YES!! That’s why amerikkka was founded as a slave holding constitutional republic. You knew that didn’t you ?
The Iranians are no more deranged than the neocons. The difference is, one has more guns, and better PR.
Well, America claims to be a Christian nation at the time of its founding. Has America been a theocracy? I won’t argue if you say yes. It’s been a Christian and secular theocracy (yes, I know the contradiction).
My point is, wouldn’t any dictatorship have less legitimacy than a republic? Or is a republic just a dictatorship dressed up as constitutional democracy?
It sounds like an argument over second bests. Obviously, any monopoly coercive state is undesirable (unless you are a minarchist, in which monopoly is ok as an exception). Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, Secular, Jewish etc. It’s all the same.
Don’t underestimate the Islamic states. They play PR games of their own. This is one of the ways Hamas fights Israel.
I didn’t. They are no better than America or Israel.
Fair enough, but I recommend you read Birth of Israel by Martin Gilbert, for an opposing viewpoint on the matter. It’s just disingenuous when people scapegoat Israel as the aggressor in many instances.
Israel’s bodycount and expansion policies qualifies it as an aggressor.
I once got in a debate with a progressive liberal who ate up all the propaganda about islamo-fascism. He started telling me stats about how many israelis female police officers or something that palestinians had killed. However, looking at all of the stats provided, apparently it took about 10 Palestinians to kill one Israeli, making them the world’s least effective “terists”. He got quite upset when I explained this to him. People believe facts, only until they don’t support their position any longer.
I don’t doubt there is lots of bad blood between Muslims and Jews. Hell, Christians didn’t treat Jews very well until the last 70 years either. But as a libertarian, and an austrian, I’m not going to assume that all Iranians are the same as all other Muslims, or represented accurately by their government, nor that all Jews sympathize with Zionist policy, or that the Israeli government represents all Israeli citizens.
If you read the collectivist propaganda, you will come to collectivist conclusions. Which means you will be in sync with 98% of the world, but not the sincere libertarians.
That’s why I am somewhat surprised to see libertarians citing people like Hitchens or Horowitz as sources. These are pro-state, anti-liberty fascists. They have very little to offer someone with a libertarian conception of justice, morality or human action.
I don’t deny that Israeli troops have killed thousands. Israeli troops break down doors, bulldoze homes, orchards, destroy bridges, and rip up roads. Israeli troops shell and bomb. Israeli troops have incarcerated thousands of Palestinians without trials, and even tortured people; however, it’s more or less blow back.
Here’s just a few samplers illustrating that Israel’s enemies have always valued their ire more than their people:
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php
http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/six-day_war.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/israelafter1967.htm
Hamas’ intent to kill civilians is not achieved by firing rockets into Israel. It is achieved by encouraging Israel to respond to those attacks by striking into Gaza. most recently they’ve use schools as a fire base, and fire off their mortars from there.
Hamas’ objective is to kill Palestinian civilians, not Israeli civilians. The death of Israelis wins Hamas nothing. The death of Palestinians wins Hamas a wave of indignant converts/useful idiots to their cause. “Death to Israel!”
More here:
http://middleeast.about.com/od/palestinepalestinians/a/me090423c.htm
I’m afraid the liberal-progressive didn’t take the time to research the subject, and merely used stats for the purpose of winning an argument. If you really want a challenge then the members at JREF are well-versed in debating this subject.
Such as? I’m pretty wise to the game BT Selem and the U.N. are playing now.
It depends why people are citing them. Not all arguments are ideological, and neither am I engaging in one right now. I just don’t want to sacrifice objective facts and analysis for the sake of ideology.
Its been long while since I’ve studied the middle east (the call of AE was to become top priority), but I hope that doesn’t turn you off to research the history.
I skimmed most of your post. I have no interest in debating Israel and Islam on this forum. It’s a rubbish topic that brings out the worst in people.
No, it really doesn’t.
Neocons like Hitchens and Horowitz almost always engage in ideological arguments. They are very well paid by special interests to be attack dogs for the establishment special interests, and to provide intellectual cover for those same agendas.
You’re not going to get objective facts from these guys. 99% of what is piped through TV, print and radio is absolute bullshit, massaged and tweaked to stimulate or depress various emotional and mental responses from the viewers/listeners/readers. I market for a living. Everyone has levers. Sex, fear, envy, even optimism. We’re all very easy to manipulate, and have trouble formulating unique opinions, because society is constructed (deliberately) in a manner that ostracizes uniqueness.
I don’t care about history or foreign policy anymore. It held my interest for awhile, but as I became more radical about libertarianism and peace, I realized how distorted it is. The only value of such history, is to understand how truly violent and repressive all states and collectives are.
I’m working towards a market based society. My future is in front of me. The history of state violence, genocide and religious hatred have nothing to contribute towards my goal.
I understand and agree. In the grand scheme of things they’re red herring topics. The reason they’re even topics at all is because they’re state-oriented.
Note: I never paid attention to David Horrowitz, and I don’t listen to Hitchens much anymore. His arguments in relation to ethics and economics are weak, and he’s gone off to write about red herring garbage (Clinton visits North Korea). Nevertheless, I would pay to see Hitchens debate on this forum.
There’re other regional powers that are not happy with the shift of balance of power in favor of Iran (Saudis and Egypt in particular).
But they are all illegitimate, so it doesn’t matter if they cluck their tongues or suck their teeth. Saudia and Egypt in particular are on the American foreign welfare system directly or indirectly.
Once Iran gets nuclear capability (if that is what they are striving for) then they will get on the dole too, and eat into the payola that is available to these other states.
Legitimacy (what’s that, anyway?) has nothing to do with governmental disputes and struggle for dominance in this region.
You really don’t understand whether or not states are legitimate agents of their constituents?
Government is an abstraction. A governmental dispute, is just a dispute between individuals. To claim that all Egyptians oppose Iranians having access to nuclear weapons isn’t true. It probably isn’t even true that all Egyptians in government oppose this. Only some do.
That is a libertarian analysis of government and in this case, foreign policy.
I thought it was clear I was talking about people in power and various interests that support them. That doesn’t mean that common folks support all their decisions or even care about them.