When Will Iran Be Attacked?

[murphy_p_t]

You don't think that the Islamo-Fascists want to take down Switzerland too? Or France? Great Britain? Denmark? Canada? Russia? China? Australia as well? Think again.

Sticking your head in the sand and hoping that they will like us (as long as we do what they say) is not a wise policy.

Ironically, I agree w/ Reub here. Its just I have no loyalty or connection to the Zionist state.

As an American, I'm glad we have large oceans on each side...and a stable country to the north. We should use them much more effectively...and drastically change immigration policy...the country already has a surplus of taxi drivers and other low skill workers...

However, I agree w/ Ad Orientem's comments that we don't need to go looking for trouble, trying to solve the world's problems...being the police of the world. I'm 100% opposed to having any military alliance w/ Israel...after all...how is there any vital national interest such that the US should sacrifice blood or treasure?

[murphy_p_t]

I'll ask it again. What if it was the United States dictating to Israel when it can go to war? I heard Netanyahu saying that no government should put a red light before Israel if they are not willing to put a red line before Iran. I think that was pretty clear.

If Israel wants its military to attack another country, how can any other country stop them?  Why don't they just ignore the U.S.?

well...if they bite off more than they can chew...they'll be looking for Uncle Sam to backstop them.

[stone]

dualstow

You know, I've done enough arguing about Israel and Palestine (ie was it bought? was it seized? since the Internet was young on forums related more to this topic than a Permanent Portfolio forum. I hope it doesn't sound like a cop-out when I say I also appreciate there is no going back over the past.
Israel has done plenty of things in recent times with which I disagree. For me, though, there is no chicken and egg question here. It is amazing enough that it was ever granted statehood, and fantasizing that they could have gotten what Singapore got is taking Monday morning quarterbacking to a ridiculously new level.
Britain and other countries screwed up royally with Palestine, and maybe Israel would have been better off in Alaska like in a certain fanciful novel, but no one is trying or has ever tried to exterminate Singaporeans or Swiss. When people carved swastikas into the subway car I was riding in Moscow in the 90s, I thought not of the Singaporeans or Swiss. I'm throwing my hands up here at the chicken-and-egg thing being invoked. I don't know. Maybe outsiders will never get it.

I totally agree that the British Empire provides a text book example of how tragic a folly imperialism can be - not just in the middle east but all over that empire (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 ). I hope it was clear that I was trying to suggest how Israel might best protect itself from the exact peril that you desribe in, "people carved swastikas into the subway car I was riding in Moscow in the 90s". IMO national security is a reason for a nation to have a small footprint in terms of impinging upon other people. I do think Singapore stands as an example of just how little land is necessary for a nation to have a fully functional homeland. The whole "was it bought, was it siezed" argument would never have arisen if Israel had taken that point on board.
I realise that history can not be replayed but it is possible to move on. Look at Scandinavia now. Who would imagine that they have a history based on slave trading and had a religion that made a virtue of merciless violence with rape as part of their funeral service.

Reub

You don't think that the Islamo-Fascists want to take down Switzerland too? Or France? Great Britain? Denmark? Canada? Russia? China? Australia as well? Think again.
Sticking your head in the sand and hoping that they will like us (as long as we do what they say) is not a wise policy.

I totally agree that it is vital to fearlessly stand up for your rights and never just "do what they say". Ghandi exemplified that through fearless non-violence. He overthrew one of the largest and most brutal empires in human history. Showing respect and consideration for other people is an extremely powerful weapon against evil. Hate fans the flames of evil. I agree that if "Islamo-Fascists" or any other hate filled people are granted enough hate from others, then hate could consume the entire world.

A great movie (comedy !?!) about UK jihadist is  Four Lions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Lions

[MachineGhost]

The situation in Northern Ireland has only started mending since the Good Friday Agreement which entailed talking to and sharing power with self proclaimed previous terrorists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
I do think the whole Northern Ireland conflict grew from all sides having dogmatic positions and it only started to be resolved when people realized that what mattered wasn't who was right or wrong but what would allow people to live together peacefully.
The IRA got a lot of financial support from Americans of Irish ancestry. That seems uncomfortably similar to US support for Israel.  It seems to me extremely unfortunate when people express their cultural heritage by supporting violence in a far off country where they don't actually have to live with the consequences.

