So, how long until Iran's theocracy nukes Israel?

We should come up with some sort of pool. We could all choose a month and year, and who ever ends up being right gets some sort of prize or title? I'm thinking it will be within 3 years.

Views: 825

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It will never come to that since Israel has one of the best  spy agencies in the world...Don't forget, Israel has nukes already, pointing towards  Iran....So it is a Lose =Lose.....With this new peace plan on deck, the danger of  a nuclear strike has deeply diminished.....Unless of course Israel attacks first, then all bets are off..

Israel current has a aboutm200 nukes, and i would expect it the act reemptively 

Yeah "about 200" because nobody outside Israel (and possibly their ally the US) knows. Estimates range from 75 to 400 (the latter being Iran's estimate). Since one nuke dropped on Tehran would take Iran out of the running for decades at least, even 75 seems excessive, but the reason countries keep excess weapons is in case a preemptive strike neutralizes the majority of them.

I can believe Israel might initiate a preemptive strike under some circumstances, but a preemptive nuclear strike would be out of the question. They might be able to justify a nuclear reply to a nuclear attack, but otherwise...no.

@Pope Beanie

(going to the top level)

What happened in the US, tragic and horrific as it could be, was not a true genocide. A policy of genocide needs to have something official and according to policy about it.

I'm not sure I understand the importance of the differentiation. We're still talking about one mass of people given less rights than another mass, and obviously the more powerful mass overpowers the less powerful mass. In this case--similar to early American settlers and Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act--the hard core Jewish settlers keep expanding into anti-Jewish territory, with the Israeli government's blessing.

The "cide" part of "genocide" means "killing" not "displacement" or "moving" or "suppression." The "gen" part refers to persons definable as a type, and has in use always meant a type in terms of a race or ethnicity. A nationality is a little vague as a concept to be the subject of a genocide, because you can become a citizen or give up citizenship. It's something you can be, not so much something you ARE. 

The U.S. government may have sent soldiers out to get rid of this or that pesky tribe, usually because they had been killing settlers, but never to wipe every last native American off the face of the earth, which would have been a genocide.

In the end, we gave the Native Americans the choice of citizenship or remaining on a reservation. That is not a genocide.

@FormerlyBornAgain

(taking it to the top)

The Sarah Palin-type narrative that an actual program the U.S. implemented to ethnically cleanse Native Americans from west of the 13 colonies, which resulted in millions of deaths, isn't genocide... isn't even worth disproving. It's ridiculous.

In trying to pain me with the stink of Sarah Palin, you mischaracterized U.S. policy, which was never to wipe Native Americans off the face of the Earth, but to neutralize them by forcing them into reservations. Hardly a policy of genocide (murder of a race). International conflicts always result in casualties, so you can't call any conflict with casualties a genocide. THAT is what is ridiculous and trivializes actual policies of genocide such as the Nazi's "final solution." 

No, your position is quite white apologist. Sean Hannity essentially made the same arguments on a show about reparations.

Again, your argument, based on your semantics of what you think genocide means, isn't worth disproving.

There's a long list of scholars and research projects which include Native American dealings with white America among history's holocausts and genocides. I just saw several of them from universities and state historical societies all over the southwest on my vacation. This argument really isn't you vs. me. It's you vs. dozens of scholars on the subject. I know, I know, blame it on the liberal bias in our museums.

Most Native Americans were unintentionally killed by disease not intentionally slaughtered because they were Native Americans. They were just in the way of westward expansion. 

Anyway, if it's merely a matter of semantics as to what constitutes a genocide, that argument can be used against the folks you mentioned as easily as against me. 

You're committing an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). 

If it's a matter of definition (semantics), what a genocide consists of is a matter for lexicographers not historians or Native American advocate groups. That's why my argument is semantical. Yes, I'm very interested in what the word means, and I want to keep it from just blending into "war" for example. Words are more useful with distinct meanings, are they not?

So, for "genocide" to have a distinct meaning, it has to be different from words like "war." Wars are often conducted against people occupying a land not because of their race or ethnicity. That they need to go is the motivating factor. The Native Americans were killed because they were on the land we wanted. It was not an all out effort to extinguish Native Americans which would have been a genocide. 

