Oh? Was the take-over peaceful? I laugh on your lapel!
This is cliche and I don't really like saying it because it's obnoxious, but you really should read a history book. The land was taken by the British all the back in 1917 and given to the Jews in a legal transaction....the only reason it wasn't peaceful were the rabid anti-semites that declared war as soon as Israel decided it was ready to be a nation.
Firstly, Hawaii was taken over by military force.
A display of military force, no actual combat.
And actually one of your presidents was ashamed, but the next one happily supported the take-over.
Okay...? I was of course not talking about the presidents at the time.
What does it mater if you apologize later? You destroyed their ability to function, killed their leaders,
The monarch was placed under house arrest and surrendered.
Literally nobody was killed. Seriously dude, again with the history.
and even so you did not return the country. The apology was hollow and meaningless. Merely words.
Hawaii is fully modernized and integrated into the United States, I fail to see what good returning it to a completely nonexistent government and nearly dead culture would do. How would returning it be at all feasible? Or even supported by Hawaiians themselves? This is quite a stretch.
It seemed quite hostile to me, no matter how I look at it.
Oddly enough, most wars do seem to be hostile that way.
Then I shall, 'what about the colonization of Texas and the western states then?!'
Golly gee, you'll just have to read on!
I would, if they had needlessly started wars in Vietnam,
You're going to have to eat your own words here, the Vietnamese war was started by the French and British and only later became a playing ground for the U.S. and Soviet Union
Afganistan, Iraq, etc. But they didn't, that was USA!
We were joined by Britain in the original invasion of Iraq, actually.

But that's not really fair, administrative bungling (they have WMD's! Wait, shit, no they don't, but while we're here we might as well chase after some terrorists) can't be given as evidence that America is an evil power.

While we were there we DID depose a vicious tyrant and help oversee the creation of an Iraqi democracy (unfortunately now not as democratic), and the only reason we've stayed there are wild insurgency campaigns and the long-term goal of bringing stability.

That we've done all this isn't evidence that we're horrible, that we've done all this poorly is evidence that we are making bad decisions.

Afghanistan is a very similar situation, swap dictator with Taliban and WMD's with Al-Qaeda.
USA is ashamed for humanitarian reasons? That doesn't sound like them... These are the same guys who have a massive wall on their border next to Mexico, and will willingly export terrorists to Guantсnamo to avoid having to abide by international law right?
I know, it's shocking!
Nice to know the US has supported Israel, even when they were just terrorists trying their best to kill everyone in sight!
Except the Arab nations were the ones who invaded and tried to kill them....I am referring, of course, to the independence war, in case there's any sort of honest confusion going on here.
There really should be some kind of warning system in discussion for people who make factually incorrect claims without any research.
"Allies" who are you referring to? As far as I know, Palestine is only hostile with Israel currently.
Huh? I'm talking about the United State's allies. As in, Palestine sponsors/endorses attacks on Israel, our allies. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Good luck none the less!
Just trying to provide some context, not sure if that's a reliable source.