A good movie that takes place during this conflict is In the Name of the Father, featuring a young Daniel-Day Lewis and the late Pete Postlethwaite.  It is a sad, but true story.

[MachineGhost]

Yes, absolutely. And look what kind of a mess we made! We spent blood and treasure for an unclear gain, and squandered the goodwill of 9/11 as the international community turned against us.

Anything to restore the Bush dynasty's family honor.  But I wonder, did it succeed?

[murphy_p_t]

"Another thing I do not understand about this is Obama's and Romney's willingness to allow Netanyahu to dictate when America goes to war. "

To understand this, I'd suggest considering the following:

-AIPAC influence in the political process
-The number of "Jews" in the US who seem to put the interests of the state of Israel above those of the US.
-The number of "Jews" in high-level government positions within the US, including dual nationals
-The protestant followers of pre- & post- millenarianism who think the state of Israel can do no wrong.

Just curious: Why is "Jews" in quotation marks? Are they impostors merely posing as Jews?

I put the term in quotes because I don't understand who the people who refer to themselves with this term are. Looking at the Bible, I thought these were the people that are direct biological descendents of Abraham, belong to one of the 12 tribes of ancient Israel. Based on history, these would be people of middle eastern extraction. Looking at the people who claim to be Jewish today, my understanding is that two of the major groups are Ashkenazi & Sephardic, Ashkenazi being dominant. These folks I have encountered (Ashkenazi?) do not appear to have middle eastern features, such as olive skin color. Rather, they appear with white skin, like those of some (eastern?) European ancestry. In fact, I seem to recall the Ashkenazi refers to being from Germany & Sephardic refers to being from Spain. Other people referring to themselves as Jews are clearly of African ancestry which further complicates this question for me.

I don't see how either of these groups (Ashkenazi or African) of self-identified "Jews" have primary ancestry from one of the 12 tribes of ancient Israel.

I have seen references to a region called Khazaria, where there were allegedly mass conversions to Judaism in the 8th or 9th century, for political reasons. If to be a Jew means to be a biological descendent of Abraham, how does converting factor in where there is no biological ancestry? Are most the people today who refer to themselves as "Jews" descendents of the Khazar converts? Does this explain why the people on Seinfeld don't appear to have middle eastern ancestry?

I will be grateful if someone can explain these issues or point me to a source where I can resolve these questions.

[MachineGhost]

I suspect the religion and the cultural has been conflated in "Jew".  It would be similar to a WASP turning Muslim and joining the Nation of Islam (Black Power ala Malcolm X).  Heck, there was even a white American man who was a member of Al Quaida if memory serves correctly.

While I'm on a roll here, another good movie is, of course, Malcolm X with a mature Denzel Washington (he got his fame relatively late in life).  You don't need to be black to appreciate the power of X's message.

[stone]

While I'm on a roll here, another good movie is, of course, Malcom X with a mature Denzel Washington (he got his fame relative late in life).  You don't need to be black to appreciate the power of X's message.

I've not seen the movie but I've read the autobiography. It made a very big impression on me -as much as anything in the way he changed his mind throughout his life. I really got a sense of someone struggling so hard to come to grips with the human condition.

Murphy, do you think ancestry is relevant as to whether it is wise for US Jews (or "Jews" or whatever) to  lobby for US military support for Israel? I'm not sure that it matters either way.  We are all African if you trace our ancestries back far enough.

[dualstow]

...
Are most the people today who refer to themselves as "Jews" descendents of the Khazar converts? Does this explain why the people on Seinfeld don't appear to have middle eastern ancestry?

I will be grateful if someone can explain these issues or point me to a source where I can resolve these questions.

Disclaimer: this might all be wrong and I could be completely full of it.
I think the short answer is mixing with non-Semitic people. I have always heard the same as you: that Ashkenazi have more to do with Eastern Europe while Sephardic Jews have a connection to Spain and Greece. I'm not going to bother to check sources when I assert that they began in the middle east, but I think there was a whole lot'a mixing going on. So, the girl who played Meadow on the Sopranos is Sephardi. Is her olive skin from Greek ancestry? Hebrew? I don't know. But Jason Alexander (George on Seinfeld) looks Ashkenazi to me. I'm of Hungarian-Jewish ancestry and it is known that there are non-Jewish Magyars in the mix, but it's too complicated to explain all that if someone asks, "Are you Italian? Jewish?"

