reducing the voting-weight that slave-owners had through voting with their slaves, and prohibiting importing slaves limiting it to only currently held ones and their children, it made it possible to outlaw slavery altogether by 1865. It would not have had enough political support would plantation owners have had 50% more representation in the government. At least SOME good people through history have always been fighting inequality, it is a shame it took as long as it did.

The bad news, is after slavery ended, initially, the slaves pretty much just fell into the same jobs and same living arrangements, they being the easiest to establish. They were just paid for it, and then paid lodging. At least they were not required to stay, just like anyone else they could go west or just travel around and bum around like any other American was free to.

After the industrial period started, after 1890, there were many surges of immigration, a lot from Europe, some from Asia, some from Latin America. Most lived in terrible conditions themselves, and work safety wasn't a thing when you are working with nitroglycerin in railroad tunnels, and many actually lived in the textile factories themselves. The poor of many ethnic origins didn't live very differently from each other back then, and while the average minimum quality of life has improved today with medicine and legal obligations to human welfare, most of the lower class still don't live very differently from one another.

In 1938, American people polled in 61% favor of rejecting Jewish refugees from Europe.

In 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, America still somehow thought it was a good idea to "round up and detain everyone of a certain ethnic group". An idea pitched by Ted Cruz just the other day.

When Hawaii was first sought to become a state, 60% of their land was owned by Americans and not their own natives. When their last king sought reform to redistribute the land back to natives, Americans covertly distributed GOOD supplies and training to a native group seeking to overthrow the King, doing the wetwork for them. Afterwards, they promptly made them a state, solving the problems of their natives not owning their own land. In 1980s, late in the Cold War, Afghanistan's initial government was looking fondly towards siding with the Soviets, so America did much the same thing, and armed and trained a group well enough to take control of their government in exchange for not going commie. That group, happened to be Al-Qaeda (Taliban?), and they were successful in keeping Afghanistan away from the Soviets, for all of a decade. The next decade, they were linked in support of the 9/11 attacks. Go figure.

With the recent refugee issue, people are using the excuse "why do we not help homeless veterans, but help refugees instead?". That is a very good question, but someone proper would actually consider it. First off, why don't we do both? Second off, why DON'T we help veterans, because like 8 bills for such funding came to vote just this last month and they failed to pass vote. Third off, why do they make "veterans" into a "chore" that suddenly they prefer just to get out of another "chore", like someone "mows the lawn" to get out of "cleaning the attic". Because it ruins the goodwill of the thought, it really does. Especially when most people have no intention to do either or, neither help homeless veterans nor help refugees.

After the 9/11 attacks, America learned roughly nothing from the last 3 centuries. Still discriminate against those of the same ethnic group seen as war-enemies. Still pitched a foreign war once an attack came to their land. Still don't want any refugees from that war. This isn't the whole story, there is a lot of stupid on the other side of the fence too, because they wouldn't need to become refugees if they committed to improving their own nation's condition, and recently they didn't accept supplies such as water because the packaging had a "red cross" on it, but nobody seems to be interested in constructive criticism, just what they want. Nobody suggests a constructive solution or alternative, just "**** everyone else".

Here is a constructive alternative: Could we at least take the refugees current location, on the immediate escape from syrian hostiles, and protect it with military presence, so it is at least safe enough for them for the short-while, in leau of taking refugees? It would be more responsible, to try to fix their current environment, because if every american-sympathizing native of Syria fled, then it stands to reason that Syria is just going to be 100% extremist, and probably not half as cooperative as Iran, and whether we accept refugees or not we will end up with an enemy with an entire nation as their base of operations and a lot of terrorists attacks will likely come from them.

In a way, it's true. Bombing the middle east to pulp is definitely a solution to this problem. As history taught us it'll likely only create more terrorism (and problems), but it's definitely a solution to this problem.

Putting a big fence around the Middle East and letting themselves figure it out is also a solution. It'll probably take a while, i mean the European Union wasn't founded until nearly two millenia after the last great empire. Even then, it was only founded because we fought a war so horrible that we wanted to end war itself. Maybe the Middle East needs to experience it's own WWII. Germany taught us that it's better to help your foes and turn them back into allies.

But both solutions probably involve an unfathomable death toll. Sure, i liked the ending of Watchmen, but i think we can try other solutions before we resort to such extremes.

A true solution would need to involve all parties. Enemies, the west, preferably the Kremlin too. We learned our lesson. it should not be THAT hard to teach others the same lesson at a less extreme price.