The jews were kicked out of Germany (Not saying that it was a good thing),
Kicked out?
By kicked out did you mean interned, starved, tortured, and eventually killed? Did you mean forced to bury the burned bodies of their comrades, with the knowledge that in 3 months that would be them?
Or perhaps by kicked out you meant beaten to a bloody pulp and left to bleed to death after a pogrom, with their family members hiding in a cellar below while the windows are smashed and the building burns down on top of them?
"Kicked out" is such an understatement that it's offensive. They were rounded up and slaughtered thousand by thousand. Those looking to escape were kept IN, not thrown out.
Yes, for a short while they were encouraged to leave, mostly via unfair laws and policies. This was largely useless, because most Jews emigrated to places that were later conquered by Germany, or did not take the opportunity to leave, believing things would get better.
but they had the chance to take argentina, when many of them fled there. Of course they didn't, and they decided to try to take over Palestine. To be honest, it's some bullsh*t. Why has everyone wanted to take that land? There's been non-stop conflict there since the crusaders thousands of years ago.
Yeah. For a single year the Jewish people had the chance to immigrate to Argentina, which allowed in 79,000 Jews. Man, that is a lot! Thank god for Argentina.
Except for one little problem. Past 1938, Argentina let in only 30,000 Jews.
Which is kind of funny, ha ha, because there were millions of Jews looking to escape and only 30,000 getting legally into Argentina.
The reason the Jews emigrated to Palestine (and this is important, so read carefully) is that through the 1930's when Jews were still being allowed to escape is
A. Because Palestine is considered the ancestral homeland of the Jews
B. Germany ENCOURAGED Jews to emigrate to Palestine through programs allowing them to. Over 60,000 left the country this way.
Also, hippybob is right. Palestinians have been treated like animals under the Israeli Jews.
What are you talking about? You have access to the dome of the rock, your own neighborhoods, you have the same rights as any Jewish citizen (except for a Jewish marriage, which I really really doubt you would want anyways), arabic is an official language, Arab citizens make up 20% of the population, etc. etc.
Checkpoints wherever you go, disagree with the government, and get shot. It's pretty stupid. It's at the point where palestinians are throwing rocks at the guards of Israeli Checkpoints, because we just want freedom.
Except that's just not true. Israel is a through and through democracy based on a multi-party parliamentary system.
Boredpayne, saying that the jews are demonstrating a hostile invasion and take-over of a country is not a gross misunderstanding. Look into the eyes of the Palestinians. The jews barged in, and called it their land.
I'm afraid that's not the case. Let's take a journey back through the 20th century, all the way to Ottoman Empire. During WWII, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany, and so was driven out of the region by the British and French (this would be the part where the Arab dictatorship was driven out and the land officially became the property of Britain, I think you'll agree). The British controlled the area, representing the League of Nations. Jewish emigration there continued with the growth of the Zionist movement. Arabs began protesting and rioting the Jewish presence in 1920 with violent riots (this would be the part where the Palestinians first started the conflict with the Jewish people, I think you'll agree). In 1936 the Arabs revolted against the British mandate and against Jewish prosperity. This rebellion included indiscriminate attacks of Jewish and secular neighborhoods. A splinter group of the Jewish defense organization pretty much pioneered indiscriminate terrorism here, unfortunately, retaliating for Palestinian attacks. During this period a British committee recommended partitioning the land, a partition which would still only give Jews a tiny portion of Palestine. This was given up since the Palestinians did not like any measure that let Jews exist peacefully under their own control. The revolt was quenched.

This is where conflict turns away from Jewish-Palestinian and on to Jewish-English. The British, in the balfour declaration, had pretty much guaranteed the Jews Palestine. Despite aid during the war from Jewish military volunteers, Britain reneged on this promise during the revolt with the White Paper, which decreed that the Jews have no state. At this point the Jews began to fight British policy (and so did the rest of the world, really), because immigrants arriving on ships were turned away and sometimes even sent back to Germany.

Finally, finally, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine and give Jews, an eensy, teeny tiny state.
BUT FUCK THAT, says the Arab world, and immediately declares open war (and is roundly defeated by tanks made of aluminum, but that's just a little icing on the cake).
That really is how it happened. Nobody can claim the Jews barged in. They left for a homeland designated by the British, and stayed there despite sectarian conflict, later British repression, and flat-out war.

Originally Posted by saahsaap

I would not say that belonging to the same race or religion, however you may classify the jews, gives one a right to claim a territory that has belonged to people of the same race or religion 2000 years ago. The right has been granted by the UN. They determined certain regions to be Israeli.
Even if it that justifed, Israel has clearly gained an invader status by proceeding to colonize already colonized regions and claiming them as their own and calling those who defend their homes terrorists.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Oh? Was the take-over peaceful? I laugh on your lapel!
This is cliche and I don't really like saying it because it's obnoxious, but you really should read a history book. The land was taken by the British all the back in 1917 and given to the Jews in a legal transaction....the only reason it wasn't peaceful were the rabid anti-semites that declared war as soon as Israel decided it was ready to be a nation.Legal = peaceful. I guess you would say that, seeing as Hawaii was 'legal' right?
Firstly, Hawaii was taken over by military force.
A display of military force, no actual combat.Military force is military force. Also I did say military force, not combat... However I like the "I agree but I pretend you said something other than you actually said just so I have something to disagree with"...
And actually one of your presidents was ashamed, but the next one happily supported the take-over.
Okay...? I was of course not talking about the presidents at the time.Oh ok then, however if they are fluffy then they are not pancakes, they are hotcakes.
What does it mater if you apologize later? You destroyed their ability to function, killed their leaders,
The monarch was placed under house arrest and surrendered.Surrendered to the US invasion force, and was later executed...
Literally nobody was killed. Seriously dude, again with the history. Hawaiians who revolted in an attempt to free their queen etc were killed. However the queen told htem not to fight, and the rest, as they say, is history.
and even so you did not return the country. The apology was hollow and meaningless. Merely words.
Hawaii is fully modernized and integrated into the United States, I fail to see what good returning it to a completely nonexistent government and nearly dead culture would do. How would returning it be at all feasible? Or even supported by Hawaiians themselves? This is quite a stretch. Perhaps the US should have returned it like, right after they stole it.
It seemed quite hostile to me, no matter how I look at it.
Oddly enough, most wars do seem to be hostile that way. Then why say it isn't...
Then I shall, 'what about the colonization of Texas and the western states then?!'
Golly gee, you'll just have to read on!
I would, if they had needlessly started wars in Vietnam,
You're going to have to eat your own words here, the Vietnamese war was started by the French and British and only later became a playing ground for the U.S. and Soviet Union Not really eating my own words, they went in where they did not belong, which was the point...
Afganistan, Iraq, etc. But they didn't, that was USA!
We were joined by Britain in the original invasion of Iraq, actually. So? "The British did it too!!11"? Poor logic is poor...

