GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Re: The Falklands  (Read 5125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #17 on: Wed, Mar 22, 2006, 08:02 »


Oh yes, I understand what is meant. I would insist that all POW's shall be treated the other way, and any tresspasser be imprisoned for life because of war crimes. What you suggest is maybe well-intended, but will show a contrary effect: the foreign soldiers would be afraid of falling to our hands alive and fight till the end. No, we shall indicate that everybody who lays down his weapons will be treated humanly and given the possibillity to marry a man if he wishes. ;) The rumors should concern the (purported) fact that 95% of POW's actually convert to the "gay lifestyle". ;D


As belligerents,gays would probably and occasionnally perpetrate the same general (and non-sexual) abuses heterosexuals perpetrate between themselves.A work colleague of mine had some computer wargame.He was very good at manning the computer,but understood next to nothing
to the tactics to be used.So,he sought my help,he manning the computer,and I advising him on tactics (I have a good knowledge of military history and some experience acquired in the canadian army reserve).The character I discovered deep inside me while playing that game was hideous,to the point that I now avoid those kinds of games.A situation a bit similar to the one experienced by Lawrence of Arabia,a notorious historical gay warrior.Gayness and sexual orientation in general have no impact on some basic bestial instincts of the human being.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #16 on: Tue, Mar 21, 2006, 14:54 »

[..] Another factor will be those intermediary countries,likely to allow some interaction between us ad the rest of the world.Certain hethro political regimes and States have been relatively favourable to our interests,who could play that role. [..] It is obvious that such gay-friendly States will not put their very existence or security in jeopardy for us. [..]


Well, who would? It is clearly understood, that governments seldom act by sympathies, but by simple considerations of their interests. If we prove to be a reliable partner in certain issues, we should have plenty of friendly relations. This does not eliminate the necessity to mobilize in first line our own ressources for economic development and defence.

[..] We could however have in advance an idea of what would be lying ahead by studying the current opposition to new reproductive technology in nowadays heterosexual societies.People who hold power or monopoly over something - like reproduction and/or ownership of human ressources - will expectedly not accept with much enthusiasm the loss of that power or monopoly. [..]

Not that human beings were a very rare ressource...  O:) Indeed, the successes on that field seem to be rather unwanted in many countries, and not a few number of developed countries is doing everything possible to prevent an influx of the human ressources from abroad. Well, human reproduction is not a WMD, and if we ever get technologies to produce many little homosexuals by ourselves, I doubt the rest of the world will be much disturbed. Though, the idea is tempting!  >:) Seriously, the interests of the homophobic countries will actually not be contrary to our own on this field: they contempt their homosexuals and want get rid of them - we are proud of these guys and happily will welcome them in our society.

Well,we could spread wild rumors about what could happen to eventual invaders ending up as prisoners of war in our hands. Surely,you understand what I mean here,there is no need to be specific.

Oh yes, I understand what is meant. I would insist that all POW's shall be treated the other way, and any tresspasser be imprisoned for life because of war crimes. What you suggest is maybe well-intended, but will show a contrary effect: the foreign soldiers would be afraid of falling to our hands alive and fight till the end. No, we shall indicate that everybody who lays down his weapons will be treated humanly and given the possibillity to marry a man if he wishes. ;) The rumors should concern the (purported) fact that 95% of POW's actually convert to the "gay lifestyle". ;D
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #15 on: Wed, Mar 08, 2006, 23:48 »

But in times of foreign hostility and economic blocades, the access to the open sea is the only possibility to secure the supply and exports. Just think about it: having a few direct neighbours, an "inconvenient" mainland-country can be easily blocaded by simple closing of borders, and would have no chance to breach the blocade. This country would be even not able to be reached by air-planes without permission of it's neighbours. Having access to a sea port or even being an insulary state, offers much better degree of indiopendency, as any sea blockade would require an open war and even then there are better opportunities to breach the blokade. We therefore would be well-advised to seek a territory with a coastal line.

When I suggested that a country of ours should be established on a continent,I meant of course with a coastal line.