Israel acts in self defense, both preemptively and passively. None of their actions involve invading or pillaging a neighboring country. They've made every attempt to have peace with their neighbors, as evidenced by their peace treaties with jordan and egypt. They repeatedly come to the table with their Arab neighbors, only for them to demand even more land then Israel has given to them while refusing to cut off funding and support for the terrorists within their 'borders'. It's flipping disgusting when I hear people say how bad Israel is and how they should make peace. They've tried again and again, but the Arabs continue to make impossible demands without meeting a bare minimum of concessions. That doesn't mean they are perfect, and a few bad eggs shouldn't be portrayed as the whole.

As devak and trophy touched on, the Islamic people of the middle East have yet to learn the terrible lesson we, the West, learned back in ww2. Israel's leaders had parents how ran from Hitler during the holocaust - they remember that lesson just fine. Until we find a way to teach that lesson to the Middle East without unnecessary bloodshed, I say we make like the Ascended Ancients in Stargate and NOT INTERFERE. Let them figure it out themselves.

EDIT: I would rather watch them kill each other than watch them kill our soldiers. So, lets back off until a better solution is found.

Idk, as far as Israel goes, for the most part, they act in self defense, in the same way as some badass tranny acts in self defense by killing every single person that tries to remove them from the women's restroom, redneck and policeman alike.

As tasteless as that comparison is, the middle east really didn't want Israel to crop up and disavows it's existance as a nation, to them they are just an extremist group with militia control over a segment of shore, not a nation at all.

They just, showed up one day, again, sort of like protestant refugees showed up in New England. Really, it is exactly like that, because despite the huge difference in population and in land size, Israel much like the Colonists simply dominate with sheer difference in military might, like Bow and Arrow versus Firearms.

Despite that, Israel is actually acting a lot nicer to non-combatants with differences, and if the extremists from Egypt and Iran would act nice back, they could probably honestly share control and have peace there, with either side policing their unrulys and neither side commiting widespread war.

You know my picture of Israel is colored a lot by various news and documentary about their relationship with people from palastina. A few key points I remember are (I am too lazy to go and search sources for everything, google away yourself if you don't trust my memory):
- a story of one of many people from westjordanland. Due to the very poor economic situation around there he has to go to Israel to work there for a few extra $. To do that he has to travel many many hours every day. In principle the distance isn't big, but because he is part of the "potential evil people" he isn't allowed to take the direct route. He has to take a massive detour every day. On the bus he has to take many Israel people are very aggressive towards them, treat him like a terrorist. If he gets into an argument with anybody there then the Israel police forces will generally take him away and he'll be accused to have started it, no matter what actually happened. On the checkpoint he passes he is treated like a criminal and searched throughly every day. He isn't a terrorist or a criminal. Just a normal man trying to make a living. He's one of many people who go through that kind of discrimination. Most just live with it. Some build up more and more anger until they really do take a weapon.
- radical settlers from Israel constantly pushing to take away more and more land that isn't really theirs.
- roads that are off limits from palastina-people (I wish I could write that right xD), but go deep through their areas. They have to take long detours, if they go onto the road Israel forces get rather aggressive.
- the situation in Gaza is economically very very poor. Like so poor I remember reading somewhere that pretty good sources estimated it won't be much more years until it completely collapses and will fail to support live. Why? Because of massive export/import limitations put onto it by Israel.

The list goes on and on. As long as right wing political forces in Israel keep up the massive discrimination there'll be lots of hatred coming back at them.

Also it's always "lovely" how Israel reacts to any form of critics by disregarding it as anti-Semitism.

I am not talking based on anti-Semitism. I could not care less about their religions. I also do realize that there are really evil people in the hamas as well. But just because you're enemy is a group of monsters does not mean you should become a monster as well.

The only real point I see here though, is like I said earlier, Israel's self defense on "their own soil" is automatically an invasion because their own soil is disputed. Much like if a rival faction claimed ownership of America it would be an "invasion on American soil" despite they are only acting in self defense of their nation against America trying to push them around. So basically, you could condone the actions of the independent militias that the FBI cracks down on, they are just defending themselves.

Their soil isn't disputed. It's Israels. The Arabs came and took it from them almost 2000 years ago, and they've only recently returned from exile to reclaim their homeland. I know quite a few people who will dispute that, but it's a pretty simple question and the answer is easy to find. The Arabs just don't want people to think it's Israels, because then they have literally NO argument to be there in the first place.

