Author
|
Topic: War in the middle east (Read 15187 times)
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
 Offline
Posts: 72
|
Geoman:
1) if Clinton would have commited a murder are you telling me that he wouldn't have (or at least should) got a trial just like any other person? remeber a democratic leader is "first amongst equals."
2) isn't commiting a terrorist action while your party occupies the goverment considered as an act of war, if not worse?
3) ins't backing out of the gaza strip and letting the people who make the terrorist attacks plans live longer an alternative method than killing them outright? and besides they are not killed the minute they THINK of bombing , they are (figuratively speaking) the moment their finger is about to press the button.
4)just for your knowledge the present PM is much more diplomatic than the former Sharon
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GeomanNL
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 167
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
1) I happen to like Clinton. Let's instead take president Bush. Ultimately, he is responsible for a lot of deaths in the Middle East, by attacking Iraq (a few years ago), and this against the will of almost all of the rest of the civilized world. Your PM orders to level the southern suburbs of Beirut, not caring whether there are civilians living there, also against the will of almost all of the rest of the civilized world. Would you call those deaths wartime casualties, or are they the result of illegal actions ? This is just theoretical babble of course, noone will ever accuse Bush or Olmert of atrocities against humanity, but imo sometimes, there's a thin line between good and evil...
2) I suppose it is - but is Israel currently at war with the Palestine people ?
3) even if a leader is planning some kind of attack, that doesn't automatically mean that you kill him (at least, not while you're at peace) - cause that excludes any form of negotiation beforehand. Killing his aids who also do planning and preparation is fine with me, that has much less political consequence. Or perhaps I'm just being ignorant here ?
4) I think your new PM is worse than Sharon. His diplomatic response to a few kidnappings is war ...he is responsible for leveling of south Beirut and some violent incursions in Gaza - that's more than Sharon can claim to have done, isn't it ?
Btw., my major problem with current events is the scale on which destruction is taking place. I think it is absurd and I'm horrified when I watch the images on TV (also by the Hezbollah attacks btw., but unfortunately Israel steals the show).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 27, 2006, 05:13:41 pm by GeomanNL »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
1)actually, up until very lately most of the civilized world was saying, "do what you have to, but try to minimize the damage". in addition the area bombed is hizballah- city - the people there are part of a terrorist organization at war with israel - i think that disqualifies them as civilians.
and if you'll think abou it you'll see that the PM cannot afford to level south beirut wether civilians are present or not, i mean why else would we need precision bombs? certainly not to flatten south beirut - the reason we need them is to kill nassralla WITHOUT killing innocent civilians
2) no, wer'e at war with the hamas as a terrorist organization which happenes to be in control right now and whuch uses that control to further it's own intrests which go against those of the palestinian people such as continued terrorist attacks and distributing the charity funds which do arrive to their own people while they leave those that dont agree with their opinions to starve.
3) wer'e not talking about planning - were talking about a leader who is about to give an order to a suicide bomber (just like a USSR president which is about to press the big red button) - after which said bomber disappears off the map until his pieces suddenly appear throughout a bus or kidergarden or you name it. it's a far cry from planning...
4) there are two ways of looking at it :
1 - the hizballah practically rules south lebannon and therefore can be treated as a country which its capital sits in a certain part of Beirut - which is the part that is being bombed as the capital of a country were at war with
2 - lebannon does rule south lebannon and therefore allows these attacks knowingly and therefore its capital is being bombed in retaliation
either way you look at we are bombing the right target...
and as for sharon not bombing south beirut, well, i have a pretty strong feeling (and i think that most israelis share it) that sharon would have acted much sooner and then we wouldn't have gotten to this stage while olmert (the current PM) was much more patient and tried diplomacy before resorting to force - dont forget that this didnt start with the kidnapping of the two soldiers
but went on for a long time beforehand with this being the last straw - i mean, we retreated from lebannon - so it should have been quiet, right? but hizballah along with syria and iran which are interested in creating diversions, had an interest in reigniting the fire.
in addition - your'e horrified by physical scale, but what about the time scale, imagine living in a city that has seen so many buses, cafes, restaraunts and weddings blowed up that it becomes emotionally dull...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
usually treated unfairly on the world media and generally misunderstood and misinterpreted.