Another factor will be those intermediary countries,likely to allow some interaction between us ad the rest of the world.Certain hethro political regimes and States have been relatively favourable to our interests,who could play that role.Provided of course that they were not subjected to  excessive pressure from other States,beyond what their own interest would allow to bear.

It is obvious that such gay-friendly States will not put their very existence or security in jeopardy for us.

I am thinking here of such countries like the Netherlands and Sweden.In my novel,gay immigrants reach that Republic of ours in north America by way of the Netherlands (by sea) and of Sweden (by air).

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #14 on: Tue, Mar 07, 2006, 09:23 »


Honestly, the idea of remote settlements somewhere in the Canadian or Russian wilderness is of course not that stupid. There are, for example in Siberia several religious colonies led by their respective gurus, and the people are doing not that bad. But what I am thinking of, is not simply a gay kibbutz, but a larger area with an effective control of the local gay government over it: the gay equivalent of Abchasia, Dnestr Republic or Taiwan. To avoid the legal fuss, however, we could buy the territory, simply as Great Britain did with Hong Kong before (of course not for 99 years, but till the end of days). Certainly, the selling of the own state territory is somewhat out of fashion, but who says we and our contract partners can't introduce this fashion again? A smart financial agreement with stretched paying of the state debt could decrease the sum required for the purchase of the territory. What I dislike on simple squattering is the prospective of being imprisoned before we have achieved any significant progres with our cause, and therefore endangering the cause as a whole.


Any successfull squatting operation would have a chance of success only during some interregnum,while there is no longer a State operating at the place where Canada is now located.Nowadays,canadian authorities are better informed,by way of aerial patrols or satellites,of the activities taking place in remote corners of Canadal.In that respect,the situation is not the one which existed in the 1940s,when a group of German submariners established a meteo station on the coast of Labrador,on what was to them ennemy soil.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #13 on: Tue, Mar 07, 2006, 02:30 »

K6, you bring me into temptation!  :=V

Honestly, the idea of remote settlements somewhere in the Canadian or Russian wilderness is of course not that stupid. There are, for example in Siberia several religious colonies led by their respective gurus, and the people are doing not that bad. But what I am thinking of, is not simply a gay kibbutz, but a larger area with an effective control of the local gay government over it: the gay equivalent of Abchasia, Dnestr Republic or Taiwan. To avoid the legal fuss, however, we could buy the territory, simply as Great Britain did with Hong Kong before (of course not for 99 years, but till the end of days). Certainly, the selling of the own state territory is somewhat out of fashion, but who says we and our contract partners can't introduce this fashion again? A smart financial agreement with stretched paying of the state debt could decrease the sum required for the purchase of the territory. What I dislike on simple squattering is the prospective of being imprisoned before we have achieved any significant progres with our cause, and therefore endangering the cause as a whole.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #12 on: Tue, Mar 07, 2006, 00:29 »


Sure, there is much free space in North America, and it would probably take years untill the Canadian government would become aware of some squatterers who have occupied some of it territories.

In the early 80s,four decades after WWII,a German tourist and war veteran came to Canada.He asked the canadian federal government about some outpost established by himself and others back in the early 40s and on the coast of Labrador (Newfoundland) by the Kriegsmarine.The canadian federal government knew nothing about the matter.Traces of the outpost were nevertheless discovered at the place indicated.In the area I grew up myself,the Gaspé peninsula,there were tales of German submariners knowing English or French,and landing on saturday evenings to take part in the local dance parties,during WWII.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #11 on: Mon, Mar 06, 2006, 23:58 »

[..] Once we will be out of the danger zone entailed in seceding,many heterosexuals will say that they were on our side already in those tragic times which preceded our independence.That will probably be true from a personal point of view,but I doubt on a political one. [..]

We shal take every help offered to us by friendly individuals or states, why shouldn't we? Another thing is, of course, that we shall in the first line trust into our own abilities and efforts. A people, however weak, shall build its statehood by its own means (in my free enterpretation of Gen. DeGaule this was probably what he wanted to express by his words). The state is of course free to forge coalitions with other states - these coalitions being to the mutual advantage of involved countries. It is of course advisable to keep certain distance to one's friends, as sometimes the embraces can end in stifling of the smaller partner. I think that France might serve as an example of both geopolitical realism and sufficient militarily independence.