But that's not really fair, administrative bungling (they have WMD's! Wait, shit, no they don't, but while we're here we might as well chase after some terrorists) can't be given as evidence that America is an evil power. Only if you believe that they actually invaded looking for WMDs!

While we were there we DID depose a vicious tyrant and help oversee the creation of an Iraqi democracy (unfortunately now not as democratic), and the only reason we've stayed there are wild insurgency campaigns and the long-term goal of bringing stability. Yes, thanks to the USA one of the most beautiful regions of the world has become a desolate wasteland, and some of the oldest cities are in ruins, a culture was destroyed, and a drug super-highway was re-established! Stop preaching "democracy is the greatest system in the world" to every other country, or at least don't use bullets and bombs as your medium... How about letting others have a different point of view geez.

That we've done all this isn't evidence that we're horrible, that we've done all this poorly is evidence that we are making bad decisions.

Afghanistan is a very similar situation, swap dictator with Taliban and WMD's with Al-Qaeda. The Taliban were a religious group, the war was because the US did not not understand their culture. Funny to notice that before the Taliban came Afghanistan was the world leader in heroin production. And once US 'liberated' the country, it is once again.
USA is ashamed for humanitarian reasons? That doesn't sound like them... These are the same guys who have a massive wall on their border next to Mexico, and will willingly export terrorists to Guantсnamo to avoid having to abide by international law right?
I know, it's shocking!lol
Nice to know the US has supported Israel, even when they were just terrorists trying their best to kill everyone in sight!
Except the Arab nations were the ones who invaded and tried to kill them....I am referring, of course, to the independence war, in case there's any sort of honest confusion going on here.Thanks, but I could see that. My statement still stands. I wonder how Israel managed to increase to 100x it's size without invading anyone?
There really should be some kind of warning system in discussion for people who make factually incorrect claims without any research.There is, but the mods are too lazy to research themselves so they don't know if things are true or not themselves. I told them to promote a discussion regular like Hyde but they wanted Vox instead (god knows why). Hopefully things will change, so just stick with it :S
"Allies" who are you referring to? As far as I know, Palestine is only hostile with Israel currently.
Huh? I'm talking about the United State's allies. As in, Palestine sponsors/endorses attacks on Israel, our allies. Sorry if that wasn't clear.I think grammatically it should be "That they regularly attacked or sponsor/endorse attacks on our ally is more than enough reason to keep them out of the U.N." then...
Good luck none the less!
Just trying to provide some context, not sure if that's a reliable source.Have heard it before in any case, so I have no reason to think it is false. Thanks for the admission though :S

Legal = peaceful. I guess you would say that, seeing as Hawaii was 'legal' right?
No, but you're ignoring that it was in no way a hostile takeover, and happened over 30 years after the actual "hostile takeover" itself.
If we sold Hawaii to somebody, would you blame the people who bought it in a legal transaction? Especially if Hawaii was only conquered after seeking world domination? Please don't pretend that you would.
Military force is military force. Also I did say military force, not combat... However I like the "I agree but I pretend you said something other than you actually said just so I have something to disagree with"...
Military force implies the actual use of force, of course.
Oh ok then, however if they are fluffy then they are not pancakes, they are hotcakes.
>Holding us accountable for our predecessors by hundreds of years and using meaningless sarcasm.
By the way, you have the order mixed up on the presidents.
Surrendered to the US invasion force, and was later executed...
She was imprisoned in her house for aiding the rebellion, but was never killed, and later released, whereupon she became involved in charity work.
Again, again, again with the history.
Hawaiians who revolted in an attempt to free their queen etc were killed. However the queen told htem not to fight, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Lol. Not only did this revolt happen a full two years after the take-over we were actually discussing, less than 10 people were killed in it. The queen made no effort to stop it, and it petered out because of desertion.
and even so you did not return the country. The apology was hollow and meaningless. Perhaps the US should have returned it like, right after they stole it.
Perhaps they tried. Perhaps they conducted a full investigation and originally demanded that it be returned, and only were defeated by bureaucracy and congressional mulishness.
Wait, that IS what happened.
It seemed quite hostile to me, no matter how I look at it.
Then why say it isn't...
Did I say it wasn't hostile? No. Did I say it wasn't a hostile takeover? Yes, I did.
Not really eating my own words, they went in where they did not belong, which was the point...
Your point was that the British and the French were not colonizing evils on the level of America because they didn't start wars in several more modern countries such as Vietnam.

