Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Why would you think that about me
No

[Vilanat]

So which unnecessary american blood has been sunk on the "artificial jewish state"?

[Wolfhunter107]

He never said that it was American.

[Vilanat]

But honestly, people on both sides do think we go too far with the artificial Jewish state. At this point it might only be a good idea thanks to sunk costs, in money and blood. So much unnecessary blood.

No? he wasn't referring to the previous statement of the two sides of the american political spectrum who think the US "gone too far with artificial Jewish state"?. Considering the money and blood being sunk on it? you're seriously trying to tell me these two sentences are unrelated?

[Rolan7]

Yeah sorry, guess I was vague, I mainly meant the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the initial 6-day-war.

Though bigger picture, yeah, the region probably would need less American involvement if we hadn't artificially established an unpopular state there.

[Vilanat]

I don't think so. i think you are backtracking now.

And let's continue with the other statement. So you think American involvement, in say, Iraq, is because "you" established the state of Israel?

[Rolan7]

I think the establishment of Israel destabilized the region, which I guess is one of multiple causes?

I didn't even accidentally imply it was the only one, nor did I say anything close to this:

Unnecessary blood? so i take it you think all of american casualties in every war since WW2 is Israel's fault?

So I'm sorry for being vague, but I'm not interested in the chip on your shoulder.

[Vilanat]

Ok, that is an argument i can accept. i don't think it's Israel's fault, nor do i think this region would have been stable without Israel in it, but i can accept that argument.

But which region and to which extent. Did the establishment of Israel cause the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? did it cause the Iran-Iraq war? did it cause the Iranian revolution? Did it cause the Syrian insurgency?

[hector13]

What is the point you're trying to make, Vilanat?

[Vilanat]

My point? That the US didn't need Israel to meddle in the Middle East and would have done so even without Israel's existence, and that the Middle East didn't need Israel to be unstable and it would have been a shit hole even if Israel never existed.

[Rolan7]

I agree with the first half, at least.

[Sheb]

Well, second part too. You could try to argue that without Israel to serve as a scapegoat the Middle Eastern governments would have to be more responsive to their population and more democratic, but that's really stretching it.

[Lord Shonus]

The chaos in the Middle East today is a direct result of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, followed by the abrupt end of colonialism. The vast wealth potential of oil doesn't help, but the issue is fundamentally no different from the situation in Europe after the collapse of Rome.

[Vilanat]

Ok, so which of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East
Israel existence is to blame for?

Even if you only count casualties after 1946, Israel-Arab wars amount to less than ~2.7% of the total casualties. heck, even if you take all the wars Arabs fought among themselves that involved palestinians as a major factor and pin them on Israel, which is like blaming a rape victim for her rape because she is pretty, it amounts to less than 8%.

But why should we take pre-1946 figures out of the equation? they actually prove my point that the Mid East would have been a shit hole even without Israel's existence in it. no, we should keep them. and in that case, Israel-Arab wars amounts to ~1% of the total casualties, despite taking 99% of the Media, UN and SJWs attention.

So i am very glad you agreed with me on the first half, but you are still totally wrong on the second.

Well, second part too. You could try to argue that without Israel to serve as a scapegoat the Middle Eastern governments would have to be more responsive to their population and more democratic, but that's really stretching it.

Not only it's stretching it, i think that on the contrary, Israel existence provided a convenient scapegoat that managed to somehow keep the illusion of the "Arab unity" intact and the Arab population subdued.  I don't think the Arab states would have been more responsive to their population, on the contrary, i think that just like in Syria, they would have been using even more oppressive measures to subdue their populations.

[Helgoland]

Or they might have resorted to stoking sectarian tensions to keep their powerbase, yeah. There's no way to tell, but it certainly isn't Israel's existence that made Arab rulers behave as shitty as can be.

For the other side of the argument one could point out that a lot of instability has come from the Palestinian refugees (as well as Palestinian 'refugees', and 'Palestinian' 'refugees') who have lived in camps around Israel for decades now. Then again those responsible for the continued existence of these camps certainly aren't the Israelis...



Anyway, this probably should go in its own thread. On a different note:

Orthodox Christmas isn't for another couple weeks, so I will take up the call, and maintain the siege on the Politics Thread until I am reinforced by my schismatic allies on the 26th. It will eventually be liberated from the hands of the foreigner German King!

I like to think of myself as more of a primus inter pares. Now get back to shitposting, peasant.