Arab countries treat Palestinians far worse than Israel

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have no basis for this statement.

Why not? They didn't go to war, did they? In the end, they talked and decided not to fight, right? Why? 100 years ago, they would have started to tussel right then and there. Democratic reforms change countries. It changes their leaders, their people. They don't want to fight against people that share their norms and ideals.

They have no compunction about fighting non-democratic states because they DON'T share their norms. They are closed, secretive, barbaric societies to them. They don't have 'civilized' goverance.

Do you believe dmeocratic leaders are so utterly risk averse?

OF COURSE!! I've never seen a democratic leader that has not been risk averse.

Perhaps they did not go to war ebcuase the leaders at the time felt strong enough to ignore public sentiment and keep thier eyes on the bigger picture, like, well, Germany.

If you really think that Germany in 1914 was a democracy, you must be seriously smoking something.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you really think that Germany in 1914 was a democracy, you must be seriously smoking something.

Why? Germany was every bit as democratic as the UK was at the time.

Hell during the late 19th century American elites saw Germany as a progressive constitutional state worthy of emulation.

[Shi Huangdi]

Benny Morris, beyond being left wing, has a bed reputation. I haven't studied his works in great detail, as I doubt you have as well, but if he is the first person they cite as an Israeli Jewish scholar, then intelligent people should know something is suspect.

"Britain and france fought no wars since 1815, a time at which neither would fit your democratic definitions."

Of course not, France would have to be stupid to fight a war against Britain at this time. Britain was the foremost power in the world time and had defeated France in the Napoleonic Wars. France was in no position to challenge British hegemony.

[Imran Siddiqui]

democracies do not have an interest in general liberty and rights.

Of course they do. They are like proslytizing Christians. They can't wait to spread the wonders of democracy, even if they have to go door to door and ask everyone. Every democratic country speaks of spreading liberty and democracy. Of course they have an interest in spreading general rights and liberty. You see the anger they have when they talk about the Taliban, for example.

Friends and not enemies are not the same. Do you forget Crimea? last war fought between Britian and france? 1790's-1815. first war as allies? 1854. next war between them..wait, none.....

So you think that from 1815 to 1910 there were NOT enemies?

Come on, they despised each other! Even if they fought in the Crimea, they did it because of a greater evil. Britain and France were definetly enemies in the 1890s.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh Edan...

I said: it is baised, but it gives sources. you little quip..where did it come from? Which source did the idiots at Idiots guide get it from?
[/qb]

There are 7 pages of Bibliography for the book, with, at a guess, around 150 sources. Would you like me to start listing them?

They give you Page numbers and titles!

Ooh, page numbers and titles. Well, then, it must be true, even though the webpage is biased. And titles like _Righteous Victims_ and _Expulsion Of The Palestinians_ certainly inspire a lot of confidence in those books open-mindedness.

Don't trust them, get the book, check out the quote, see if they took it out of context.

Tell me, did you look up those books?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why? Germany was every bit as democratic as the UK was at the time.

Not even close. By 1914, the King of England had all but dissapeared from diplomacy and politics. The entire war planning was done by the Parliamentary government. In Germany, the Kaiser was very powerful in the government. The Reichstag was basically a powerless body. They were subject to veto by the Kaiser under any legislation. The Kaiser basically ran foreign policy, and assigned the Chancellor. That doesn't sound democratic to me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why not? They didn't go to war, did they? In the end, they talked and decided not to fight, right? Why? 100 years ago, they would have started to tussel right then and there. Democratic reforms change countries. It changes their leaders, their people. They don't want to fight against people that share their norms and ideals.

They have no compunction about fighting non-democratic states because they DON'T share their norms. They are closed, secretive, barbaric societies to them. They don't have 'civilized' goverance.

