S
Skandar (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
28 May 2011 13:07Link
@rep Re: your only TRUE middle eastern ally.
I didn't respond to this earlier (criticism of Obama over his policy on Israel) as I wasn't entirely sure which middle eastern ally you were referring to (I figured Israel).
Europeans are generally quite glad of Obama's renewed insistence of a return to the 1967 borders. We're generally a lot cooler in our support for Israel as we lack the lobbying from the fringe who think that the creation of a stable Israel is a sign of the 'end times'. All we see is a land-grab based on a text written over 2,500 years ago.
I don't want to shift the emphasis of this topic though. I just thought it important to highlight the difference in opinion of Obama here in Europe. He remains much more popular here, than in the States.
Also, skip the anti-Semitic charge (I'm not expecting it from any of you guys who've taken part so far -
I didn't respond to this earlier (criticism of Obama over his policy on Israel) as I wasn't entirely sure which middle eastern ally you were referring to (I figured Israel).
Europeans are generally quite glad of Obama's renewed insistence of a return to the 1967 borders. We're generally a lot cooler in our support for Israel as we lack the lobbying from the fringe who think that the creation of a stable Israel is a sign of the 'end times'. All we see is a land-grab based on a text written over 2,500 years ago.
I don't want to shift the emphasis of this topic though. I just thought it important to highlight the difference in opinion of Obama here in Europe. He remains much more popular here, than in the States.
Also, skip the anti-Semitic charge (I'm not expecting it from any of you guys who've taken part so far -
S
Scarlet (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
29 May 2011 12:04Link
<!-Quote-!>Quote:Another example for you - one policy of the British government that made the Irish Potato Famine (1845-52) even more catastrophic was its refusal to intervene in the free market. A previous famine in 1782-3 had been dealt with, in part, by closing the ports so that food grown in Ireland was used to feed the Irish.
No such restrictions were imposed during the Potato Famine and, peversely, exports of calves, most livestock, bacon and ham actually increased. Also, don't forget that the same potato blight affected crops across much of Europe - this was not peculiar to Ireland. The attitude of the British at the time was that the free market would provide and correct the imbalance. Unfortunately, when people have no income due to crop failure (or unemployment due to an international banking crisis), it's pretty difficult to turn a profit selling them the food they need. Ergo,
S
Skandar (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
29 May 2011 14:01Link
@Scarlet "I don't think the invocation of free market was seriously under the impression that the food would go to the Irish"
I think you're right on this. It wasn't the expectation that the free market would bring food to the Irish, but the ideology of the British elite at the time that intervening in the market to bring food to the Irish would be morally wrong.
Relying on charitable giving in such circumstances also tends not to provide enough resources, nor quickly enough. Charitable donations did help alleviate some of the suffering in Ireland, but there was a significant lag before they started, and they never reached a level sufficient to stem the flee from Ireland.
You are also right to point out that it wasn't just the free market that caused this. There were laws that restricted the rights of the Irish, although they had been largely abolished by the time of the famine (the 1829 Act of Emani
I think you're right on this. It wasn't the expectation that the free market would bring food to the Irish, but the ideology of the British elite at the time that intervening in the market to bring food to the Irish would be morally wrong.
Relying on charitable giving in such circumstances also tends not to provide enough resources, nor quickly enough. Charitable donations did help alleviate some of the suffering in Ireland, but there was a significant lag before they started, and they never reached a level sufficient to stem the flee from Ireland.
You are also right to point out that it wasn't just the free market that caused this. There were laws that restricted the rights of the Irish, although they had been largely abolished by the time of the famine (the 1829 Act of Emani
S
Skandar (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
02 Jun 2011 12:54Link
Bring
Up
My
Post
Just 'cos I'd really like Scarlet's response to my points (if RL is getting in the way, no worries).
Up
My
Post
Just 'cos I'd really like Scarlet's response to my points (if RL is getting in the way, no worries).
S
Skandar (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
07 Jun 2011 20:16Link
BUMP (again!)
Still not quite ready to let this thread die.
Plus count it as a reminder that we still have a big debate to start on social liberal issues.
Still not quite ready to let this thread die.