Gaza used to be a thriving city. Now it's basically a massive war-torn slum because of Hezbollah and Hamas. The Israelis have every right to be suspicious and profile those from that region - they get attacked from Gaza regularly. Ex:
https://www.idfblog.com/facts-figures/rocket-attacks-toward-israel/
Yeah, it sucks. The people across that border are lucky the Israelis even let them back into their country to work. I mean, can you imagine that level of attack on the borders of France or Austria? They'd be warmongering all over the place in a few days trying to murder everyone involved.

Israel is doing what they have to in order to keep their people safe. And it isn't working that well. Time and again, the Israelis withdraw their military forces from the area, and pay for it dearly in damages and civilian lives.

The settlers from Israel are a problem, absolutely - both because their presence strains the IDF's resources in protecting them beyond the Eastern border and because they're encroaching on legally non-Israeli land. It's a sticky situation for the Israeli government both politically and culturally, and they would just rather not deal.

And I wouldn't call you an anti-semite, Colin, nor did I intend to imply as much.

Israel isn't trying to destroy something that doesn't exist. That's complete BS.
Go look at all the wars in the past fifty years and show me one instance where Israel provoked a war. In every single instance they either acted in self defense or preemptively attacked the forces gathering on their borders before an imminent invasion. All they want to do is exist where they are. That's it. The Arabs want to drive Israel into the sea. Completely different philosophies.

Matter of perspective. Neither side claims the other's "state" or "nation" even exists. They each claim the other is simply an invader living on stolen land. Unfortunately, the middle east isn't going to stop attacking, and Israel isn't going to stop counterattacking. Neither side is really helping nor hurting the situation, because neither side was making the situation possible to begin with.

Makes you wonder if total war wouldn't just be better. Afghanistan and Iraq aren't threats as governments any longer, an Iran is one of the larger threats that deters war from being had lest they step in, and generally it just doesn't seem likely that the governments will stop supporting hostile anti-western attacks just for the sake of being anti-western. It's a shame both sides CAN'T just promise to stop throwing attacks back and forth.

It would be useful to review history and learn who is taking what from who.



In the 1000s BCE, Israel takes Canaan from the Canaanites. In the 8th-6th centuries BCE, Mesopotamian peoples such as Assyria and Babylon conquer Israel. In the latter half of the 6th century, the Achaemenid(Persian) Empire led by Cyrus the Great conquers Mesopotamia and frees the Jews to return to "their land". Alexander the Great conquered the Achaemenid Empire in the late 300s BCE, and largely ignored the Levant, as did his successor Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, although the proximity of Hellenism did lead to tensions that resulted in a revolt resulting in Jewish independence. It was Rome that conquered Israel in the 60s BC, and who, after a rebellion in the early 100s CE, began what was nigh on a genocide resulting in most of them being removed from the region. Rome of course, then the Byzantine Empire, lost the Levant to the Muslim Rashidun, Ummayad, and Abbasid caliphates in the 600s-800s CE. These caliphates allowed religious freedom to Christians and Jews living their so long as a small tax was paid. The crusaders short lived kingdoms in the 1000s-1100s killed indiscriminately non-Christians for comparison. The Arab empires lost control to the Egyptian Mamluks in the 1200s, who in turn lost to the Ottoman Turks in the 1500s. By this time, the majority population of the Levant was Arab Muslims with some Jewish minority, especially around the middle of the 16th century. In World War One, Britain earned the support of the Arab majority against the ruling Ottoman Empire largely through promises of sovereignty afterwards. Instead they were made colonies, and, post world war 2, sovereignty in modern day Israel was instead granted to Jews, whose ancestors had not been the principle majority of the region for hundreds of years.

Who the **** holds people to land holdings from 2000 years ago?

If people did that almost the entirety of the world would be disputed.

It doesn't work for individual nations. The Middle East is a giant pressure cooker of unsolved problems. Invasions like Iraq, and things like the Arabic Spring blew off some steam, but also made a giant mess. My point was never that blowing off steam is bad, but that it has to be done with a plan, to prevent the mess.

However, what's not really been said so far is that the vast majority of people living there aren't hateful and risky. It's a (relatively speaking) small group of people that have not only the loudest voices, but also the biggest guns. the fact that millions of humans are being displaced from IS territory gives off the very clear message that the majority of Muslims there don't agree with them. They're just powerless to stop them, because IS is organized, and has powerful weaponry.

I kind of want to like you for mentioning the Ancients, but it feels like you actually missed the message. Non-interference can be harmful as well. You mention unnecessary bloodshed, but at the same time you want to let them continue their bloody wars. Isn't there a different way, where we interfere in a smarter way? Can't we help these people learn our lesson, in stead of only throwing bombs? The west is the richest, most powerful combination of nations on earth. Surely we have the capacity to figure out HOW to help these people other than throwing bombs and hoping we hit the right guy?

