Netanyahu Slams Ban Ki-Moon's 'Occupation' Remarks

May 17, 2015 20:17:17 GMT pjohns1873 said:

All I know is that hospitals existed in America prior to Medicare and Medicaid; and grocery stores existed prior to SNAP (or "food stamps," as they were formerly called).  Presumably, therefore, they would continue to exist today. 

Your claim that "all wars"--nor merely some, but "all"--are based "exclusively upon political motives" that are then "rationalized," sounds to me like the words of an unabashed pacifist... 

Yes, hospitals and markets existed prior to government funding that we have today but most today rely on that government spending to exist. As a Libertarian that supports privately run charities in the past I've proposed that SNAP funding be fed into the private food banks that provide roughly four-times the food when compared to what is being purchased at the local markets. The cost of providing the food assistance could, in theory, be cut by up to 75% but there's a problem. This would drive tens of thousands of private markets out of business because they wouldn't be receiving the income from those paying for groceries with SNAP benefits. The roughly $80 billion in SNAP benefits that is spent at local markets is keeping a lot of markets in business.

I've been through war and I am an unabashed pacifist... with the exception of self-defense that requires that someone directly attacks the United States. I've not found any war in history where the nation initiating the attack wasn't motivated based upon a political agenda. In all of history can you name even one? If you think you've found one then I will investigate it and provide the political agenda behind the initial attack.  

May 20, 2015 21:16:11 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Anyone believing that the nation “initiating the attack” must automatically be doing so because of a “political agenda” is necessarily dismissing the whole idea of pre-emptive war; and I think that is downright silly. (If we had attacked Syria when President Obama drew his famous “red line,” for instance, I believe the US would have been fully justified in doing so.)

You have just admitted the obvious:  viz., that “hospitals and markets existed prior to government funding.” To claim that they are just too dependent upon government nowadays to exist, without government funding, is roughly tantamount to claiming that a heroin addict just cannot make it without his regular fix; so there is just no point in his trying to kick the habit.

A "pre-emptive war" is always politically motivated. They only occur when the country refuses to continue to seek a diplomatic solution to a political conflict between nations. For example we know that in 1967 Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had no actual intention, and was militarily incapable, of invading Israel and Israel refused to continue to seek a diplomatic solution to the political conflict between Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Of course Israel had a political agenda that motivated it's so-called "pre-emptive" attack and that was the territorial acquisition of the rest of Palestine to fulfill the Zionist agenda.

Just like the heroin addict is requires a slow process to remove the current dependency of hospitals and markets to become independent of government funding. This can only be done in a responsible manner as the sudden withdrawal would result in "death" to the addict, hospitals, and markets. "Public" funding needs to be replaced by "private" funding and as that occurs (if that occurs) then the public funding will become unnecessary. We cannot simply cut off the government funding without the private funding replacing it first.

May 28, 2015 4:33:13 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your analogy to a slow withdrawal by the heroin addict seems to ignore the efficacy of just going “cold turkey.”

And to claim that a pre-emptive war is “always politically motivated” is necessarily to buy into the idea of moral relativism: Why, one country’s pre-emptive war, under one set of circumstances, must be exactly the same as another country’s pre-emptive war, under a vastly different set of circumstances…

When the addict dies from sudden withdrawal it can hardly be called an effective means of acquiring a desired result.

I will issue a simple challenge. Please provide a single example of a pre-emptive war that you believe wasn't politically motivated and I'll provide the political motivation behind that war. While you might like to claim it doesn't always happen history has shown otherwise.

May 31, 2015 6:31:56 GMT pjohns1873 said:

May 28, 2015 11:32:03 GMT ShivaTD said:

When the addict dies from sudden withdrawal it can hardly be called an effective means of acquiring a desired result.

I will issue a simple challenge. Please provide a single example of a pre-emptive war that you believe wasn't politically motivated and I'll provide the political motivation behind that war. While you might like to claim it doesn't always happen history has shown otherwise.

I really do not believe that the heroin addict always (or even usually) "dies" from a cold-turkey approach.