That might have something to do with the "accidental" multi-hour bombing campaign against that UN watch post. Honestly, that was not a very good global PR move, even if the UN is an imbalanced, unfair organization (which is what one might expect from an imbalanced unfair world.)
oh and BTW Lebannon isn't shooting at us but the Hizballah. it's an important distinction to make since they are a terrorist organization rather than a legitimate country.
I think there is a better distinction to make. Democratic, rich christian/sunni Lebanon is a sort of separate nation, to the north of Hezbollon. Yes, I think the poorer south considers Hezbollah to be their government- it administers social programs, military operations, and has the support of it people. It is also a satellite nation or Iran. By calling it a terrorist organization, you are only underestimating it, and that is never a wise assumption in war. After all, terrorism is the tactic of targeting civilians to bring about political change. A hostile nation can do much greater damage, and use much more lethal tactics than just terrorism. Likewise, you can not just remove Hezbollah as though it were a tumor, it has the support of its people.
But attacking peaceful, rich northern lebanese and their infrastructure was not a good call. Even though Hezbollah has some ties to the north, your fight was with the south, for the most part (that's where the rockets are.)
It may be too late now, but here is what I think Israel should have done, that would have put it in a stronger place.
1) Forget Beiruit and northern lebanon, it is not your enemy, and it is a modern place, heavily tied to other peaceful modern nations. It is also a city, so bombing it with everything and the kitchen sink creates a lot of collatoral damage, which wastes your global political browny points.
2) Begin targeting missiles launchers, when you can find them, with airstrikes. Do not bomb other targets.
3) Declare that since rocket attacks are being fired on your civillians, you will push 1-5 miles into lebanon, everyday, from the med to the syrian border. Civillans in your way during this push will be removed completely unharmed from their homes, which will then be bulldozed. Every mile you take is forever Israel's, you will never, ever give it back. The only thing that can stop the invasion is a total cease fire of rocket attacks. This is important because your air strikes alone will never defeat the missile threat.
So either Hezbollah must stop firing, Northern Lebanon must send in troops to dismantle the rockets, or the UN must send a force in to stop the rocket attacks. If they don't, you will soon have a large enough buffer zone, that rockets can no longer land on the cities of core israel (what was originally established as israel, not occupied territoties or such.) If they send out longer ranged missiles, you can push further into the Hezbollon, until Haifa is safe again.
4) Strongly recommend to the northern Lebanese, that they continue to show apathy towards their southern countrymen by not allowing them to hide in their section of the country. If the Hezbollonians run out of room and become refugees, recommend that Iran take them in, since it is now their mess.
5) Give the land that you've taken to the families of those who were killed in the rocket attacks (perhaps they can lease it to israeli farmers with a flare for the dangerous.) However, if anyone fires ordinance at these lands, the response will ONLY be against the ordinance launchers, this is a buffer zone (and therefore a hazardous place.) But outsiders cannot invade it, that unravels the whole point of a buffer zone, because they can then set up new rocket launchers here, and start firing on Haifa again.
So if a strategy like this was used, Israel would be a bigger, safer place, and many hundreds of Lebanese cilivians would still be alive. Perhaps Northern Lebanon or the UN would be occupying Hezbollon for you. Northern Lebanon now sits next to a rich democratic nation like themselves. Everybody wins as much as is possible in a conflict like this.
One question for the class: I've been hearing alot about the dangers of a wider war. Could anyone illustrate exactly what sequence(s) of events would broaden the scope of this conflict?
Nope, the cold war is over, folks. There just aren't enough nuke wielding nations involved right now. Iran won't want to get too involved until they have nukes, I don't think. That would just be crazy.
And here I am in the 'land of the free' where the reigning party emphasizes self reliance and pulling one's self up by their bootstraps, so to speak (if that can still be said to be the case with the GOP, but perhaps that is another thread ).
Those are Conservatives. Neo-Cons are more like "money, money, money, money, money, money, money."