Plus count it as a reminder that we still have a big debate to start on social liberal issues.
S
Scarlet (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
07 Jun 2011 23:05Link
Sorry, I'm really busy at the moment. I've only had enough time in the last week to post "The end is near!" regarding the LU world market shortages and not enough time to do much about it.
C
Crafty (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
08 Jun 2011 12:02Link
Awww Scarlet, and we were all so depending on you...
R
rep (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
08 Jun 2011 21:51Link
Just to throw a couple points out. Not quite ready to get started on the con/lib social debate, but will say that your beliefs on religion and secularity will find no argument from me as I feel religion, or lack thereof, is strictly a personal choice which has little or no bearing in national political discussions. The rest we can find some wriggle room to bat things back and forth.
Regarding the Israel thing. No, of course I won't call you anti-Semitic. Hyperbole such as that brings an unwelcome stench into a debate.
However, allow me to ask this: How many examples from history can you give me where the aggressor in a war, who then loses said war, gets back territory it lost?
Israel was attacked by all of it's Arab neighbors in 1967. Outnumbered and surrounded it still somehow managed to soundly defeat it's enemies, in SIX days! It gained territory which provided it with a modicum of national security against future
Regarding the Israel thing. No, of course I won't call you anti-Semitic. Hyperbole such as that brings an unwelcome stench into a debate.
However, allow me to ask this: How many examples from history can you give me where the aggressor in a war, who then loses said war, gets back territory it lost?
Israel was attacked by all of it's Arab neighbors in 1967. Outnumbered and surrounded it still somehow managed to soundly defeat it's enemies, in SIX days! It gained territory which provided it with a modicum of national security against future
S
Skandar (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
09 Jun 2011 12:03Link
"Israel was attacked by all of it's Arab neighbors in 1967."
5th of June: Israel launched surprise attacks on its Arab neighbours. Opinion is divided as to whether it was a preemptive defensive strike or an act of aggression. Going on the principal that he who lobs the first grenade wins the title of 'aggressor', I'd give it to Israel.
"...where the aggressor in a war, who then loses said war, gets back territory it lost?"
Doesn't apply due to issue mentioned above.
Israel "gained territory which provided it with a modicum of national security against future incursions."
Yes, but at the cost of the national security of its neighbours. If your aim is a lasting peace in the Middle East, it won't be achieved if either side feels it does not have territorial security. The best chance we have is to work towards the two-state solution (Israel and Palestin
5th of June: Israel launched surprise attacks on its Arab neighbours. Opinion is divided as to whether it was a preemptive defensive strike or an act of aggression. Going on the principal that he who lobs the first grenade wins the title of 'aggressor', I'd give it to Israel.
"...where the aggressor in a war, who then loses said war, gets back territory it lost?"
Doesn't apply due to issue mentioned above.
Israel "gained territory which provided it with a modicum of national security against future incursions."
Yes, but at the cost of the national security of its neighbours. If your aim is a lasting peace in the Middle East, it won't be achieved if either side feels it does not have territorial security. The best chance we have is to work towards the two-state solution (Israel and Palestin
R
rep (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
09 Jun 2011 20:13Link
Food for thought there, my friend. I'll have to do some research and get back to you.
BTW, my condolences to the of the Commonwealth for the recent earthquake. Nyy57 has planned a memorial monument in the country for those lost.
BTW, my condolences to the of the Commonwealth for the recent earthquake. Nyy57 has planned a memorial monument in the country for those lost.
R
rep
All worlds
09 Jun 2011 21:25Link
Okay, did my research. Apologize for the length:
Myth: Israel sought war in 1967 so it could conquer territory.
Fact: In what they perceived as the existential crisis leading to the Six-Day War, no Israeli political leader argued in favor of conflict on the basis that it would enable the country to conquer new lands. The debate was over how to avoid what appeared to be impending destruction, not how to expand. While a pre-emptive strike was seen as one way to avoid being wiped out, Israeli Prime Minster Levy Eshkol looked for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, and insisted on delaying all military action as long as possible so as to allow for diplomacy to run its course — even whil military officials warned that delays would work to Egypt's advantage by allowing them to build their forces.
