Israel preparing strike against Iran (1 Viewer)

[Trefoil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts

Thats a lot of violence.

You responded to me by making exactly the error I warned about.

Just because there is still conflict today, a lot of it barbaric and horrible, does not mean there is as much conflict as there was 100 years ago.

Most conflict today is localised and internationally and socially frowned upon. That's a significantly different situation to 100 or 50 years ago. It's also important because it indicates there's a trend towards less violence: once you solve each of those conflicts in Africa, for example, you've pretty much solved them permanently. The world is, importantly, far more politically stable than at any previous point in history.

Iron: Yes, we're still aggressive and competitive. But we've generally learned to channel that into innovation and economic competition instead of senseless war, agreed? I think it'd be frightful if we ever lost our basic sense of aggression.

Although as an example of how levels of aggression can be dramatically altered by environment, without any evolutionary changes, I present you with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

Looks like epigenetics at work to me. We always knew the brain changed itself (often permanently) based on the environment, though. Gene regulation and such.

 

[impervious182]

Most conflict today is localised and internationally and socially frowned upon. That's a significantly different situation to 100 or 50 years ago. It's also important because it indicates there's a trend towards less violence: once you solve each of those conflicts in Africa, for example, you've pretty much solved them permanently. The world is, importantly, far more politically stable than at any previous point in history.

Thanks to organisations, like the UN, as well as countries, such as the United States.

 

[jb_nc]

I'm done talking to you Nebz. Your anti-semitism is clearly paper-thin and for the "lulz". You are a clown.

I put him on ignore

 

[Iron]

Y
Iron: Yes, we're still aggressive and competitive. But we've generally learned to channel that into innovation and economic competition instead of senseless war, agreed? I think it'd be frightful if we ever lost our basic sense of aggression.

Although as an example of how levels of aggression can be dramatically altered by environment, without any evolutionary changes, I present you with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

Looks like epigenetics at work to me. We always knew the brain changed itself (often permanently) based on the environment, though. Gene regulation and such.

I just think that's it's bizarre and ignorantly triumphant to claim that we've somehow, suddenly, become this great and peaceful people. You think the Cold War would have been the same without the sword of damocles hanging above our heads? It was luck that we're still here! Luck! People keep pretending that this awesome power to destroy all plant and animal life is not working behind the scenes. Without wiping out all our nuclear weapons, a boo-boo with civilian casualties perhaps in the billions is inevitable. In one stroke, our alleged peace would be more then compensated for

 

[impervious182]

I just think that's it's bizarre and ignorantly triumphant to claim that we've somehow, suddenly, become this great and peaceful people. You think the Cold War would have been the same without the sword of damocles hanging above our heads? It was luck that we're still here! Luck! People keep pretending that this awesome power to destroy all plant and animal life is not working behind the scenes. Without wiping out all our nuclear weapons, a boo-boo with civilian casualties perhaps in the billions is inevitable. In one stroke, our alleged peace would be more then compensated for

Agreed.

I think that overall, as Trefoil suggested, we're a less militaristic world. However there are nations (North Korea, Russia, Iran, China, Zimbabwe) who still do not comply with this peaceful world view and certainly, have not lobbied very hard for stability.

As Iron has suggested, as long as nuclear weapons exist, stability and the peacefulness which we so quickly brag about and which has taken years, and ironically many wars to achieve, could evaporate.

Personally, I think that the United Nations is still the best instrument through which relative peace can be attained, though the Security Council and peacekeeping operations need drastic reform, as does the mandate through which the UN draws funding.

Hmm... in the end, only through democracy can stability be attained. I honestly don't think that Communist states are capable of promoting peace... because peace requires democracy, it requires free-press, it requires people being empowered. All it takes it one radical chairman, and war ensues again.

There needs to be strong opposition in each country, to oppose the views of the government, through democratic means, to present both sides of the story and of every issue.

This need for democracy is emphasised in the Charter of the United Nations. TBH, they should never have received their veto power in the Security Council considering they are not democratic.