Sure, but it's a democratically elected leader, one can't treat such a person as some average criminal and sentence him to death. While Israelis might find it a justified action, others at the receiving end could interpret that as an act of war. Therefore, imo, other methods should've been tried first, but alas, the current Israeli government wasn't elected for its diplomatic skills, was it
You are right in that this taking out of hostile political leaders in other nations is not a police action, but nor is it out of the question. A human is a human, you can't give someone extra credit just for popularity. However, attacking these leaders out of the blue, while they are in crowded areas, with big bombs, could easily be considered an act of war, because you have blown away these civilians in another nation, during peace time.
there's a thin line between good and evil...
The line is as thick or as thin as an individual makes it. Good and Evil do not contain universal moral definitions, nor are they entirely accepted as even existing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 74
|
The weapons go off and then the third planet from the sun is mars.
Not gonna happen. As fun as it would be to destroy the earth, this would be very difficult. The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. Don't think it could be blown up with less than 1-2 trillion tons of anti-matter.
You're much more likely to destroy the earth by hurling it into the sun, or ripping it apart with tidal forces.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
DS:
please don't tell me you think the bomb that landed on the UN watch post was an intentional one... you might as well say the eight canadians were killed on purpose.
dont you think you should give at least some credit to israeli commanders? i mean, what moron would bomb a neutral station? as for being multi-hour, that depends on who you believe - the IDF said hizballah shot a volley of rockets that landed near the station while the UN say it was israeli bombshells - and in any case it is a war zone so strays are bound to happen.
you got right to the root of the problem:
"Democratic, rich christian/sunni Lebanon is a sort of separate nation..."
its very convenient for the north to ignore the south when they need to such as when the hizballah attacks us but herein lies the problem. the hizballah is in the gray area between a goverment and an organization which it finds very comfortable. either the north seperates from the south and then they are not responsible for it or they assume responsibility and take care of it. there is no in between here. in not taking action against the hizballah they allow the continued attacks and therefore are enemies too. in addition they are not attacked directly but their comfort is, such as electricity and all the niceties of life which is done to present them with two options - "your'e either with us or with them".
as for the south - first and foremost hizballah's main target is dictated by syria and iran which hand over the money that counts - a continuing diversion through terrorism (which i define as any kind of attack they pull off). the fact that they run social programs is dictated by the need to get local support so they can stage guerilla attacks. and the reason that population is attacked is to persuade it not to harbour the terrorists and make them to see that theyr'e worse off with the hizballah than without.
2) as of now almost the only way of destroying the launchers is going back in to lebannon (they hide in caves pop out to launch and dash back in again) which is what were trying to avoid doing in the first place!
3) same reason why not to as 2) with the addition that the UN will cry to high heaven and i think you know as well that will never be the end of it.
4) strongly recommending hasn't helped so now it's gone on to physically "recommending".
Necro-99:
that would have been best but i do think your'e forgetting one thing: this was never israel vs. hizballah but israel vs. hizballah with syria and iran in the shadows constantly supplying hizabllah. without them it wouldn't have the money needed to "persuade" the locals, buy weapons and train and all this would have ended a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GeomanNL
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 167
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
"imagine living in a city that has seen so many buses, cafes, restaraunts and weddings blowed up that it becomes emotionally dull... "
I can't imagine this and frankly speaking, I don't want to try either, thank you.
1)
"actually, up until very lately most of the civilized world was saying, "do what you have to, but try to minimize the damage". in addition the area bombed is hizballah- city - the people there are part of a terrorist organization at war with israel - i think that disqualifies them as civilians"
Uhm... that would discount the entire Israeli population from being civilian either, cause they back the army ?! Are victims of suicide bombs military casualties in a war against terror ?
2)
"no, wer'e at war with the hamas as a terrorist organization which happenes to be in control right now and whuch uses that control to further it's own intrests which go against those of the palestinian people such as continued terrorist attacks and distributing the charity funds which do arrive to their own people while they leave those that dont agree with their opinions to starve."
It's a nasty situation, yes, but Hamas is not just a terrorist organisation - it's also the government. This means that you can't keep treating it as if it's still some underground organization. Or well, you can if you want to, but the implications are more severe. It means that you're at war with the Palestinians, not just Hamas and its followers.
3)
"wer'e not talking about planning - were talking about a leader who is about to give an order to a suicide bomber (just like a USSR president which is about to press the big red button) - after which said bomber disappears off the map until his pieces suddenly appear throughout a bus or kidergarden or you name it. it's a far cry from planning..."