You still have no basis for any of those statements. Gathering a fact, and giving me an explination of the fact are two different things. Everyone knew that what goes up must come down well before they knew why so. Do you have any theoreticl underpinnings for any of the statements you make above? How do "democratic reforms change countires"? what is the method of that change? how does it affect the passions? how does it change the desired choices of individuals? what is the mechanism? You say people don;t want to fight those that share thier norms and ideas? Where does the line devide? how many norms and ideas must people share in order for this to be true? What accounts for civil wars then? is it only wth political norms? Or do economic, and moral norms matter was well?

All of those are what seem to me to be basic question to which porponents of "democratci peace" have ye to give me an answer I have seen.

OF COURSE!! I've never seen a democratic leader that has not been risk averse.

Is that so? How is our current dmeocratic leader risk averse? How was kennedy risk averse? (more than, lets say, his counterparts?)

If you really think that Germany in 1914 was a democracy, you must be seriously smoking something.

Oh, come on! How could you not get the obviosu meaning of what I said?!

Hmm, why would France and the Uk fight each other when there were other European powers to worry about? Like,. I don;t know, Germany!

[GePap]

Edan:

did you look up from the bibliography in the idiots guide to make sure that they were correct?

Let me guess...the envelope please? NO!

And yes, edan, I do prefer sources that tell me outright what their sources are, where they got what they are telling me. It is far more difficult to make sh1t up when you put out there were you claim you got it from (as the Twain misquote form the innitial article proves).

Tell me, did you look up those books?

Just as much as you did. I guess I am just a thourought with my research as you......

Can you get me any better sources than the idiots guide? I will be much better than any of you 'doubters". give me a source from any site, even one called ZIONISTARERIGHTFOREVER.com. , as long as they site their sources.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, why would France and the Uk fight each other when there were other European powers to worry about? Like,. I don;t know, Germany!

Weren't France and Great Britain allied (with Russia)? ie, the Triple Entente? Seems like that would be a good reason to fight together...

[Imran Siddiqui]

You still have no basis for any of those statements. Gathering a fact, and giving me an explination of the fact are two different things. Everyone knew that what goes up must come down well before they knew why so. Do you have any theoreticl underpinnings for any of the statements you make above?

How is there ANY basis for any theory according to you? What is the basis for balance of power? Or power transition? Or better yet, what is the basis for the theory that democracy is better than authoritarianism? The answer will be like the answer I've given you. There is no 'proof' only theoretical underpinnings.

I've given you the underpinnings of the theory. Take them or leave them, I don't care. I've given you an answer, you just don't want to listen to it. I've told you that people in democratic countries don't want to fight those that share their views. I don't see why I have to give a basis for that... it's common sense!

Is that so? How is our current dmeocratic leader risk averse? How was kennedy risk averse? (more than, lets say, his counterparts?)

Yes, and probably yes, if we define his counterparts as all democratic politicians. They weren't risky, they tried to mitigate the risk. Kennedy, by negotiating and giving up something, and Bush has only fought wars that he was sure of winning easily and against regimes he could characterize as evil.

Hmm, why would France and the Uk fight each other when there were other European powers to worry about? Like,. I don;t know, Germany!

When? In 1900? At that time Britain and Germany were on good terms with each other. Why would Britain wish to fight someone that wasn't threatening it? It only started to turn on Germany after the Kaiser's naval building program, when Britain began to feel threatened.

And France always hated Germany as well as Britain.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Edan:

did you look up from the bibliography in the idiots guide to make sure that they were correct?

Well, of course not. If I did that I'd be looking up bibliographies till doomsday. But I have read other books that correspond to what is stated in it (Zionism and The Arabs before WW1, Jerusalem:songs of songs, The Problem of Palestine, etc)

Can you get me any better sources than the idiots guide? I will be much better than any of you 'doubters". give me a source from any site, even one called ZIONISTARERIGHTFOREVER.com. , as long as they site their sources.

You don't get it. But if you must have such a site, here, it took me all of 2 minutes to find this site. I can't verify anything on that site (and the source it lists certainly isn't listed in the Complete Idiot's Guide), nor do I want to bother to. However, feel free to do so yourself. And If that doesn't satisduy you, I could always list the 150+ sources from the Complete Idiot Book....

