Huh ? How about Vietnam, East Timor, Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, the American revolutionary war, Algeria and many more. Vietnam: Communist rule for the next decade Zimbabwe: total Economic Destruction, hyperinflation etc. China: Really a withdrawal by other countries. Civil War afterwards Cuba: In effect a withdrawal by the spanish, economically cuba was not worth the effort America: Too far back Algeria: Poverty and will continue to be in poverty because of incompetant leadership. My point is that as bad as it sounds u need administrators, beaureaucrats, politicians to run a country. Fighters dont run countries and will never be able to run countries effectively. Hamas would never be able to run an independent palestinian state. A peaceful revolution is run in effect by administrators, beareucrats, PR stuntsman and politicians. These are prerequisites for building a proper prosperous, well ruled society. Gandhi, Mandela, Luther King all had PR machines run by beaucrates and administrators backing their message. After the revolution was won it doesnt take much to convert these into people to run a country
Of course competant administrators are needed in any nation. Just one of the issues faced by nations emerging from a victorious war of national liberation is that so many of their best and most commited people have been killed in the fight for independance and their societies distorted by war. I doubt that anybody would dispute that. Do you really think that European imperialism would have ended without armed struggle against it ? I would suggest that the fundamental reason the British got out of India relatively peacefully was not because they thought Ghandi was a nice guy, but because they assesed that if they didn't it would eventually lead to a war they couln't win. Britian, shattered by WWII basically had no other choice. Had there been no WWII, it may have been a very different proposition. Western imperialism spread across vast parts of the globe via military power. Ultimately much of it was thrown out by armed resistance or the possibility of armed resistance - in some cases the wars devestated the colonised nations. And utimately it is the colonisers not the colonised who bear the responibility. The French had to be militarily defeated before leaving Vietnam. The US then stepped in with their meddling and later military intervention. France and the United States bear the moral responsibility for the deaths of millions of Vietnamese - not the Vietnamese or even the Communist Party. All the Vietnamese ultimately wanted was their nation back. The war was forced upon them - by foreign intervention. To suggest that Western imperialism and the struggle against it which comprises so much of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, would have packed it's bags and gone home if the national liberation movements had more and better PR people and better, more educated administrators is just silly. Sometimes I wonder about the moral contortions that some people must go through to so roundly condem the violence of resistance movements, who are mostly operating in their own countries and amongst their own people, but find it perfectly acceptable for foreigners flying F16s at safe altitude to drop bombs on them. What you ask for is those disposessed of their nations by foreign military force to resolve the situation by non-military means - a bit rich don't you think ? Perhaps more importantly just a bit unrealistic as well if one's objective is peace.
no but in this day and age an economic or PR war is much much more effective than a military struggle. tell me which method is going to get palestinian independace faster: 1) Suicide Bombings 2) Peaceful civilian blockading of israeli tanks 3) arab blockading of mid east oil to israel the third option methinks will bring about the instant withdrawal of the israeli army if only arabs had the balls to do it.
your opinion is worth shit, since u know utter fuck, beginnin' with the fact am a white italian, not a muslim or a jew mofo. the palestinians problem is an injustice in the eye EVERYONE; only a jew himslef or a cukoo can defend israeli posture and actions. who u think u are kiddin', u are not after peace, u are belligerent to the max and dont blame arafat, u were dancin' in the streets when he refused to sign the peace deal.
Here we see the sad result of the anti-Israel, biased 'reporting' of the European media (with a few scant exceptions, such as Sky News). Bitstream, you're a very bright guy with a pretty keen sense for truth. ... and still, they got you too. The average European, of average intelligence, never stood a chance at knowing what's actually going on in the Middle East. You know I grew up in the Middle East, right? You know by now that I know what I'm talking about, and I never bullshit... right? <b>There never was any such thing as a distinct Palestinian people!</b> That's all a 20th century invention. They are an occupied 'people without a homeland', just as much as the ethnic Mexicans living in California are an 'occupied people without a homeland'. I know your European media never tells you that, so you're probably hearing it for the first time. Who was the previous leader/king of the Palestinian people before Arafat? Having trouble coming up with his name, are you? What is the 'historical capital of Palestine'? Jerusalem is the wrong answer- it was NEVER the capital of any non-Jewish state, ever. The West Bank & Gaza strip were captured by Israel from Jordan & Egypt respectively, in the 1967 war. Those states, along with Syria provided ample Casus Belli to provoke said war. Do you claim that Jordan & Egypt were, until 1967, foreign occupiers of the Palestinian homeland? Well, that would be a first, because no one else ever claimed such nonsense. The Palestinian people, as a distinct entity & nationality <b>did not exist</B> until after 1967. You are fed a nonstop barrage of anti-Israel crap in Europe. Go on and believe whatever you want now, I just wanted to give you at least a fighting chance at absorbing the truth.
Anyone familiar with these boards is fully aware that the resident troll (LoZZZer) is a genuine sadist, a loathsome excuse for a human being who stews in its own feces as it constantly seeks out decent people to piss off, and evil murderous causes to tacitly support. <b>Well, look which side the creature is backing in the Israel-Arab conflict!</B> That should tell you all you need to know.
Simple solution for ever lasting peace on earth: Put all the Jews and Muslims in cattle trucks and ship them to the middle east. Then nuke the god damned place. Now the west has free oil and zero semitic inbreeds causing havoc.
Since I have consistently said both sides are in the wrong, I am not taking a side backing either one. Doh! You really are not too bright, are you? All you got is ad hominem, just like the rest of your ilk...
LoZZZer is the NFL referee who throws 100 penalty flags at Team A, while neglecting to throw a single penalty flag at Team B. ...and then he claims to be 'unbiased'. Have you ever considered a conversion to Islam? We both know it would suit you well. Modern Christianity is Neutral-Good, while Islam remains Lawful-Evil... just like you. You'd be able to surround yourself with people who truly understand and respect your sadistic tendencies. I know the churches can't give you what you really need, but with Islam you'd get the religious worship you <b>really</b> crave.
LMAO. I don't know what is funnier, that I'm posting in Politics and Religion :eek: (yes, I'm that bored) or that you have just lost all credibility by making this ad hominem and hypocritically trolling post