What if for every Western soldier killed, in stead a hundred natives are killed? what if, by interfering in the right way, with the right measures, we can pay a small price to prevent a much bigger bloodshed? Thereby, preventing the unnecessary bloodshed you yourself hate?

It's almost certain that military intervention is needed. What my earlier hyperbole was about is that we need to *learn* from previous attempts. You win a war with firepower. But to quote Ender's game, we want to end all future wars as well. One way is to stomp the enemy beyond death, as the quote refers to. But there's an alternative interpretation: that we can lead these people to a better world. They ultimately have to do it themselves, but the very unstable nature of the Middle East makes getting to a solution difficult. We can provide stability. Each conflict may require it's own specific solution, but there has to be a way that we can ensure these people can build a government that is capable of helping people. Through a stable government, create a law enforcement that is both loyal and able to protect the people. And then, through stability and safety, increase the standard of living.

This is going to sound naive, but I think that what the middle east needs is industrial investors.

Factories with terrible working conditions that require lots of manpower. The conditions will improve over time as the workers gain influence, and if people need to be at work they'll be less likely to blow people up. And if people are invested in the area, they'll need to protect their primary assets, the workers.

Such a thing will never happen because it lacks safety. What we need is someone to fill a role now left unfulfilled: that of the old dictators. There's nobody in the middle east keeping things in check like Saddam used to. IS is making good use of that. Ultimately the middle east has to solve the middle east's problems. We can help them with that and we should. The Kurds for example seem willing and able to help with IS. Maybe it's time Iraq swallowed it's pride (or whatever's left of it), we create Kurdistan and the northern side of the conflict is walled off by the Kurds. it would require the necessary safeguards to ensure we're not making another Al-Quaida, but it could create an island of stability that this conflict needs.

With the Kurds out of the picture for Iraq, it may create stability there too by resolving one long-standing conflict.

Doing that now would be a terrible investment. Nobody with the money to do so would be stupid enough to try. It's not a short term solution.

There are a number of ways to get it going, none of them likely in the near future. But it's what I think is necessary for the eventual continued stability of the region. Until that happens, the Middle East will continue to be a warzone.

It's the Middle East. Disputing land that a family has held for hundreds of years is nigh unthinkable there. That's how the Arabs felt when the Israelis showed up after WW2 with a shiny badge of approval from the brits. Unfortunately for them, Israel is and always will be a Jewish state.

Israel did not attack Gaza first. THEY DIDNT.

Hamas or Hezbollah (for the life of me I can't remember which) started lobbing medium range rockets into Israel. After exhausting all diplomatic solutions, they were forced to retaliate.

Tunsel stop making this stuff up. Look it up first. I posted a link to the Rocket attacs earlier.

Disputing land somebody has held for hundreds of years is unthinkable anywhere. There should be no dispute. It belonged to the Arabs.

The only reason it doesn't anymore is because the Israelis have an organized military and, for some reason, the backing of the West.

Guilt trip over WW2

Technically, the conflict began when the UN decided to nationalize Israel, which the Arab League didn't approve of. They took the side of the Palestinians and attacked Israel. This isn't a conflict that you can say started at "X" event. Hamas is considered to have launched the rockets before the Battle of Gaza, in response to Israel's demands. However, Israel did occupy Gaza for 4-5 years, and there have been numerous battles, strikes, assassination attempts or political interventions that have led up to this lovely mess. I'm going to put the blame on the United Nations, for not having the Arab League's support when Israel was established in 1948. So really, it's Europe's fault. Imagine that. (To be fair, Europe has messed up so badly it led to WWII [partially anyway. Germany was very obviously mistreated in the treaty of Versailles], and the US is incapable of learning from those mistakes. What a world to live in.)

If I have to blame a Middle Eastern nation/group, it would be the Arab League and that Palestinians inability to accept change, or maintain negotiations in the beginning.

Guilt trip over the UN's plans following WWII.

Tunsel, you are delusional. Hamas started this.

It's how they operate. They hide their Rocket launchers in schools and hospitals so Israeli airstrikes cause civilian casualties. Israel calls the house they are going to bomb before it blows so the civilians have time to leave. The moral code between each side is almost black and white. Israel wants to save lives while Hamas couldn't care less.

Like it or not the West supports Israel on principle. They are the only truly Democratic free society in the middle East right now that doesn't oppress its citizens for their religion.