bushbred

The one problem with that argument about a a Federation of Nations is that small minorities can easily be outvoted. This already happens in the UN where Islamic states continually vote in a group against tiny Israel which has only one vote.

The same would happen with the Basques, the Kurds any group which lacks numbers.

Also how would each state choose its representatives. How many UN members have governments which are the choice of the people? How many existing states limit availability of information? Did Kant have a process for making sure that could be achieved? What sort of government did Kant's Prussia have?

logic, going by your OLO monica, you should have gained reason enough to know that Kant's Federation of Nations also included regionalism, each chosen nation thus acquiring support from smaller nations or tribal groups around them.

Such was much talked about during the Korean War when it was meant to keep a strong permanent force with its own permanent insignia.

Well chosen UN term leaders were also very important, but the most importance was not to let any nation become top dog, as it was with Britain with the League of Nations and is so very much too much so with the US right now.

Finally, surely your preference for Logic, should have you know that Kant's proposition was sound, especially as it was from philosophers like Kant and those before him that the term logic was formulated not as the best way, but the Right Way.

Regards, BB, WA.

Logic,

"A problem is that the fundamentalists in the surrounding states believe with sincerity that their God given mission is to make everyone a follower of the Prophet Muhammed..."

Same as fundamentalists of any religion. That's what they do.

What then of the additional belief among fundamentalist Jews that they are entitled to this land "because God gave it to them", despite all legal and moral challenges to the contrary? There can never be a peaceful resolution as long as that notion exists - only a total victory won by force or attrition.

It's also not surprising to hear rumours of Iranian WMD's starting to appear and now Israeli jets are alleged to be overflying Iraqi airspace. Interesting days ahead.

Wobbles,

No US president will allow a nuclear war.

No US president will allow the launch of US nuclear weapons in response to an attack on Israel where Israel is the initiator of any sort of an exchange.

I think we've seen the last of unfetterted Israeli attacks on it's neighbours.

The balance of power in the mid east has changed. I think seeing Israel negotiating with Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria is a sure indication the US have accepted the enevitable and have shoved Israel into embarking on a realistic peace process.

I think we'll see a genuine attempt at peace with departure from the disgraceful occupation and a dismantling of those provacative illegal settlements.

I think there is now a genuine chance for peace in the mid east. There is a very real threat to Israeli cities.
For years we've been subjected to the propaganda line that Israel is at the mercy of it's neighbours. When the reality is that either it's neighbours have peace treaties with Israel or they are completely impotent to assert any sort of military threat to an overpowering Israel. That is what has changed. The threat is now no longer an imagined threat but is very very real.

Hi logic,

Nice to see you contributing again.

Bushbred,

My experience in relation to Logic is as you've assumed ... and he's decent too.

Many thanks, Keith and Logic, with myself getting too flamin' old, along with a faulty computer, like to leave it to the likes of you.

Cheers, BB

Keith,

Seriously, don’t you understand the difference between wishing/hoping something is true, and actually believing it?

If Iran launches nukes, it will go up in SMOKE!! Israel itself has enough nukes to level the place five times over. And there is NO WAY, the US stands by while Israel is attacked by Iran. NONE.

Besides the US’s obligation to help protect democracies from the dictators and theocrats, it would be an intolerable change in the balance of power in the region. If Iran survived and won (if such a thing is possible) any attack on Israel, their next move would be to control the flow of oil in the gulf by standing over their Sunni neighbours. This would mean that a dictatorship/theocray worse than Hitler would control the global economy. It would start a nuclear arms race among the Sunni Arab nations, total catastrophe.

Nope if Iran was stupid enough to do anything like that it would be SMOKED.

>> “The balance of power in the mid east has changed. I think seeing Israel negotiating with Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria is a sure indication the US have accepted the enevitable and have shoved Israel into embarking on a realistic peace process. “

Again with the wishful thinking.Israel negotiates with Syria because peace with Syria would be in both those countries interests AND it drives a wedge between Iran and Syria, who used to be a tight anti-Israel coalition. They negotiated a ceasefire with Hamas because if Hamas are serious, Israel has always been ready for peace. Secondly, if Hamas break this ceasefire (lthough I can’t imagine what the rockets they are still firing at Israel are, if they aren’t breaking the ceasefire) Israel WILL go back into Gaza and retake control, especially of the rocket launch sites.

>> “I think there is now a genuine chance for peace in the mid east. There is a very real threat to Israeli cities. “

WTF? You are a dreamer. Israel’s cities have ALWAYS been under threat. Where have you been hiding?

I notice you couldn't say which settlements are expanding. Doh