The whole idea of pre-emptive war is fairly recent.  One cannot go back to, say, the Peloponnesian Wars or the Punic Wars for examples.    

In point of fact few heroin addicts attempt to quit cold turkey but it can be fatal if they do.

"Withdrawal symptoms carry a significant risk of seizures known as "tonic-clonic" or "grand mal" which could lead to strokes, and heart attacks. The strokes and heart attacks could be fatal.

It is rare for withdrawal symptoms to be fatal in healthy adults. However many heroin users are not particularly healthy, leading to the risk of death ...."

www.myaddiction.com/articles/drug-addiction/can-you-die-from-heroin-withdrawal

More relevant is the fact that withdrawal can be extremely painful even when it doesn't result in death and that's relevant to the analogy. Cutting off government funding "cold turkey" to both enterprise and the individual in America would be highly "painful" to the US economy and we don't know if it would cause the "death" of the economy but in theory it could.

For example we know that about 40% of America's workers cannot survive on the wages they receive without government assistance. What would happen of 40% of Americans suddenly found themselves homeless because they couldn't pay the rent? Would it lead to a violent revolution? Possibly. Would you be willing to take that chance?  

Regardless of how recent the concept is of "pre-emptive war" you cannot provide an example where it wasn't politically motivated. The best example is the 1967 6-Day war and we know it had absolutely nothing to do with Israel defending itself from an invasion by Egypt, Jordan, or Syria and was exclusively related to acquisition of territory by Israel. Every fact at the time and since 1967 has exposed the fact that the war was exclusively about the acquisition of territory.

Jun 4, 2015 0:09:41 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Do you really believe that "every fact" supports the anti-Israel bias of the American left? Or is it just the (rather selective "facts") provided by left-wing organizations and left-wing websites that support this conclusion?

Even your own source admits that it is "rare" for heroin-withdrawal symptoms to be fatal in "healthy adults."  (The fact that "many" heroin users "are not particularly healthy" is certainly not the fault of society, in general.)

I would imagine that a large part of that 40 percent of American workers (who, you claim, "couldn't pay the rent" without government assistance) would simply find a second job, or some other source of income.

You seem, however, to be utterly enthralled by the idea of revolution; as regarding which, I would just offer the following quote:

Revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon.

Do you agree with those sentiments?

For the record, those words were taken from Friedrich Engels, in his controversy with the Anarchists. 

I'm an advocate of the American political ideology based upon these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Based upon these words there can be no "supremacy" based upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, social status (e.g. title), wealth, or other invidiuous criteria. There cannot be a Muslim nation, Christain nation, Jewish nation, Hindu nation, Aryan nation, black nation, "Amazon" (women) nation, or any nation based upon invidious criteria as it always disparages those that are not a part of the "selected" group of people. The incorporation of any "invidious" criteria always divides the population where "all people are NOT equal" under the laws of the nation.

I'm equally opposed to the Islamic nations, Aryan nations, Christian nations, and yes the Jewish nation of Israel, because they're founded upon "Supremacy" of one group of people over all other people. It is an invidious division that denies the fact that "all men are created equal" because those not a part of the preferred group are disparaged and denied equality by the nation.

I don't understand why anyone would support the denial of equality for all people based upon an invidious critieria imposed by any government. Perhaps you can justify denial of equality to a group of people based upon an invidious criteria but I can't.    

The fact that death is rare in heroin withdrawal is because rarely does the heroin addict quit cold turkey. We can note in the analogy to our economy that our economy is very "sick" because roughly 1/2 of the people are barely surviving or can't afford to survive at all without assistance from the government. The US economy is far worse off than the heroin addict based upon it's failure to provide a liveable wage for such a large percentage American workers. Our economy is literally on "life-support" by the US government and without that support it would die.