I'm no expert,but to me it would seem that there's someone who recruited the person, there's someone who made the bombs, there's someone who picks targets, someone who makes fake ID's, someone who tapes statements, someone who pays the suicide-bombers' family, someone who takes care of finances, someone who takes care of shopping for materials used. All of this is organized in fairly much detail, and requires a lot of planning. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is just one suicidal volunteer and one leader.
4)
"there are two ways of looking at it :
1 - the hizballah practically rules south lebannon and therefore can be treated as a country which its capital sits in a certain part of Beirut - which is the part that is being bombed as the capital of a country were at war with
2 - lebannon does rule south lebannon and therefore allows these attacks knowingly and therefore its capital is being bombed in retaliation"
Did Israel officially declare war on Lebanon ?
I thought Israel only wanted to do an "incursion", but I suppose I was wrong. I never heard a declaration of war, except perhaps that tiresome excuse of "war on terror" which is ill-defined and is used as an excuse to all kinds of non-democratic things.
Indeed, it looks like it is a real war, that affects the whole of lebanon.
"but went on for a long time beforehand with this being the last straw - i mean, we retreated from lebannon - so it should have been quiet, right? but hizballah along with syria and iran which are interested in creating diversions, had an interest in reigniting the fire."
You have a point there, but I can't help but think that a more moderate government would've been more patient with events as they unfolded.
"please don't tell me you think the bomb that landed on the UN watch post was an intentional one"
I agree with you, nasty things can happen in the heat of war and can't always be prevented by the leaders.
A similar thing happened about 10 years ago, though, so you can't really blame the UN for complaining about it.
"either the north seperates from the south and then they are not responsible for it or they assume responsibility and take care of it. there is no in between here. in not taking action against the hizballah they allow the continued attacks and therefore are enemies too."
It is such a small country, if you split it, nothing is left of it.
"first and foremost hizballah's main target is dictated by syria and iran which hand over the money that counts - a continuing diversion through terrorism (which i define as any kind of attack they pull off)."
I doubt Iran dictates Hezbollah actions.
Also note that Israel started an all-out war, not Hezbollah, not even Iran.
" the fact that they run social programs is dictated by the need to get local support so they can stage guerilla attacks. and the reason that population is attacked is to persuade it not to harbour the terrorists and make them to see that theyr'e worse off with the hizballah than without."
Uhm... terrorists running social programs ?
"as of now almost the only way of destroying the launchers is going back in to lebannon (they hide in caves pop out to launch and dash back in again) which is what were trying to avoid doing in the first place"
Why destroy all the launchers ? They can buy new ones, and Israel can only get a temporary feeling of security this way. This can only be a fake victory.
"israel vs. hizballah with syria and iran in the shadows constantly supplying hizabllah. without them it wouldn't have the money needed to "persuade" the locals, buy weapons and train and all this would have ended a long time ago."
I doubt it's this simple. Perhaps, Syria is just trying to protect its own interests in lebanon, and armed hezbollah in case israel would ever plan an invasion (like it's doing at the moment) to change the balance of power ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
please don't tell me you think the bomb that landed on the UN watch post was an intentional one... you might as well say the eight canadians were killed on purpose.
I don't think they were killed purposely. But, I seem to recall a similar incident happening to a usa spy ship that was monitoring a previous conflict between israel and neighboring nations (was it the liberty?) They too tryed to signal that they were friendlies, flying the US flag and such, but were not able to turn away the attackers. This is not to be confused with the incident where one of our spy ships was attacked by Iraq (under saddam) back when it was supposed to be an ally of ours. Needless to say, being aboard a US spy ship off the middle east must be a very exciting job. 
But anyway, in war, regardless of the nations involved, I think it is all about the tactics and strategies (and politics, to some point.) I think a lot of nations and peoples distrust the UN to some extent, and maybe don't think they have the right to get involved in the affairs of all the smaller nations (obviously, the UN is nowhere to be found when a powerful nation like China is torturing political prisoners, so its idea of justice seems highly political.)
either the north seperates from the south and then they are not responsible for it or they assume responsibility and take care of it.
