Point well taken Markji ;)

See, that is the thing I should have avoid with my post, but was not able to do. My knowledge about Israelian history is based on one seminar I took around 10 years ago. And as I said, the other posts in this topic got me on the edge, so much that I answered emotionally. I must admid that the current Israelian - Palestinian situation is so ****ed, I lost interest in it. I literally did no research for the first post besides using the informations stored in my half baked brain. And if you are not informed, you should not bark about something. As you might have noticed, I (mostly) try to back up my statements, but was unable here.

I just read about the history of the region. And know what? I'm totally affirmed in my general pacifistic mind state. The first zionistic agendas were definitly not as bad as the word suggests. I dont have to tell you, since you are obviously informed on the topic, but was surprised as I read about it now. In the first place, they wanted to avoid the mistakes that were made later. They wanted a peaceful solution that included all people living in the area. I definitely do not want to take any side in this conflict, but are influenced by the stuff that happened in my lifetime. And in my lifetime, there is a group of people, living in slums and throwing stones against an high tech military state advancing further and further to build settlements for a few dozen jews in land inhabited by arabs.

And even if the very beginning was out of positive ideas, the current state of israelian politics is bad. They completely took the role of being the super-badass of the region, dictating foreign politics by means of military power. Sure, they answer aggression with more aggression, but this is just the totally wrong way of doing it. In my view, there is no point where you should relate to means of violence only, but that is exactly what is happening there from both sides. And if I view an asymetrical conflict, I will always see to support the weaker side from being handled in an unfair way.

As I said earlier, the situation is totally ****ed and not going to get better until real changes are made. I cant tell you the right way of handling the situation, but are able to spot the wrong way. You could have started by not beginning a "war" in which you fly air strike after air strike against people who just dared to elect the wrong partyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War. You could try to figure out what you did wrong before, leading to the massive support a group like the hamas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas is getting while at the same time the PLO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO is loosing ground.

So I will admit that I had the historical background totally wrong, but I have to say that the current reasons of arabs to oppose Israel are legit. Again, their means of opposition are wrong, but this is just the same thing again. I dont know about the right english term, but think that spiral of violence might be a good german - english translation. And to break this spiral of violence should be the main goal for the middle east, and its just not happening with the current politics.

I thank you for getting me to inform me further on the topic, since I have a keen interest in being informed and collecting knowledge of as many stuff as possible.

SteveSmith wrote:Point well taken Markji ;)

See, that is the thing I should have avoid with my post, but was not able to do. My knowledge about Israelian history is based on one seminar I took around 10 years ago. And as I said, the other posts in this topic got me on the edge, so much that I answered emotionally. I must admid that the current Israelian - Palestinian situation is so ****ed, I lost interest in it. I literally did no research for the first post besides using the informations stored in my half baked brain. And if you are not informed, you should not bark about something. As you might have noticed, I (mostly) try to back up my statements, but was unable here.

I just read about the history of the region. And know what? I'm totally affirmed in my general pacifistic mind state. The first zionistic agendas were definitly not as bad as the word suggests. I dont have to tell you, since you are obviously informed on the topic, but was surprised as I read about it now. In the first place, they wanted to avoid the mistakes that were made later. They wanted a peaceful solution that included all people living in the area. I definitely do not want to take any side in this conflict, but are influenced by the stuff that happened in my lifetime. And in my lifetime, there is a group of people, living in slums and throwing stones against an high tech military state advancing further and further to build settlements for a few dozen jews in land inhabited by arabs.

And even if the very beginning was out of positive ideas, the current state of israelian politics is bad. They completely took the role of being the super-badass of the region, dictating foreign politics by means of military power. Sure, they answer aggression with more aggression, but this is just the totally wrong way of doing it. In my view, there is no point where you should relate to means of violence only, but that is exactly what is happening there from both sides. And if I view an asymetrical conflict, I will always see to support the weaker side from being handled in an unfair way.

As I said earlier, the situation is totally ****ed and not going to get better until real changes are made. I cant tell you the right way of handling the situation, but are able to spot the wrong way. You could have started by not beginning a "war" in which you fly air strike after air strike against people who just dared to elect the wrong partyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War. You could try to figure out what you did wrong before, leading to the massive support a group like the hamas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas is getting while at the same time the PLO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLO is loosing ground.

So I will admit that I had the historical background totally wrong, but I have to say that the current reasons of arabs to oppose Israel are legit. Again, their means of opposition are wrong, but this is just the same thing again. I dont know about the right english term, but think that spiral of violence might be a good german - english translation. And to break this spiral of violence should be the main goal for the middle east, and its just not happening with the current politics.

I thank you for getting me to inform me further on the topic, since I have a keen interest in being informed and collecting knowledge of as many stuff as possible.

Your questions are valid. Both you and I want peace so there is common ground. But also I don't want to hijack Brigg's thread which was originally about Iran. Just a general comment. One can't just say Arabs and mean all Arabs; or Israel and mean all Israelis; or Iran and mean all Iranians. People are different and have different views in each of these areas. IMO, the situation is like this - there are a small percentage of people who are radical in each of these areas and these people are heavily armed or in control of the armed forces. Even though most of the people aren't for fighting, killing, terrorism, etc. these radical people start the fighting and terrorist activities. Everyone gets in an uproar as innocent people on both sides are killed. Hatred and mistrust rises.