It's not my claim that 40% of Americans aren't earning enough to live on, it's a fact that is not disputed by any economist. When even MIT comes out with an analysis that it typically requires over $22,000/yr ($10.57/hr for a "man-year" of 2080 hours) for a single person to survive and the average hourly wage in the US is only $10.55/hr we know that roughly 1/2 of hourly workers don't have enough income to meet their basic necessary (and mandatory) expenditures without assistance. If they have a spouse and/or children to support then they're even worse off because their basic expenditures can soar.

"Simple get another job" doesn't typically work because of numerous reasons. For example a woman raising a child alone may not even be able to work a full 40 hr/wk because of the child's dependency on the mother. Even if she can work 40 hours, and many do, the additional cost of child care for hours in excess of 40hrs/wk exceeds the compensation for the hours worked.   

An interesting quotation on revolution but the following quotation could also be accurate:

"Government is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon."

Of course both are technically false. The most authoritarian thing there is would be the act of one person holding a gun or in some other manner threatening the life of a second person. A direct threat to the person is far more "authoritarian" than an abstract threat to society.

Jun 7, 2015 22:09:22 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Well, you made reference to my quotation, but you never did really answer my question, as concerning your agreement (or lack thereof) with it--other than merely to say that it is "technically false," since it would be "far more 'authoritarian'" if just "one person" were "holding a gun or in some other manner threatening the life of a second person." So I will try again: Are you basically congenial to this idea of a revolution of the proletariat?

Yes, Israel is (correctly) classified as a Jewish state--in fact, as the Jewish state.  And its very existence is the result of the Holocaust, in which some people attempted to annihilate the Jews.  But which of Israel's laws, in your opinion, "disparage" or "den[y] equality" to non-Jews?

To assert (as you do) that the American economy is "literally on 'life support' by the US government" is, essentially, to deny the tremendous success of the American economy prior to FDR's New Deal; or, more than 30 years later, LBJ's Great Society.    

And why is that young woman, in your example, "raising a child alone"?  Presumably, it is possible that she may be divorced or separated; but it is far more likely that she simply had unprotected sex.  So why should society, in general, pay for her foolishness? 

To address the issue of "a revolution of the proletariat" I will offer the following:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

When the policies of government result in the economic subjugation of the people to the authoritarian control of the privileged few, leaving the general population in abject poverty, then the people have both a "Right" and a "Duty" to throw of that government and establish a new government. The people should never be subjected to the explicit or implicit bonds of slavery to a privileged economic class. The people create the wealth of the nation and they are entitled to a fair share of the wealth they create. When 95% of the wealth they create goes into the pockets of the wealthy few then they are being subjected to economic tyranny and have just cause to revolt.  

The Declaration of Indepedence itself for Israel disparages the non-Jew and the actions of the "Zionists" (that predated the Holocaust) to establish a Jewish state exemplify the denial of equality for the non-Jews by the Zionists. UNGA Resolution 181 proposed the possible partition of Palestine and the Zionists opposed a popular vote on that recommendation. By 1948, the population in Palestine had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews, and the fate of Palestine should have been subjected to the vote of all those living in Palestine. The Zionist Jews wanted no part of that. In point of fact the Zionists forced between 400,000 and 700,000 people from what became Israel because had those non-Jewish people been allowed to vote then the State of Israel would not exist at all. Today there are roughly 2.3 million "non-Jews" living in the West Bank under the admistrative authority of the Israeli government and they are denied the Right to Vote in Israeli elections and denied any representation in the Israeli government. They have virtually no Civil Rights and have no say in the government they're subjected to live under. They don't even have control over local building of homes and businesses as Israel routinely bulldozes down their homes to allow the unlawful (under Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions) immigration of Israeli citizens.  

Everyone subjected the the authority of a government should be entitled to representation and the right to vote.