They are not strong enough to. Maybe if your nation sold them some better arms at a good price they might though. This is an old US strategy, back the side you like by giving them weapons, and have them keep the rest under control using the force of arms you gave them. Of course, sometimes it backfires and we end up fighting our own weapons.
in addition they are not attacked directly but their comfort is, such as electricity and all the niceties of life which is done to present them with two options - "your'e either with us or with them".
I know a few hundred lebanese have been killed, but the question would be how many are christian or sunni. If you kill many of them, then there is a much greater likelihood they will go over "with them." If you kill someone that a man cares about, he'll seek vengeance on you directly, not Iran or Hezbollah for initiating this round of events.
But if you keep the northern lebanese apathetic, that is much better, because they can't do too much to help you militarily anyway, and attacking them only widens the conflict and lowers your nation's global status (sunni muslims get angry, some christians get upset, europeans who are close by to lebanon geographically get uneasy, etc.)
and the reason that population is attacked is to persuade it not to harbour the terrorists and make them to see that theyr'e worse off with the hizballah than without.
They don't think that way, and killing civilians will make much of the world much angier. Think of it like this, everytime a rocket lands on haifa, israel gets a justification point. Everytime israel kills a civi or takes a mile of territory (permanently) it loses a point. You can spend more points bombing cities (which always creates civilian casaulties) and thereby motivating more to join Hezbollah, or you can take territory in the south, and push back those rockets until they can't hit anything but northern israeli farm fields. You'll never destroy those rockets in caves, but you can secure the area from which they are fired from (and the caves themselves.)
2) as of now almost the only way of destroying the launchers is going back in to lebannon (they hide in caves pop out to launch and dash back in again) which is what were trying to avoid doing in the first place!
Air strikes are only a minor way of combating the problem. It is also a way for the IDF to show its people that it is hitting back, while it slowly takes ground.
3) same reason why not to as 2) with the addition that the UN will cry to high heaven and i think you know as well that will never be the end of it.
No, because those missiles have a limited range or else they'd be landing on Tel Aviv and southern Israel already. Taking ground will push back the attacks unless they start using longer ranged weapons, and then they'll be sacrificing more of their territory.
As for the UN, you remind them that you are not killing civilians, and your enemies are-- that your people are trading their lives for land and the eventually safety that comes with distance. Ask them which is more valuable, desert soil or human life? Progressive peoples must answer this question with "lives" and so that makes you the greater victims, who are courageously respecting human rights and defending yourselves, while your opponents try to target innocent women and children.
I think the UN would have less to complain about with that, than with the mounting lebanese casaulties of the current strategy.
4) strongly recommending hasn't helped so now it's gone on to physically "recommending".
Taking territory and bull dozing southern homes is plenty physical, it just doesn't do the same amount of economic damage, nor does it (if executed properly) kill civilians.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2006, 12:21:07 am by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
Shiver:
to tell you the truth - sometimes it sounds really tempting to move to another country and some israelis do so from time to time. however you do have to keep one thing in mind: the holocaust. yeah, i know, it has been discussed to death but the simple fact is that after a people go through the experience of being slaughtered in the millions with no help in sight you tend to trust only yourself and not depend on the charity of others which is what we basically are when wer'e a minority in some other country - in the end the population counts.
Curious that you would view being a minority in such a light. But more importantly I find the statement incredibly ironic. You can't stand on your own, not there. As I've already mentioned, you receive massive financial support from us. Where would you be without it?
One other thing, as an agnostic viewing the rise of the religious right in my own country with much trepidation, am I entitled to my own special country?
Baltar:
the reason we bomb beirut is the same reason the US bombed afganistahn - they knowingly harbour terrorists and allow them freedom of action - when the USSR stationed nukes in cuba wouldn't it have shared the blame if the USSR fired those missiles?
I don't agree with this reasoning or analogy in the slightest. You are talking about war without rules. I think we (and you) can do better than that.
GeomanNL:
the hamas leaders in the gaza strip that are killed are those that our equivalent of the FBI have solid proof against them that they are about to commit a terrorist attack.
Uh huh...and our FBI fly around in Apaches and blast random bystanders in the process of catching a 'suspect'. Moreover you guys don't even have the pretence of 'due process'. Suspected terrorist = dead.