[..] what happened to the Castro regime when it was suddently left in the lurch by its Soviet providers at the beginning of the 90s. [..] We can have independence on an island,but as I have read and then seen for myself on site and in Havana,with a very low standard of living.Always awaiting for some cargo from abroad. [..]

I think you wrongly adress the geography as the cause of Cuba's problems, while you should adress its the political regime. This planet is full of islands which are prospering economically and culturally, because they are well-governed and the inhabitants directly profit from the fruits of their work. As particularly bright examples I shall remind of Taiwan, Singapore or even Ireland. As far as the economy is concerned, Cuba is simply very badly governed and that's the main cause of the poverty there. Surelly, the unjustified economic sanctions of the US have done much evil to Cuba, but there are more countries to trade with. Alone, Castro's regime has even managed to spoil relations to the usually very benevolent European Union, instead of taking the chance of economic cooperation. Certainly, in good times the insulary economics are somewhat disadvantaged in comparison to the mainland (necessety of employing ferries is indeed tiresome). But in times of foreign hostility and economic blocades, the access to the open sea is the only possibility to secure the supply and exports. Just think about it: having a few direct neighbours, an "inconvenient" mainland-country can be easily blocaded by simple closing of borders, and would have no chance to breach the blocade. This country would be even not able to be reached by air-planes without permission of it's neighbours. Having access to a sea port or even being an insulary state, offers much better degree of indiopendency, as any sea blockade would require an open war and even then there are better opportunities to breach the blokade. We therefore would be well-advised to seek a territory with a coastal line.

Immigration. Yes, a difficult issue. The wealthy middle class crowd is indeed often not aware of its the lacking political rights, untill these guys actually comes into situations of being discriminated against or physically attacked. This is not a particular fault of these individuals, as we all usually learn out of our own experience. A western yuppy with a nice job and a house in a safe neighbourhood has usually little reasons to complain about his situation, but he instantly becomes smarter, once he was not allowed to visit his boyfriend in a hospital or could not marry his greate love from another country. All the binationals who can't live together now, would wish to emigrate to the gay state, because they would have much higher quality of life there. A homosexual military specialist drummed out of the US military service after years of good service would be humiliated to a degree that would abolish any economic concerns, if he would have the chance to re-gain his self-respect in our service. Not to speak about millions of the poor devils who anyway live in danger and poverty - they would improve their situation immensely in both economical and political respect. I think that our primary difficulties would originate not that much from the lacking desire to emigrate to the gay state, but simply the ignorance about our existence. Our basic human stock will probably come from the poorer countries, and our ptimary task would be to reach these guys with our propaganda instruments.

In Germany,you live by my standards in an overcrowded area and condition.In north America,I grew up with plenty of unoccupied space to roam. [..]


Sure, there is much free space in North America, and it would probably take years untill the Canadian government would become aware of some squatterers who have occupied some of it territories. But I have little doubts that finally these guys would come with their bulldozers and level any unlawfully erected settlement on their territory. I am not familiar with the habits of Canadian autorities, but I would expect them to act this way. And what's with immigration? Encouraging illegal immigration to Canada would simply ruin those guys who will try to follow us by doing so, most of them being caught and extradicted to their home countries. We must find some legal possibilities, or at least not totally illegal ones.  For example, it should be possible to buy larger territories in unpopulated areas and encourage gays settling in those areas. The property being in "private hand" would allow to restrict the internal "immigration" to those who are gay, and the government would find it tiresome to control these private arrangements. A distant island in private hand would make it additionally difficult for the autorities to interfere into our internal busines, as long as no severe crimes are being committed there. Establishing some enterprise(s) there would allow us to formally employ our people and by doing so help them to gain the necessary immigration papers. However, a honest agreement with the central government would be much more favorable: for beginning it should suffice fully to have the status of an autonomous territory, being de-jura not independent, but de-facto self-governed. 