Your argument on the US economy is like discussing the Titantic before it hit the ice berg. It was the greatest ship of all time until it hit the ice berg and then it sank. The greatest growth of the middle class in America occurred during the 1950's and 1960's. By the 1970's we saw productivity increasing but compensation did not keep pace with the increased wealth being created as that wealth was funneled more and more to the wealthy. This became obvious in the 1980's under Reagan's famous "trickle-down" economics where government policies focused on funneling wealth creation to the wealthy in the hopes it would "trickle down" to the workers but that never happened. By 2012 we found that 95% of the new wealth being created went into the pockets of the top 1% of income earners and that wealth does not trickle down to the workers that are actually creating the new wealth. The workers saw their incomes decline in real dollars by 5% between 2009 and today while the wealthy 1% saw their incomes increase by well over 30%.

Statistically about 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned. It is also highly misogynistic when people always blame the woman for the child she is raising alone because there was a man involved in the creation of that child. The man could have had a vasectomy and prevented the pregnancy just as easily as the woman taking birth control. We can also note that birth control is opposed by many on religious right, mostly men (e.g. the Catholic Church controlled exclusively by men opposes birth control while 95% of Catholic women use birth control at some point) and that the woman could also have had an abortion that's also opposed by many, mostly men, on the religious right. Those on the "right" need to stop blaming the woman exclusively for being in a situation where she's raising a child alone.

Jun 10, 2015 20:34:55 GMT pjohns1873 said:

For openers, I should probably point out that my blame is not directed "exclusively" toward the woman in question--presumably, she had some help in the creation of her child--but that happens to be the person we were discussing. And yes, I do believe that her actions were irresponsible, in getting pregnant; as were the actions, also, of her lover. (Note: I would certainly not equate a vasectomy with birth control, as the former is not easily reversible; and should probably be done only if one is entirely certain that one has no desire to sire any future children.)

You are implying, apparently, that conditions in America are so terrible today (except for a privileged few) that it is the "Right" and "Duty" of the majority of Americans to foment a revolution. Is that about right?

All Israeli citizens can vote in Israel's elections, to the best of my knowledge. If some people are permanently denied citizenship, then they would do well to leave.

I guess we will see if the American economy is similar to "the Titanic." But you will doubtless continue to kick the can down the road, and guarantee that the American economy will implode--eventually...

It is interesting because we see the misogyny of society when we address birth control. The focus of medical research was on birth control for the woman because our male dominated society always held the woman responsible for the pregnancy. It was just as easy to develop male birth control from a scientific standpoint but that was not the focus of the research. In a sense we're like the misogynistic Muslim societies that will stone the adultress but do nothing to the man she committed adultry with.

We see this same misogyny in the politicians of today. In 1995 Jeb Bush advocated the public shaming of unwed mothers (not the responsible men) and as governor of Florida in 2001 refused to veto a law that required unwed mothers to publish a list of their sexual activities before putting a child up for adoption (later signing the repeal when it was challenged in court). The misogynist condemns the single woman trying to raise a child alone that requires welfare assistance ignoring the financal irresponsibility of the father of the child to provide that support. We see the woman with the child but ignore the man that hides in the shadows of society.  

Why should a person be forced to leave the land of their birth? Our government was founded upon the principle that all men (people) are created equal but you apparently disagree with that. A person is always a citizen of the land where they are born. It is their natural (inalienable) right of citizenship and when any government denies this right it is violating the Rights of the Person. Let us remember that the Nazis also wanted to purge Europe of the Jews and what Israel is doing with the Palestinians is identical in principle. European Jews invaded Palestine and their decendents have systematically, often with the force of the Israeli military, been purging the non-Jewish citizens of Palestine from their homeland. This is as deplorable as the Nazis invading Poland and purging the Polish Jews from their homeland. I honestly believe that if Netanyahu thought he could get away with it he would employ the same measures of genocide of the Palestinians that Hitler employed with the Jews. Their political ideology is virtually identical.  

I don't know what more evidence you need to know that the US economy is in serious trouble. After decades of stagnation in compensation, while productivity continued to increase, median income has actuall declined by 5% in just the last few years. During the 1950's and 1960's the median income increased with productivity. From the 1970's compensation failed to keep up with productivity. Since 2009 the median income has literally declined. The crack in the US economy is widening even as we discuss it and the "Titanic" is sinking.