Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
1. Fuck 'em. Israel won it and they're gonna keep it. You can argue whether it was right or wrong all you want, but that's where the Europeans decided to let "the Jew problem" settle itself, since it was easier than trying to repossess the land and personal property the Jews had been dispossessed of by the Nazis' decision to try and kill them all off.
|
So the Palestinians get to pay for the Nazis crimes? Europe couldn't and didn't want to repay the Jews for what they did to them, so the decided to make the Palestinians pay?
The US conquered Iraq. So following your logic, couldn't we keep it? So would it be OK for the US to expel the Arabs out of Iraq? We won it fairly and squarely in a war?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk 2. If you really believe that countries can't hold onto territory because they possessed it under hostile terms, when are you planning to give your house back to the Mexicans, so they can give it back to the Spaniards, so they can give it back to the Indians?
|
I am having trouble with your logic here. So are you saying it was OK for the US to grab land from Mexico, and it was OK for the US to ethnically cleanse the Indians so therefore it was OK for the Israelis to do what they did?
Or were those things were wrong, but since the US did wrong things in the nineteenth century the Israelis get to do wrong things too?
So what is it? It seems to me that those things were wrong and it is wrong that Israelis did what they did (and continues to do). Or those things were OK so it is OK that Israel did what it did?
So are you justifying ethnic cleansing?
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
3. Russia decided it was cheaper to simply turn Hungary, Yougolsavia, Romania, etc, into vassal states than it would be to occupy over the long haul.
|
So under your doctrine of: "if you win, you can take other peoples land" it would have been OK for Russia to hold Hungary and Romania to this day, and still not allowing the native populations to vote? Or if they wanted, they could have expelled the native populations of Romania and Hungary and replaced them with ethnic Russians?
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
4. On Iraq, we can't really move the Texans in until we move the troops out. And, well, we can't ever really move all the troops out. So I guess we'll be occupying Iraq for the idefinite future, but not with Texans.
|
What do you mean? Under your doctrine we don't have to move the troops out at all, ever. The Israelis never moved their troops out. We can just expel the Arabs in Baghdad and leave our troops there. And then fill the empty land with Texans. If the Arabs we just expelled start giving us trouble, we just conquer the land they moved to (maybe Syria), and then militarily occupy the land they have been pushed into so they don't give us anymore trouble about wanting their original homes and land back. How is that different from what the Israelis did?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by taxwonk 5. When Israel kicks Arabs out of their territory, it really isn't ethnic cleansing or tribalism, so much as a recognition that they can't trust them and can't police them. Anyway, they have the whole rest of the Middle East to settle in, so....
|
Isn't that ethnic cleansing and aren't you just giving excuses for ethnic cleansing? It seems to fit the definition to me: expelling the native population because of their race (and religion), and replacing the population with people from somewhere else who are of another religion and race. When the Serbians tried to ethnically cleanse Kosovo couldn't they have made the same argument you made? The Albanians can't be trusted and they couldn’t police them? And besides the Serbians could have argued that the Albanians they were expelling could go live in Albania or the rest of Europe.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
6. Once again, fuck 'em.
(the new, pragmatic) Taxwonk
|
The power of your intellect is truly dazzling. That sort of logic is very persuasive.