That Israel had not considered a war for conquest became clear almost as soon as the fighting ended on June 10, 1967
Myth: Israel sought war in 1967 so it could conquer territory.
Fact: In what they perceived as the existential crisis leading to the Six-Day War, no Israeli political leader argued in favor of conflict on the basis that it would enable the country to conquer new lands. The debate was over how to avoid what appeared to be impending destruction, not how to expand. While a pre-emptive strike was seen as one way to avoid being wiped out, Israeli Prime Minster Levy Eshkol looked for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, and insisted on delaying all military action as long as possible so as to allow for diplomacy to run its course — even whil military officials warned that delays would work to Egypt's advantage by allowing them to build their forces.
That Israel had not considered a war for conquest became clear almost as soon as the fighting ended on June 10, 1967
S
Skandar (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
10 Jun 2011 14:07Link
Thanks for the monument to those killed/injured in the earthquake (admission: I hadn't actually noticed my country had experienced one!)
The overview of Israeli-Arab actions is great. But it just highlights (to me) that both sides made mistakes, could be accused of aggressive acts, and often act stubbornly when it comes to diplomacy. All to often, it seems that there is just an endless cycle of aggressive acts, half of which are then termed counter-offensives as retaliation for the actions of the other side.
Americans tend to focus on Palestinian and Arab acts of aggression/counter-aggression, placing the majority of their support with Israel.
Europeans tend to focus on Israeli acts of aggression/counter-aggression, placing the majority of their support with Palestine/surrounding Arab nations.
Personally, I think the whole region is a complete mess, complicated further by the friction between religious gro
The overview of Israeli-Arab actions is great. But it just highlights (to me) that both sides made mistakes, could be accused of aggressive acts, and often act stubbornly when it comes to diplomacy. All to often, it seems that there is just an endless cycle of aggressive acts, half of which are then termed counter-offensives as retaliation for the actions of the other side.
Americans tend to focus on Palestinian and Arab acts of aggression/counter-aggression, placing the majority of their support with Israel.
Europeans tend to focus on Israeli acts of aggression/counter-aggression, placing the majority of their support with Palestine/surrounding Arab nations.
Personally, I think the whole region is a complete mess, complicated further by the friction between religious gro
R
rep (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
10 Jun 2011 18:48Link
All points well taken. And agreed with by me.
The region is a mess. And religion is a major root cause. It has long amazed me that three of the world's major religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) all have the same roots and pretty much the same belief systems yet manage to create such friction amongst themselves. Indeed, Christianity arose from Judaism, and Islam (the youngest of the three) was derived from perceived inadequacies of Christianity.
Of course that wasn't enough. Each of the three had to splinter off sects that are violently opposed to the other religions, and those sects from time to time gain ascendency amongst their respective groupings, causing world turmoil. And on it goes ad nauseum.
Your Argentina thoughts are correct, of course. The peace negotiation tactic is a well used one throughout history. It is rare in modern warfare for a country to attempt to completely overrun and conq
The region is a mess. And religion is a major root cause. It has long amazed me that three of the world's major religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) all have the same roots and pretty much the same belief systems yet manage to create such friction amongst themselves. Indeed, Christianity arose from Judaism, and Islam (the youngest of the three) was derived from perceived inadequacies of Christianity.
Of course that wasn't enough. Each of the three had to splinter off sects that are violently opposed to the other religions, and those sects from time to time gain ascendency amongst their respective groupings, causing world turmoil. And on it goes ad nauseum.
Your Argentina thoughts are correct, of course. The peace negotiation tactic is a well used one throughout history. It is rare in modern warfare for a country to attempt to completely overrun and conq
T
The Walking Glitch (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
19 Jun 2011 09:34Link
One thing: I'm Republican, I live in Wisconsin, and I support the budget cuts for state workers. If you don't like it, too bad. IF you don't like me, go fuck yourself.
R
rep
All worlds
19 Jun 2011 17:09Link
Pretty well sums it up. What some don't seem to understand is that for every state worker crying about it, there are two other people hurting even more, that are forced to support the unrealistic contractual obligations through ever increasing tax burdens.
T
The Walking Glitch (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
20 Jun 2011 03:27Link
Exactly rep, and I am kind of one of those people right now.