Israel`s WMDs are probably useless.Its ennemies aren`t located on another continent but next door.It has to consider the direction of the wind if it fires a thermonuclear missile on,say,Damascus.For Israel could itself be included in the devastation it would then have wrought.Thermonuclear weapons are to engage distant ennemies.Israel can count only on its regular armed forces to remain independent against the 100 million arabs next door.Once the US gone as a world power,Israel will probably be overrun.Owing to its size,it cannot wage a long war,nor afford a single defeat. [..]


Though I do not share your opinion about the effectivity of nuclear deterrence against next neighbours, I agree that the geopolitical situation of Israel is not especially advantageous. Be it like it is, one cannot always choose the ideal position from the map, but rather is forced to make the best from the given situation. While trying to establish the gay state, we of course would do good to consider not only the instant availability of any particular territorial solution, but also to assess the long-time prospectives of both economical and geopolitical developement. For example, we could simply occupy any distant uninhabited territory and declare independence regardless of other state's claims. Hovever, being unable to establish there an economy we would invariably end up as a bunch of lunatics, and the effect on the macropolitical world would be zero. What we need is not only a free territory, but rather the due organization to channalize our human and financial ressources for achieving any of our essential goals. With such organization we would be able to acquire the neccessary territory, build up there an infrastructure and transport our endangered folks to this territory. At the end, the state is like a huge corporation: as more money it has, the more possibilities to change the world it has also. Indeed, there are some corporations which have a budget larger than those of the most states.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #10 on: Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 06:55 »

I also disagree with your opinion about Israel's defense strategy - they simply wouldn't exist, if they wouldn't be smart enough to cooperate with the US. They use the time of this cooperation to grow both economically and military, and are in the meanwhile in the posession of WMD and a very efficient army - no one from their neighbours would realistically mess with them.

Israel`s WMDs are probably useless.Its ennemies aren`t located on another continent but next door.It has to consider the direction of the wind if it fires a thermonuclear missile on,say,Damascus.For Israel could itself be included in the devastation it would then have wrought.Thermonuclear weapons are to engage distant ennemies.Israel can count only on its regular armed forces to remain independent against the 100 million arabs next door.Once the US gone as a world power,Israel will probably be overrun.Owing to its size,it cannot wage a long war,nor afford a single defeat.A gay State will have to be consolidated during an interregnum and before other powers have been reestablished and consolidated in its neighboorhood.After that,it will have to avoid the example of dependence on a world power displayed by Israel - or Cuba.The Castro regime
nearly collapsed in 1991,after it was abandonned by soviet Russia.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #9 on: Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 00:29 »

What me and you or some of us theoretically thinks of capitalism and property, unfortunately has little practical consequences in societies with pre-formed legal system. Even in the parallel approach, one is forced to buy land and building materials in order to establish a gay communal center. Certainly, an unoccupied territory can be easily squatted, but have you seen somewhere a territory which does not belong to somebody already? Of course you have right that there is no need to buy every square meter of the claimed territory, as when we have the majority in any community, the communal property automatically goes over to our disposition.

In Germany,you live by my standards in an overcrowded area and condition.In north America,I grew up with plenty of unoccupied space to roam.How to describe you that experience ? In Germany certainly,you have places where you can rent picture movies.Rent then,if you can,the one titled "Black Robe" by the producer Bruce Beresford.It will show you what lied under my eyes during the first 15 years of my life.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #8 on: Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 00:02 »


The actual position on a continent or on an island is a controversal subject. Islands are indeed a bit disadvantageous from the economic point of view, but have certain attractivity from the political perspective: they can be easier declared independent, and their defence is easier for the local power. I suppose, if ever, we will have to take whatever falls into our hands.  :R
 

I have read a book in French titled "Fin de siècle à La Havane" (End of a century in Havana).It describes what happened to the Castro regime when it was suddently left in the lurch by its Soviet providers at the beginning of the 90s.Such a reading does not depict in a very optimistic or promising light life on an island,even though in the case of Cuba the largest in the Carribean.We can have independence on an island,but as I have read and then seen for myself on site and in Havana,with a very low standard of living.Always awaiting for some cargo from abroad.Another planet when compared to Germany or Canada.Take note that I would accept for myself a very low standard of living,provided that we gays lived in political independence.But how to sell such an idea to the middle class,intellectual and yuppie gay crowd ?

