So is Israel just going to completely overtake Palestine?
So is Israel just going to completely overtake Palestine?
I saw an article about them attacking Lebanon now. So, where will it stop? Have the Israeli government ever spoken about this?
You're viewing a single thread.
This may not be a popular response but when did the nazi regime stop? When did China stop with it's cleansing? America and manifest destiny? I could go on... Humanity needs to realize that we are pretty shitty in general and can't be trusted when it comes to hatred, entitlement, and tribalism.
The solution is a neutral third party with sufficient power to stop any country's bullshit through economic and military (actual) peacekeeping... which doesn't exist nor will it ever.
So the short answer is they will stop when the cleansing is complete.
After the deed is done we as 'civilized' nations will lament the tragedy and promise change... until the media cycle washes all those sins down the drain and it will be forgotten until next time.
I am in no way saying what's going on is right...anytime massive amounts of life is taken it's horrible. With that being said you realize that there isn't a single country in the entire world that wasn't built on the blood of others? Every civilization that's here now destroyed some other one. People act like they live in some place that asked nicely to have the land they have.
Oh, I'm fully aware. Tribalism is the lizard brain going deeeep in the paint. The problem is this: peaceful culture doesn't fight back - aggressive culture exploits this: which one thrives? We have systematically bred for and codified our warlike nature. This is the result. Is it fixable? Many have tried. Our history books are littered with both failed attempts and their distorted remains. All I can say for certain is that the way the majority of countries are structured... isn't it. This is fundamentally why achieving a fix is nearly impossible at scale: tribalism. Even if we are wrong it's our wrong and we don't want to lose it. This is rooted in fear of change which from a survival aspect makes sense... but becomes detrimental at scale.
I agree with what you're saying and it's too bad most people are too stupid to move forward with that mindset because I for one would rather we could all get along but for invisible reasons many people can't..which is in itself quite unintelligent
No. Moral. States
party with sufficient power to stop any country's bullshit
No. That would not be a solution for anything! That would just be an even bigger threat to humanity.
I disagree. It's about execution - creating an environment that is resistant to corrosion. A standing force can absolutely be viewed in that manner - which is why it cannot be a single static standing force.
The UN is the right idea but it needs teeth. And it needs the teeth to be double sided. If boots are on the ground peacekeeping they should be without bias and secondary interest. An attack on a peacekeeper has no guarantee of the creed nor country of origin of that keeper.
Peacekeeping should be like a draft. Every country that participates must provide and maintain a set number of rolling participants. These people will serve and train initially in humanitarian deployments with others.. half way through their 'term' they should be moved to peacekeeping duties. This is idealized but would be good for both building trust amongst peacekeepers and goodwill towards them. This solves the military portion (roughly) - I have a lot of thoughts on this and believe it to be solvable... it just won't be. No country gets to benefit therefore it has no merit.
That covered the military side... when talking about the economic side: the peacekeepers (let's say un for simplicity) carry the ability to (by vote) censure a country and cut it off from direct trade / support. At that time any trade is then routed through the UN and it becomes the middleman. This allows economic pressures to be precisely controlled on an area. Once that country falls in line, by majority vote, operations are restored. Once again this is idealized and has no obviously advantaged party ... so it has no merit and will never occur.
Basically everyone is equally held accountable and equally invested. Of course this means everyone gets a seat at the table and everyone gets one vote. I'm certain we can already see why this has 0 chance of ever happening. Those in power seek to keep it - very few will willingly give some away.
A nice dream, but only a dream.
Unfortunately man is not perfect enough for it to work. Therefore the outcome can be nothing else than a huge threat for mankind.
I said as much multiple times.
The point of that statement was to highlight that it is possible to construct something that does not allow for consolidation and corruption of power... which it did. Your view simply was looking at present day examples which, as you correctly identified, do not work. That doesn't mean nothing can work however ... which is why I disagreed.
It's a fun mental exercise to what if and try to construct something that could work. Can't tear something down without considering what rebuilding it would look like.
That doesn't mean nothing can work however
But yes, it does.
Don't interrupt someone doing what you said couldn't be done.
be careful about using the term 'execution' here ;-)
...until morale improves? Dually noted lol.
Options for this third party?
Aliens.
Which ones exactly