Baltar No. 2:
i for one see it more as a moral decision, and as for being a country based on a single ethnic group, well, see my answer to shiver, and basically, there isnt anywhere else we feel safe...
And you feel safe there??  Frankly, I have trouble seeing how it is a 'moral' decision. Please explain this. Moreover, why does this moral decision require my continued financial support?
What more can we do? back out of israel altogether? not possible - see my answer to shiver.
and here we are in this mess...
Of course it is possible. You just don't want to. Not that I'm suggesting you should.
....
Another question for the class: What in the hell do Syria and Iran want with Israel? IE, what would the destruction of Israel mean to these countries? Not sure what the benefit is to either.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Censored
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 627
Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep.
|
though the more accurate title should be "Muslim lands". still, the size ratios are correct.
Q: why was Beirut bombed?
A: Hizballa offices, silos, communication stations, etc. are located in Beirut. in fact, there's a subterranean bunker spanning few blocks under the city.
Q: why does Israel bomb cities and villages? they're killing the civilians!
A: note that Israel has warned entire areas by media broadcast or written warnings dropped from above, at least 36 hours before bombardment. most civilians have fled before the attack. some of the ones who remained were held with force by Hizballa members. I assure you some of the counted civilians deaths are Hizballa.
Q: why did Israel start targeting civilian buildings too (in the southern villages)?
A: the Hizballa knew Israel wouldn't attack civilian compounds. that's why they put all their rockets there. you should ask yourself, why would a civilian stay behind when all have fled, despite repeated notices from the IDF saying the area will be flattened soon? most chances this isn't really a civilian.
Q: is there a real war in that area?
A: 'war' is inherently used as a term to describe "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations". Hizballa isn't a nation, it doesn't have and air force, tanks, ships, or even the numbers to match an army. it's a terrorist group, which uses rockets and infantry cells. also, the IDF hasn't really flexed its muscle - a real war would encompass many more combat soldiers (I estimate hardly few thousands are currently active).
Q: did Israel retaliate due to its soldiers being kidnapped?
A: yes. but it's not only this; the Hizballa and Hamas are and have been lobbing rockets every now and again even before the kidnapping. these items are not on the news anywhere in the world except Israel - no one cares about a few rockets being launched here and there around the middle east. but when the conflict heatens - then it's "news-worthy". in the past two weeks the Hizballa have lobbed about 2,500 rockets. you can calculate it per day.
Q: why did Israel "invade" the southern villages?
A: airstrikes are not enough. the terrorists hide during the bombardment, whereafter they launch rockets and hurry back to hiding. they hide in the southern villages, which are as close as a mile (couple kilometers) from the Israeli border and Israeli settlements. this proximity of hostile infantry and rocket launchers cannot be tolerated, I'm sure anyone would agree. anyone else willing to do the dirty work?
General note: be careful when you read the 'wounded people' statistics. while it may mean the person has lost a hand, it most often means one had an anxiety attack.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"You boldly enter our space! Approach this Dreadnought as though it were a recreation base and then play the dumb hominid?
Who do you take us for, Captain... Spathi!?"
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Curious that you would view being a minority in such a light.
"Minority" is a rather pointless name, as everyone is a majority and a minority, it is just a matter of what the subject is. But, there is power and security in numbers.
As I've already mentioned, you receive massive financial support from us. Where would you be without it?
A very good question, considering that someday in the near future, the US might not be the economic powerhouse that it is at the moment, and thus not able to send vast funds over seas.
One other thing, as an agnostic viewing the rise of the religious right in my own country with much trepidation, am I entitled to my own special country?
Hehe, well there's always China.
Uh huh...and our FBI fly around in Apaches and blast random bystanders in the process of catching a 'suspect'. Moreover you guys don't even have the pretence of 'due process'. Suspected terrorist = dead.
Yes, that is a military operation and should be considered such. Though the british police did have an unfortunate sniper accident after the first bus bombings. They shot first and asked questions later. Bugger.
Another question for the class: What in the hell do Syria and Iran want with Israel? IE, what would the destruction of Israel mean to these countries? Not sure what the benefit is to either.