The exact opposite is true for Vietnam, since the war was started by the French and the British.

On to your "actual point": Russia hardly belonged either and pretty much started the cold war there. We felt obligated to return to land to our allies and stop the expansion of a particularly vicious form of communism. Vastly oversimplifying the issue as usual.
So? "The British did it too!!11"? Poor logic is poor...
Lol. I wasn't justifying it, I was telling you that you had your facts totally wrong.
They still are totally wrong and calling (nonexistent) logic "poor" won't change that.
Only if you believe that they actually invaded looking for WMDs!
...We did believe that. It's widely regarded as the biggest mistake of the Bush administration and repeatedly cited.
Yes, thanks to the USA one of the most beautiful regions of the world has become a desolate wasteland,
Bollocks, unless we dropped a cadmium-60 bomb on Iraq while I wasn't looking.
and some of the oldest cities are in ruins,
Oh? How about some examples, then? Apart from Babylon (not an occupied city, obviously, just archaeological ruins) I can't think of any.
a culture was destroyed,
No, I'm pretty sure that Arabic culture is still around....
and a drug super-highway was re-established!
Are you sure we're at fault for that? You might want to look this one up. http://mideast.blogs.time.com/2009/0...e-middle-east/
Stop preaching "democracy is the greatest system in the world" to every other country, or at least don't use bullets and bombs as your medium
We're terribly sorry and will in the future let innocents be abused and oppressed by dictators in the future.
... How about letting others have a different point of view geez.
Geez man.
The Taliban were a religious group,
understatement of the century
the war was because the US did not not understand their culture.
ahahahaha, ahahahahahahahahaa, oh god, ahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahah. I think everyone, including moderators, can agree that this is the only response that idea deserves.
Funny to notice that before the Taliban came Afghanistan was the world leader in heroin production. And once US 'liberated' the country, it is once again.
Clearly the Taliban's wise policies of stoning women helped clamp down on illegal drug production.

Background for this next bit: Gorman claims Israel were terrorists out to kill everyone just for buying and settling in an area peaceably, turns out the reverse is true, conversation continues.
Thanks, but I could see that.
If you knew that, then why did you lie?
My statement still stands.
No it doesn't, I completely debunked its entire foundation in reason.
I wonder how Israel managed to increase to 100x it's size without invading anyone?
Counter-attacks on the Arab nations, of course.
You can't actually be criticizing a country for fighting back against much huger nations (who attacked them only for their religion) and taking some land for itself in the process, can you?
There is, but the mods are too lazy to research themselves so they don't know if things are true or not themselves. I told them to promote a discussion regular like Hyde but they wanted Vox instead (god knows why). Hopefully things will change, so just stick with it :S
I'd help you fix the situation, but America shouldn't be preaching democracy to the rest of the world. We should let staff have their own form of authoritarianism opinion, you know?

I think grammatically it should be "That they regularly attacked or sponsor/endorse attacks on our ally is more than enough reason to keep them out of the U.N." then...
Pfooey, I explained my intended meaning and it's really not relevant, you could at least address what I said.

Originally Posted by bRuCiA

Boredpayne if i not misunderstood your reasoning is:from the moment the jews(but would be more correct to say "germans,italians,french,est europe jews",becasue beeing jews

mean only that you belive in a precise religion,

not that you are part of a national population)were flowing in that region from 50 years(and that region was their property around 2000 years ago),

so it is totally reasonable that Britain,who ""owned"" that region in that moment,

gave it to them(despite in these 2000 years the things were pretty much changed).
Am i right?

Originally Posted by Gorman

Ironically this sounds exactly like a description of Nazi Germany.

I guess they didn't decide "this is so bad, we should never treat others this way", the instead decided "we went through a lot, so now we have the right to do it to others".

Sad really...