R
rep (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
20 Jun 2011 04:17Link
Been there, done that. Until this current economic meltdown I made a pretty decent living writing articles (history & travel mostly) for magazines, but for the past two years I couldn't buy a steak dinner with what I made writing, so I'm working two part-time jobs trying to keep it going.
In the meantime, last year my property taxes went up 3%, school taxes up 4.5%. This year property went up another 1.5% (the politicos beat their chest about how they "cut" the taxes.) and the school district laid off most of the teacher's aides and cut cafeteria staff, and "only" raised taxes by 2%.
Bottom line I pay 2600 on my house every year (just your average, nothing fancy kind of place) and a little over a grand on school taxes.
That's 300 a month if you break it down. When you're working for 8 bucks/hour, 32 hours a week, it doesn't leave a lot leftover.
Whine, w
In the meantime, last year my property taxes went up 3%, school taxes up 4.5%. This year property went up another 1.5% (the politicos beat their chest about how they "cut" the taxes.) and the school district laid off most of the teacher's aides and cut cafeteria staff, and "only" raised taxes by 2%.
Bottom line I pay 2600 on my house every year (just your average, nothing fancy kind of place) and a little over a grand on school taxes.
That's 300 a month if you break it down. When you're working for 8 bucks/hour, 32 hours a week, it doesn't leave a lot leftover.
Whine, w
L
Lorelei
All worlds
20 Jun 2011 07:04Link
Rep.......thus why I left the journalism field. Pays crap.
R
rep (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
20 Jun 2011 07:53Link
If you're on a daily or weekly, yeah, you're right.
Most of my work was on monthly and quarterly's, and since I was free lance I could make up for the low rates by doing volume.
And if you've read any of my other posts you KNOW I can pump out 2500 words without breaking a sweat!
Most of my work was on monthly and quarterly's, and since I was free lance I could make up for the low rates by doing volume.
And if you've read any of my other posts you KNOW I can pump out 2500 words without breaking a sweat!
S
Scarlet (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
22 Jun 2011 12:30Link
<!-Quote-!>Quote:I was thinking more that the idea was to starve out the Irish. I'm not a believer in immediate, complete change . . . more of an incrementalist. I'm alleging that the@Scarlet "I don't think the invocation of free market was seriously under the impression that the food would go to the Irish"
I think you're right on this. It wasn't the expectation that the free market would bring food to the Irish, but the ideology of the British elite at the time that intervening in the market to bring food to the Irish would be morally wrong.
Relying on charitable giving in such circumstances also tends not to provide enough resources, nor quickly enough. Charitable donations did help alleviate some of the suffering in Ireland, but there was a significant lag before they started, and they never reached a level sufficient to stem the flee from Ireland.<!-/Quote-!>
S
Skandar (Little Upsilon)
All worlds
23 Jun 2011 15:25Link
"I'm not a believer in immediate, complete change... more of an incrementalist."
I'm so glad you said that. Twenty-odd years ago, lot of liberal economists argued that a short sharp shock was what was needed for the transition from communism to capitalism in Russia. Gorbachev was 'for' a gradual transition to a Scandinavian-style social democratic model. Unfortunately, he lost out to Yeltsin in the first election and Shock Therapy was applied.
Given its association with the neoliberalism in the US (and its failure in practice in Chile, former Soviet countries and the Asian financial crisis), I'm perhaps a bit too suspicious of individuals who push for the sort of complete economic freedom you advocate. I have much less opposition to your idea of gradual change - that's sort of like what China is doing (although wi
I'm so glad you said that. Twenty-odd years ago, lot of liberal economists argued that a short sharp shock was what was needed for the transition from communism to capitalism in Russia. Gorbachev was 'for' a gradual transition to a Scandinavian-style social democratic model. Unfortunately, he lost out to Yeltsin in the first election and Shock Therapy was applied.
Given its association with the neoliberalism in the US (and its failure in practice in Chile, former Soviet countries and the Asian financial crisis), I'm perhaps a bit too suspicious of individuals who push for the sort of complete economic freedom you advocate. I have much less opposition to your idea of gradual change - that's sort of like what China is doing (although wi