Also, I guess if you have the DNA but not the religion like my family does, it would be more technically correct to call ourselves Hebrews, but no one does. We call ourselves Jews, and I suppose the rest of the world does, too, and I don't mind terribly being lumped in with Sammy Davis Jr.

I have heard the Khazar story before but never followed up on it.

[Pointedstick]

Would violence have worked any better? It seems to me that the Tibetans' problem is not that they have abstained from violence, but that their current or potential power is insignificant compared to that of their oppressor. I have difficulty seeing how the Dalai Lama could militarily threaten China outside of something as drastic as acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening to blow up major Chinese cities.

[stone]

I wasn't aware that Tibet has followed a Ghandi style course of totally engaged, non-violent, civil disobedience. That is quite different from compliance with the occasional riot.

[MachineGhost]

Would violence have worked any better? It seems to me that the Tibetans' problem is not that they have abstained from violence, but that their current or potential power is insignificant compared to that of their oppressor. I have difficulty seeing how the Dalai Lama could militarily threaten China outside of something as drastic as acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening to blow up major Chinese cities.

It seems to me the problem is the Dalai Lama hasn't read and implemented From Dictatorship to Democracy.  Its all hobby politics what with being in exile in India.  If he walked the talk, he'd be in Tibet.

What is China's legitimate claim on Tibet anyway?  What was the pretext for the invasion?

[MachineGhost]

http://www.therazor.org/?p=1310

Very astute observations.  Being a pacifist is fuckin' naive in the face of an overwhelming enemy violently determined to wipe you out.

[stone]

This is what defeated the British Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharasana_Satyagraha

Naidu was aware that violence against the satyagrahis was a threat, and warned them, "You must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten, but you must not resist: you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows." On May 21, the satyagrahis tried to pull away the barbed wire protecting the salt pens. The police charged and began clubbing them.[6]

American journalist Webb Miller was an eye-witness to the beating of satyagrahis with steel tipped lathis. His report attracted international attention:

    Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like ten-pins. From where I stood I heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls. The waiting crowd of watchers groaned and sucked in their breaths in sympathetic pain at every blow.
    Those struck down fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing in pain with fractured skulls or broken shoulders. In two or three minutes the ground was quilted with bodies. Great patches of blood widened on their white clothes. The survivors without breaking ranks silently and doggedly marched on until struck down. When every one of the first column was knocked down stretcher bearers rushed up unmolested by the police and carried off the injured to a thatched hut which had been arranged as a temporary hospital.
    There were not enough stretcher-bearers to carry off the wounded; I saw eighteen injured being carried off simultaneously, while forty-two still lay bleeding on the ground awaiting stretcher-bearers. The blankets used as stretchers were sodden with blood.
    At times the spectacle of unresisting men being methodically bashed into a bloody pulp sickened me so much I had to turn away....I felt an indefinable sense of helpless rage and loathing, almost as much against the men who were submitting unresistingly to being beaten as against the police wielding the clubs...
    Bodies toppled over in threes and fours, bleeding from great gashes on their scalps. Group after group walked forward, sat down, and submitted to being beaten into insensibility without raising an arm to fend off the blows. Finally the police became enraged by the non-resistance....They commenced savagely kicking the seated men in the abdomen and testicles. The injured men writhed and squealed in agony, which seemed to inflame the fury of the police....The police then began dragging the sitting men by the arms or feet, sometimes for a hundred yards, and throwing them into ditches.[7][8]

Miller's first attempts at telegraphing the story to his publisher in England were censored by the British telegraph operators in India. Only after threatening to expose British censorship was his story allowed to pass. The story appeared in 1,350 newspapers throughout the world and was read into the official record of the United States Senate by Senator John J. Blaine

Ghandi said that such tactics could also have defeated the Nazis.

[stone]

Sit down protests on the roads and railways leading into Tibet would be a start. I don't know the place but I'm sure there are plenty of options. If your base line for suffering is comparing it to a war then you can be very very dramatic. Lets imagine a war entails 1M people being killed. If 10 000 people voluntarily and fearlessly die in non-violent protest, then that makes a very very big impression and you still have 990 000 fewer people dying.