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #7 on: Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 23:48 »

Certainly it is very noble goal to defend our country by own means, but this will be for sure only possible after a long phase of developement. Whereas one should of course not rely on other countries, it is nothing disgracefull to cooperate with other friendly countries on the field of defence. A government has to ensure the safety of the country, even if the pureness of the gay ideology would be "stained" in a minor degree.
 

Well,certainly there will be in the capital city of that future country of ours gala receptions with champagne and Strauss walzes,with the diplomatic corps of foreign hethro countries.And to any heterosexual tourist with a positive interest in studying our culture and civilisation,we will of course lend all the facilities for that purpose.This should appeal to the political left,always infatuated with new social and political experiences.Once we will be out of the danger zone entailed in seceding,many heterosexuals will say that they were on our side already in those tragic times which preceded our independence.That will probably be true from a personal point of view,but I doubt on a political one.Behind the close doors of our foreign ministry,we shall say as general De Gaule once did that *a State worthy of that name has no friends*.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #6 on: Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 22:20 »

[..] When we talk about having a country of our own,we need to know how and  by whom it will be defended and supplied.Because someone will eventually want to take it.Other political actors will not try to take a colony or a country of ours if we appear as credible adversaries.I would exclude islands,because of the problem of supplying them and the possibility that they could be blocaded.Our country should be established on a continent. [..]

Certainly it is very noble goal to defend our country by own means, but this will be for sure only possible after a long phase of developement. Whereas one should of course not rely on other countries, it is nothing disgracefull to cooperate with other friendly countries on the field of defence. A government has to ensure the safety of the country, even if the pureness of the gay ideology would be "stained" in a minor degree.
 Even such powerfull countries like UK, Germany and Japan rely on the military cooperation - we would be foolish to reject any helping hand. I also disagree with your opinion about Israel's defense strategy - they simply wouldn't exist, if they wouldn't be smart enough to cooperate with the US. They use the time of this cooperation to grow both economically and military, and are in the meanwhile in the posession of WMD and a very efficient army - no one from their neighbours would realistically mess with them. Maybe not ideologically pure, but a functioning strategy. The other example is France, which is both military powerfull and cooperating with others.

The actual position on a continent or on an island is a controversal subject. Islands are indeed a bit disadvantageous from the economic point of view, but have certain attractivity from the political perspective: they can be easier declared independent, and their defence is easier for the local power. I suppose, if ever, we will have to take whatever falls into our hands.  :R

[..] I do not agree with the acquisition of property in a formal way,as I do now really believe in the concept of property itself.Mortals as we are,we fit into the category of users rather than owners.And grabbers more often than not. [..]


What me and you or some of us theoretically thinks of capitalism and property, unfortunately has little practical consequences in societies with pre-formed legal system. Even in the parallel approach, one is forced to buy land and building materials in order to establish a gay communal center. Certainly, an unoccupied territory can be easily squatted, but have you seen somewhere a territory which does not belong to somebody already? Of course you have right that there is no need to buy every square meter of the claimed territory, as when we have the majority in any community, the communal property automatically goes over to our disposition.

[..] In your part of the world,certain gentlemen working in a place called Pullach will monitor everything we will post together in this forum.But they will not intervene,and might well,for the lack of previous historical experience,take us at first seriously or know what to do.

Well, I doubt that the guys from the BND are in some way interested in our activities. These activities are totally consistent with the German law, as neither are we publicly instigating to illegal behaviour, nor are our goals as such of criminal nature. I have been very conscious to encourage legal ways to achieve gay souvereignity, in doubt appealing to the natural right of living beings to posess a territory.  :T We propagate a peacefull solution for our territorial question, and there is no point in German criminal code which could be applied to peacefull negotiations with other countries for independence. On contrary, German authorities quickly recognized independence of Croatia and actively supported the independence of Timor-Leste from Indonesia.  :N

[..] But we will have to assume quickly an exclusive competence over immigration.Once this is done and that gay immigrants come,pouring in in nationalistic fervor and in large numbers,heteroxuals who count and who are raising families and have children will not want to stay.Not in an environment with a growing gay population with the corresponding cultural influence and political power.