On the surface the Israeli - Arab - Iranian - U.S. situations seem hopeless to resolve. Only on the deeper levels can order and clarity of thinking be instilled to overcome the negativity of the stress that is there.

There is hope. Just look at your own country. I'm not sure how old you are but Germany was hopelessly divided for decades - East vs West. The cold war was intense. And dangerous. No one saw a solution other than armed conflict. Yet, the Berlin Wall fell and the totalitarian Communist regime fell without a shot being fired. There probably wasn't one person in the world who predicted this would happen the way it did. If I told you there were large groups of people meditating in countries throughout western Europe and parts of Eastern Europe, I am not sure if you will believe or accept that they had a lot to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall. But that did happen. And I expect other totalitarian regimes to keep on falling.

SteveSmith wrote:I dont think highjacking Briggs threat should be a concern here, since it is clearly becoming more than originally intended. We could, if you agree switch this to email, since I really enjoy talking to you, despite having to do it in a foreign language im not that capable of But I have no problem with this pseudo public format, because it gives our fellow UK members and guests the possibility to read or even contribute.

For the record, Im going to be 30 in october this year. I have a deeper knowledge about the cold war and realize that if it would have ever grown hot, I most definitly would not write this. I will come back to the "german question" later.

Again, you are right that you have to distinguish between the leading class and the common people in every system. The problem here is, the more fundamental parts of a society will per definition allways be the ones striving for power. And, sorry for that, you dont have to go to the middle east to get an display of the power fundamentalists hold over a state. What you have over there in the US is the worst way of christian fundamentalists. Your presidents are elected by means of financial wealth. Who can spend the most money on his campaign, usually comes out as the winner of an election. The accumulated wealth of the NEOCONS and other fundamentally inspired lobby groups is that powerfull when put into a system like yours. The US is in no means that different from a monarchy, only that you have money in place of birth right. And even this is not absolutely true, since its often the same families that have the money and power to get themself elected. If your democrats have not gone with Obama, you would have gotten 2 families sharing the presidential role from '89 until at least 2013.

To get back to the peaceful revolution that happened in Germany in '89. True, there was no shot fired in 89. But the cold war and with it the "spiral of deterrence" was to much for the communistic system led by the USSR. The armed conflicts where put to 3rd party states like korea, vietnam, afghanistan, iran/iraq and many more. I still seriously believe that a running socialistic state would be an advantage to capitalism and privatization of state industries (looking forward to the movement of deliberalization in south america). But in the context of armament, it lead to a fixation away from the original ideas of shared wealth. And, you cant take the fact away that as always the wrong "elites/fundamentalists" where at the helm in USSR as well. Mikhail Gorbachev was the first to not only see this, but to act accordinglyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika.

The hope the rest of the world put in Barrack Obama, was that he might act a bit like Gorbachev and retreat from the US dogma of being the worlds police. Heck, they even gave him the nobel piece prize way before he did anything! And even if he tries to improve the US within, his foreign politics are not that different from 8 years of Bush junior. His rethoric has changed, but his actions remain the same (ok, not fair: if it was the same actions, you already would be in another war against terror, maybe in Yemen this time ). This is a display of the real power that runs the US. I still trust Obama that his intentions are good, but he stands not a chance against the collected power of wealth and media that is running your country.

TMS put up the comparisation with the roman empire, and that is not that far off. The US had its last victory in '89, but now the barbarians (EU/Russia/Iran/China) are gaining ground again and will eventually become that powerful that the US has either to adjust or goes down with a big boom. Your economy is finished, your politics are nowhere near the democracy you are fighting for and the world is watching. Guantanamo, Iraq, Pakistan and the conflict with Iran is taking away the last bit of moral supperiosity you had. There is a urgent need for a change. Not a change of words, but a change of actions!

After saying all of that, it is a pleasure to see an US-american citizen that is that far away from the picture we in europe have from "the americans". I always knew that there is no such thing as "the american", but thats just me, not all of "the europeans".

That for now, looking forward to your next answer!

Very interesting and astute comments about the American political system. I totally agree. I actually worked/volunteered for 3rd political parties in the 1990s and everything you just wrote is what I/they said. We do need reform in our political system. This is noticed by many people in the U.S. One US Senator, Evan Bayh, publically said he is quitting at the end of his term because of the infighting between the 2 political parties which he feels is destroying the country. The other politicians just give rhetoric to this, but no meaningful action. The Christian Fundamentalists and Neocons are really Facist in their thinking and action, and, thank God, lost some power in the 2008 elections.

Re: Socialism - it doesn't work in business. People need incentive and the ability to be entrepreneurial, innovative, creative, advance, etc. Socialism stifles that. Look at China and India. They are advancing tremendously by opening up business to the private sector and trying to de-socialize their Gov't-owned industries.

I wanted to get back to the idea from last post about consciousness because it is really the collective consciousness of the people that gives rise to the tendencies of the head of state, and ultimately governs the nation. If you develop/enhance consciousness, then change happens on the surface values of life. Wars and conflicts between nations are really from the collective stress of the people. If individuals develop their own consciousness, release their own stress, etc., then the collective consciousness of the nation improves and the collective stress diminishes. Peace follows. This is the solution to the Iran situation as well as the only real solution in the Middle East. Release the collective stress and tension, and violence will diminish and eventually end. People will be focused on advancing themselves rather than tearing down others, and other countries.