[doodle]

Jesus took a similar outlook towards violence...

Today Christians kill in his name....

[Xan]

Today Christians kill in his name....

Who?

[doodle]

You're right Xan, I forgot. Only radical Muslims kill people.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”?
Mahatma Gandhi

[MediumTex]

This is what defeated the British Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharasana_Satyagraha

Naidu was aware that violence against the satyagrahis was a threat, and warned them, "You must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten, but you must not resist: you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows." On May 21, the satyagrahis tried to pull away the barbed wire protecting the salt pens. The police charged and began clubbing them.[6]

American journalist Webb Miller was an eye-witness to the beating of satyagrahis with steel tipped lathis. His report attracted international attention:

    Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like ten-pins. From where I stood I heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls. The waiting crowd of watchers groaned and sucked in their breaths in sympathetic pain at every blow.
    Those struck down fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing in pain with fractured skulls or broken shoulders. In two or three minutes the ground was quilted with bodies. Great patches of blood widened on their white clothes. The survivors without breaking ranks silently and doggedly marched on until struck down. When every one of the first column was knocked down stretcher bearers rushed up unmolested by the police and carried off the injured to a thatched hut which had been arranged as a temporary hospital.
    There were not enough stretcher-bearers to carry off the wounded; I saw eighteen injured being carried off simultaneously, while forty-two still lay bleeding on the ground awaiting stretcher-bearers. The blankets used as stretchers were sodden with blood.
    At times the spectacle of unresisting men being methodically bashed into a bloody pulp sickened me so much I had to turn away....I felt an indefinable sense of helpless rage and loathing, almost as much against the men who were submitting unresistingly to being beaten as against the police wielding the clubs...
    Bodies toppled over in threes and fours, bleeding from great gashes on their scalps. Group after group walked forward, sat down, and submitted to being beaten into insensibility without raising an arm to fend off the blows. Finally the police became enraged by the non-resistance....They commenced savagely kicking the seated men in the abdomen and testicles. The injured men writhed and squealed in agony, which seemed to inflame the fury of the police....The police then began dragging the sitting men by the arms or feet, sometimes for a hundred yards, and throwing them into ditches.[7][8]

Miller's first attempts at telegraphing the story to his publisher in England were censored by the British telegraph operators in India. Only after threatening to expose British censorship was his story allowed to pass. The story appeared in 1,350 newspapers throughout the world and was read into the official record of the United States Senate by Senator John J. Blaine

Ghandi said that such tactics could also have defeated the Nazis.

I think that in order for nonviolent protest to be effective there must be a certain baseline of civilization and decency present in the oppressor. 

I think that this part of the equation is frequently overlooked.

A good question for a nonviolent protester to ask himself is when was the last time that his oppressor engaged in a wholesale slaughter of his opponents and/or enemies.

In the case of Nazi Germany, I don't know if nonviolent protest would have been all that effective. 

Genghis Khan would have laughed at nonviolent protesters.

[Ad Orientem]

This is what defeated the British Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharasana_Satyagraha

Naidu was aware that violence against the satyagrahis was a threat, and warned them, "You must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten, but you must not resist: you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows." On May 21, the satyagrahis tried to pull away the barbed wire protecting the salt pens. The police charged and began clubbing them.[6]

American journalist Webb Miller was an eye-witness to the beating of satyagrahis with steel tipped lathis. His report attracted international attention:

   Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like ten-pins. From where I stood I heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls. The waiting crowd of watchers groaned and sucked in their breaths in sympathetic pain at every blow.
   Those struck down fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing in pain with fractured skulls or broken shoulders. In two or three minutes the ground was quilted with bodies. Great patches of blood widened on their white clothes. The survivors without breaking ranks silently and doggedly marched on until struck down. When every one of the first column was knocked down stretcher bearers rushed up unmolested by the police and carried off the injured to a thatched hut which had been arranged as a temporary hospital.
   There were not enough stretcher-bearers to carry off the wounded; I saw eighteen injured being carried off simultaneously, while forty-two still lay bleeding on the ground awaiting stretcher-bearers. The blankets used as stretchers were sodden with blood.
   At times the spectacle of unresisting men being methodically bashed into a bloody pulp sickened me so much I had to turn away....I felt an indefinable sense of helpless rage and loathing, almost as much against the men who were submitting unresistingly to being beaten as against the police wielding the clubs...
   Bodies toppled over in threes and fours, bleeding from great gashes on their scalps. Group after group walked forward, sat down, and submitted to being beaten into insensibility without raising an arm to fend off the blows. Finally the police became enraged by the non-resistance....They commenced savagely kicking the seated men in the abdomen and testicles. The injured men writhed and squealed in agony, which seemed to inflame the fury of the police....The police then began dragging the sitting men by the arms or feet, sometimes for a hundred yards, and throwing them into ditches.[7][8]