Yes, that's the key point. No need to evict or harass the initial heterosexual population of the area - we simply could outnumber it by immigration. To be just, we could buy land and houses from those who would desire to leave the territory - a win-win situation.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #5 on: Sun, Feb 26, 2006, 18:22 »

Personally, I would prefere to live under the "hethro rule" till the end of my days, instead of murdering some innocent people who happen to posess something what we would like to bring into our control. No, we must find other ways, and only fight back if we will be attacked. Therefore the suggestions to aquire lands in thinly populated areas - this would spare us much of conflicts and violence.

It might not come to that point.But we will have to assume quickly an exclusive competence over immigration.Once this is done and that gay immigrants come,pouring in in nationalistic fervor and in large numbers,heteroxuals who count and who are raising families and have children will not want to stay.Not in an environment with a growing gay population with the corresponding cultural influence and political power.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #4 on: Sun, Feb 26, 2006, 17:03 »


We can establish facts (congregate in one particular area and acquire more and more property there), and then take our chance in an appropriate moment. 

I agree with the two first elements of your proposal,that is "...establish facts" and "...congregate in one particular area".I do not agree with the acquisition of property in a formal way,as I do now really believe in the concept of property itself.Mortals as we are,we fit into the category of users rather than owners.And grabbers more often than not.I mean all of us,gays and heterosexuals.I of course agree with this element of your proposal which consists in taking our chance in the appropriate moment.At the moment,we cannot take territory.Nor realistically settle or squat in most parts of the world.What we can do is using territory and space,under the guise of ordinary everyday life events and activities.You,Mogul,who posts messages in this forum,you are using a piece of territory while so doing,aren`t you ?.You aren`t in limbo.Thus will start gay political independence,with small facts at first not inviting - or allowing - for a physical response.In your part of the world,certain gentlemen working in a place called Pullach will monitor everything we will post together in this forum.But they will not intervene,and might well,for the lack of previous historical experience,take us at first seriously or know what to do.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: The Falklands
« Reply #3 on: Sun, Feb 26, 2006, 16:35 »


Now generally to the taking control of a territory. Certainly it is possible to organize a militairy occupation of some weaker country, kill or evict the inhabitants and make it our posession. The prize question is, who would wish to start a new country by such means and how this people intend to leave upon accomplishing their task. Personally, I would prefere to live under the "hethro rule" till the end of my days, instead of murdering some innocent people who happen to posess something what we would like to bring into our control. No, we must find other ways, and only fight back if we will be attacked. Therefore the suggestions to aquire lands in thinly populated areas - this would spare us much of conflicts and violence.

This would diminish the risk,perhaps to a considerable extent,but not eliminate it entirely.When we talk about having a country of our own,we need to know how and  by whom it will be defended and supplied.Because someone will eventually want to take it.Other political actors will not try to take a colony or a country of ours if we appear as credible adversaries.I would exclude islands,because of the problem of supplying them and the possibility that they could be blocaded.Our country should be established on a continent.I would also exclude a scenario where it is *others* who would play a disuasive role in relation with foreign aggression.It is we,an nobody else,who will have to defend our country.If we are capabable of doing this,we deserve a country.If not,we don`t.In that respect,we must nof follow the example of the State of Israel which is now wholly dependent upon the United States for its defense and existence.The day the US is no longer a world power,the arabs will in alll likelyhood retake what now forms the State of Israel.Since we have at least ten times the numbers of the Israelis and the world Jewish population,we have no reason or excuse to fall under the protection of anyone.The same way we didn`t existed without risk,we won`t be politically independent without risk.Existence and independence are one and a same thing to us.

K6
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up