Again, your position is white apologetics. If I have time I'll try to dig up the Hannity show where he said pretty much the same thing: white people never meant to systematically get rid of Native Americans. They wanted them to assimilate or move to a reservation. It's an unpersuasive viewpoint when you delve into the historical record.

And, white America wanting people of color to assimilate? Look out your window. How's that African-American assimilation going? Next, you'll be saying slaves didn't have it so bad.

In terms of rhetoric, I understand what you're attempting to do, but the spirit of the rhetorical rule is the fallacy occurs when merely invoking the name of an authority to make an argument... which I did not do.

It's quite a different matter to talk about the work of an authority. That's called evidence or substantiation.

I don't have the time to list the numerous displays, exhibits, relics, photographs, and documents of the forced marches, baited attacks, wars, massacres, starvations, backstabbing politics, broken promises and concentration camp-like conditions of the Native American experience due to European expansion.

Again, your position is white apologetics. If I have time I'll try to dig up the Hannity show where he said pretty much the same thing: white people never meant to systematically get rid of Native Americans. They wanted them to assimilate or move to a reservation. It's an unpersuasive viewpoint when you delve into the historical record.

Obviously you're persuaded, but even though you seem to feel you're on the side of truth, clearly that doesn't keep you from name calling, labeling, and stereotyping me as just another whatever you wanna call me, which are tactics generally used by those who aren't convinced by their own polemics.

We had wars with the natives and did terribly things. I've never denied that. War crimes even. But genocide, no. Not on a Federal scale. This or that general may have conducted a local campaign, but a national genocidal effort against the natives? No.

And, white America wanting people of color to assimilate? Look out your window. How's that African-American assimilation going? Next, you'll be saying slaves didn't have it so bad.

Minorities quite often choose to live with members of their community. There is no conspiracy to keep them in ghettos! Many prefer to live that way. Others choose to intergrate into mostly white areas. It's their choice. Nowadays, most whites don't give shit if a black, Hispanic, Asian, Oceanic, or whatever family moves into their neighborhood. (Arabs might be a little more discomfitting, though).

I don't have the time to list the numerous displays, exhibits, relics, photographs, and documents of the forced marches, baited attacks, wars, massacres, starvations, backstabbing politics, broken promises and concentration camp-like conditions of the Native American experience due to European expansion.

If you don't have time to provide your evidence, I obviously don't have time to discuss it. Every war has its war crimes and other excesses, rarely rising to the level of genocide.

I'm with you on the strict definition of genocide, but I don't think "numerous atrocities" would be an understatement. I wasn't taught in public school about that part of our history, even in Florida where the Seminoles lived, so that was a grievous oversight in education.

You do overstate the amount of "choice" that low income people (especially blacks and other minorities) have wrt where they live. Albeit I'm sure it's not as bad in Portland as it used to be.

Genocide ceases to be a meaningful concept if confused or blended into war or even war + atrocities.

Poor PEOPLE (color aside) have limited choices as to where to live, as I myself experience now that I live on a limited income. People tend to live with people like them, especially if they are a minority. It's not white oppression that makes for black neighborhoods. It's as simple as being able to relate to the people around one. 

Give a black person a college education and a good job and they'll move into a majority white neighborhood where they will find economic and educational equals. 

FormerlyBornAgain seems to think that unless every neighborhood generally reflects the national racial demographic there's some sort of national conspiracy to keep them there. His assumption is that that's what the racial minority wants. When you're a minority, though, there is comfort in being around people like oneself.

I wonder what you expect?

You make dogmatic black-and-white arguments seemingly designed to provoke and then decry pointed counter-attack. It reminds me of your claim that Noam Chomsky doesn't know anything about linguistics. WTF? How can one even have a discussion when someone says that? It's extremely hard to take you seriously with some of the outlandish things you say. I'll refrain from tearing your statements about minorities today to shreds--your opinion speaks for itself.

I stand by my identification of your arguments as the same ones made by white apologists. I can see why you think of this as name-calling, but it's true. And I think it's useful to point this out. What would things be like if everyone believed Native Americans were simply in the way of progress?

However, the notion that Native Americans experienced genocide is widely accepted. There are university programs and curriculums, which study it. It’s insufficient to state no one was trying to exterminate Native Americans without any kind of reason other than proposing your opinion as fact. It’s a rather obtuse position. 

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service