 

[Iron]

Fuck the UN. Should read McCain's foreign policy papers on the League of Democracies. Would have kicked arse

 

[impervious182]

Fuck the UN. Should read McCain's foreign policy papers on the League of Democracies. Would have kicked arse

Haha... well that's one way of putting it.

Seriously though, the UN's name is too often tainted by the actions of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Until there is a will to act, and a legitimate will amongst member states to give substantial funding and troops, the UN is doomed to fail in regards to peacekeeping.

In terms of humanitarian missions though; peacekeeping, education etc. It has proved to be very successful in my opinion.

 

[Iron]

The problem is that the framework is outdated. Need more Germany, Japan, India, Brazil. Lacks legitimacy atm

 

[impervious182]

The problem is that the framework is outdated. Need more Germany, Japan, India, Brazil. Lacks legitimacy atm

Yeah agreed there. The Security Council are becoming a bit of a joke... the veto power itself is counter-progressive. It's because of China's veto that no action has been taken against Mugabe and Iran. (The latter was also due to Russia's veto.)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I put him on ignore

Haha. No you didn't u fool.

 

[Jessica14]

The UN can only do so much. It's not a global dictatorship. There is still the right to sovereinty which the Security Council has to keep in mind before taking action. I agree that it's somewhat unfortunate, though.

 

[impervious182]

The UN can only do so much. It's not a global dictatorship. There is still the right to sovereinty which the Security Council has to keep in mind before taking action. I agree that it's somewhat unfortunate, though.

It's not just that though, because Security Council resolutions are the only binding ones. It's that not only do countries have to consider political integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty, the veto powers also oppose progressive resolutions in their own economic interests... (e.g. China used their veto on resolutions dealing with Zimbabwe.)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I have a better rule for NCAP. No shit posts. That's you John Oliver, you IMPOSTER!

 

[justanotherposter]

lol @ this fucking situation.

Israel has nukes and thinks it has the right to attack another country because it is trying to attain nukes? and no one finds this situation slightly fucked?

Israel (the country, government, not the people) = Not peaceful, would probably nuke every muslim neighbor if given the right excuse.
Physco fundamentalist neighbors (again, the government, not the people) = wants to see Israel wiped off the map.

So how is it justified one prick has the right to have nukes and other doesn't.
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/papa_smurf_23/mikespics/capt_palestinian_protest_2an.jpg

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You don't understand the situation Rageeb. The Jews are living in their promised land and are God's chosen people. Of course they have a greater right to life than those scummy Arabs. GOD CHOSE THEM!

 

[slickstar_01]

I dont deny the jews the right to live a free & happy life or to observe the basic tenants of there religion, this has nothing to do with that, this has everything to do with the fact that a Whole load of mostly WHITE, EUROPEAN BACK GROUND JEWS DIDNT WANT TO LIVE IN EUROPE ANY MORE AND SO IN CAHOOTS WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF WHITE CHRISTIANS DECIDED TO CREATE THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL ON MODERN DAY PALESTINE AND IN THE MEAN TIME SCREW OVER, ABUSE, OPPRESS & HUMILIATE PALESTINIANS.

The problem is they thought the arabs would give up and just take it, and it is right they haven't, there is no peace, you cannot make peace with a oppressor, someone who has stolen your home and forced you to live in the bathroom.


Its endless bullshit

 

[slickstar_01]

nah, thats the reality is simple terms for fucking dumb shits like you

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

A Jew has deleted my post. I very much doubt it would have been deleted had it mentioned anti-Arab bias. Again;

... Fuck you are absolutely beyond thick.

No, he speaks the truth. You are simply biased and refuse to acknowledge the truth.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Hmm, yes, I suppose you did acknowledge the truth that one time. I believe I had it in my signature at one point.

<_<
>_>
<_<

Point taken.

 

[350125GO]

If and when the Israelis go through with this plan i really hope it doesnt open a big fucking can of worms. Hopefully they will succeed and all the shitty backwards arab countries will bitch for awhile and thats it.