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Weren't France and Great Britain allied (with Russia)? ie, the Triple Entente? Seems like that would be a good reason to fight together...

No, not in 1895, which is the date we are discussing.

I've given you the underpinnings of the theory. Take them or leave them, I don't care. I've given you an answer, you just don't want to listen to it. I've told you that people in democratic countries don't want to fight those that share their views. I don't see why I have to give a basis for that... it's common sense!

It is not common sense! You claim that dmeocratic peoples shre this common love of liberty, and thus they won;t fight each other..yet, they will make themsleves the undemocratic rulesr over millions of people? There was no such thing as "England" all be itself. There was the United Kingdom, which was at the head of the British Empire. What percentage of those that swore alliegence to the British crown had the right to vote? A man in London won;t want to fight a man in Paris becuase of some common sense of Liberte, fraternite, whatever..but them damn subhumans out there outside of Europe, why they don't count???? You are trying to apply your own definition back in time. Would a man in London in 1905 speaks bout the horribly undemocratic nature of the South africans? What abot the Boers, and the Transvaal republic (the whole Boer war)? When they were thinking, hmm, lets go to war with England, surely the first thing they though was: it's OK, the Brits aren't democracts, after all.... Come on, you are trying to interpose vaues upon others retrocatively.

Oh, and as for 1895..Maybe the French did not go to war precisely becuase the Brits had good relations with germany, and the brits did not go to war with France becuase France had just allied itself with Russia...both of which would be caues having nothing to do with democracy.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


No, not in 1895, which is the date we are discussing.

Oops. (Slowly backs away from conversation).

[GePap]

I looke dat your site edan, and again, same quote, BUT NO SOURCE given. Where did that number come from?

my site tells you were they got thier number form, which scholar satted it. Does the idiots guide give you a foot note or end note? you say they have 150 sources, oh great, which of those 150 sources made that claim?
I could write a 20 age article saying there were 500,000 people living there, give 500 sources, and ytou know what, you would never be able to know if I was right or wrong based just on that, since you would have to read all 500 sopurces to tell me "none of your sources say that", and since you can;t [possibly read 500 books, you could never disprove me, could you?

You have written acadmeic reports before, no doubt? If you had a paper, and you stated a number such as that, and gave no citation (endnote, footnnote, or another type), would your porfessor have acceoed it, no matter how long was your bibliography? I don;t think so.

I don;t think asking for some sort of citation for such a fact is uncalled for.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A man in London won;t want to fight a man in Paris becuase of some common sense of Liberte, fraternite, whatever..but them damn subhumans out there outside of Europe, why they don't count????

Are you really serious?! Do you actually believe what you just said? Who is trying to impose modern values back in time now?

Of course the British would treate people outside of Europe the same as those that have seen the enlightenment and adopted the ideas of democracy as those in Europe .

Would a man in London in 1905 speaks bout the horribly undemocratic nature of the South africans? What abot the Boers, and the Transvaal republic (the whole Boer war)?

He would definetly be thinking about it. Those damn savages, they aren't even civilized enough to have any democratic governance. They don't share any of the values that I hold dear to my heart. Definetly play a role.

Oh, and as for 1895..Maybe the French did not go to war precisely becuase the Brits had good relations with germany, and the brits did not go to war with France becuase France had just allied itself with Russia...both of which would be caues having nothing to do with democracy.

I doubt it. Allies didn't stop WW1, and it wouldn't have stopped a Franco-British war in the 1890s. The Germans, for one weren't allied to Britain, so wouldn't come in, and secondly, no one took Russia seriously as a Great Power... especially their navy.

It was because times had changed, both countries were now democratic and decided to, instead of pulling the trigger first, to negotiate and discuss things. After all, they were parliamentarians, who's kids would be going off to war, and they could be voted out if it turned out badly. No way they'd risk that.