Miller's first attempts at telegraphing the story to his publisher in England were censored by the British telegraph operators in India. Only after threatening to expose British censorship was his story allowed to pass. The story appeared in 1,350 newspapers throughout the world and was read into the official record of the United States Senate by Senator John J. Blaine

Ghandi said that such tactics could also have defeated the Nazis.

He was wrong. Those tactics worked in no small part because he was dealing with a more or less democratic state governed by the rule of law and that had freedom of the press. Not so Nazi Germany and other totalitarian states like Stalinist Russia or modern day North Korea. In Nazi Germany Ghandi would have simply disappeared the minute he opened his mouth in opposition to the regime. There would have been no press reports or international outrage. Most likely the number of people who even knew of his disappearance could be counted on the fingers of both hands. And if they didn't want to disappear too they would have kept their mouths shut.

Terror is a very effective means of maintaining order and power.

[Ad Orientem]

Genghis Khan would have laughed at nonviolent protesters.

...as he was slaughtering them.

[Xan]

You're right Xan, I forgot. Only radical Muslims kill people.

I didn't say that Christians don't kill people.  I'm asking who is killing in the name of Jesus Christ.  The only thing I can think of is something like abortion clinic bombers, but that's only a handful of people tops.

[stone]

AdOrientum

In Nazi Germany Ghandi would have simply disappeared the minute he opened his mouth in opposition to the regime. There would have been no press reports or international outrage. Most likely the number of people who even knew of his disappearance could be counted on the fingers of both hands. And if they didn't want to disappear too they would have kept their mouths shut.

Terror is a very effective means of maintaining order and power.

I understand your point about word not spreading because they would have been whisked away before anyone heard but I think you are wrong about Nazis having no chink of humanity.

I don't believe that ordinary people in the UK at the time of Ghandi were any better or worse as individual people than were ordinary people in Germany in the Nazi period. I'm sure I read of a holocaust survivors testimony that most Nazis seemed to be careerists with no belief in what they were doing. Ordinary Germans were able to turn a blind eye. Non-violent spectacular protests of the type Ghandi advocated would have rubbed the noses of ordinary Germans in what they were allowing to happen.

I'm not even sure that a handful of such protests wouldn't have led to a word of mouth spreading of the information such that everyone would know regardless of the censors.

Nowadays with the internet I do agree we are in a stronger position in that regard and that makes warfare all the more inappropriate now.

[dualstow]

Ghandi said that such tactics could also have defeated the Nazis.

He was wrong. Those tactics worked in no small part because he was dealing with a more or less democratic state governed by the rule of law and that had freedom of the press. Not so Nazi Germany and other totalitarian states like Stalinist Russia or modern day North Korea. In Nazi Germany Ghandi would have simply disappeared the minute he opened his mouth in opposition to the regime. There would have been no press reports or international outrage. Most likely the number of people who even knew of his disappearance could be counted on the fingers of both hands. And if they didn't want to disappear too they would have kept their mouths shut.

Terror is a very effective means of maintaining order and power.

Exactly.

By the way, Tibetans do blow things up once in a while, although it normally doesn't make the news. In return, Chinese soldiers have used cattle prods on Tibetan nuns in the worst place you can imagine.
The documentary 'Cry of the Snow Lion' was very enlightening for me. I highly recommend it.

[stone]

So then, can we agree that pacifism will not work when faced with a brutal foe who does not care what people think?

I'm still not on board if you are saying that Ghandi style non-violence is ineffectual.

If "Ghandi" would not have been able to muster non-violent protest in Nazi Germany due to censorship, how would his violent equivalent have been supposed to organize an army?