They are not trying to destroy Israel at the moment, if for no other reason, because they can't (they don't have nukes, israel does.) This is just a cold war to keep the US, Israel, and the UN distracted while Iran and North Korea build up their nuclear/missile programs.
There is a loose alliance that keeps all of us tied down in a 4 front war- Israel/Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea. With all of these hot spots, nobody can put any force into Syria, Iran or North Korea militarily, allowing the last two to construct nukes and the necessary delivery systems. High oil prices prevent boycotting of Iran's oil, because we need it so bad and instability in the region makes prices go up higher, thus giving them more research money and gives others in the oil business an excuse to push them up even higher than that, which weakens all our economies, weakening our strength even more. It is an excellent strategy.
So why would they want nukes? Because they are passports to the top caste of global society. A nuclear armed nation is a player, and cannot be touched by non-nuclear nations, and can only be touched by nuclear powers beyond missile range, or close by nuclear powers with a death wish. Furthermore, nuclear technology can be spread to other parts of the muslim and other worlds, thus better shielding Iran and Korea from any possible trouble from the rest of us. Hehe, just imagine them exporting the tech to sub-saharran africa, that'd keep the world busy for a while. 
So what would this mean for America? We'd lose control of much of the oil supply and oil prices. There's also a greater chance we could experience nuclear terrorism, unless we abandon the region in both military and foreign aid capacities. It is not our biggest trouble, but it is a concern to some extent. It sort of depends on whether or not you own an SUV. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2006, 06:14:18 am by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AnotherW
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 72
|
GeomanNL:
"I can't imagine this and frankly speaking, I don't want to try either, thank you."
i wouldn't to either, but before you can talk about being patient you need to try putting yourself in those shoes, otherwise its very easy to be patient from afar
1) i was talking about people who ARE part of the organization - say if all Haifa was occupied by military personnel
2) well for starters, half of the government which is unoccupied by the hamas is controlled by Abu-mazen which condones the terrorist attacks and is against them, so to begin with hamas is not the entire government, and if you choose to look at it as the whole government, you are right, the implications ARE more severe - the whole palestinian nation is waging a war against us - me, i would prefer to think there are logical palestinians left that do not want this and that the hamas is the one attacking us because otherwise we would be targeting the whole of the gaza strip instead of just said leaders with fingers on the button (BTW the term is "ticking bombs" - that should give you some idea about the urgency involved)
and i think you can see the first option would have been much easier
3) you're right, they do exist, the moment the leader is killed is after all preparations have been made and he is about to give the order.
4) that is the whole problem - hizballah (HZ for short) resides in the gray area between a nation and an organization and the whole purpose of this is to tell the lebanonians that this can't go on -" either you swallow them and then our fight is with you or you throw them up and then our fight is with them"
"It is such a small country, if you split it, nothing is left of it"
it is roughly the same size (twice as small) and yet israel is giving away huge tracts of land (or at least wanted to give up the whole west bank until all this flared up) and so if we are willing to do this for peace, shouldn't they?
"I doubt Iran dictates Hezbollah actions.
Also note that Israel started an all-out war, not Hezbollah, not even Iran."
they do, for example did you know that there are long range missiles stationed in north lebanon supplied by the iranians? and where do you think they get all the money for training, equipment, propaganda, organizational housing and so on and so forth? as for israel starting this like i said before HZ and through them iran have been trying for a long time to ignite the area - nassralla (NS) said that he planned this kidnapping or a long time - this is no spur of the moment thing - this is not something you do to keep the peace, this is a deliberate attempt to ignite the area, which serves the iranian interests.
"Uhm... terrorists running social programs ?"
yes, that's how you get he support of the local populace - you pay them to hide your weaponry, equipment and personnel, you pay them when the children go to religious schools that only enlarge this cycle, you pay the families of suicide bombers - those "social" programs"
"Why destroy all the launchers ? They can buy new ones, and Israel can only get a temporary feeling of security this way. This can only be a fake victory"
not if the HZ is dismantled which is the main target.
"Perhaps, Syria is just trying to protect its own interests in lebanon, and armed hezbollah in case israel would ever plan an invasion (like it's doing at the moment) to change the balance of power ?"
what you're saying is a bit illogical, i mean, syria supplied them with weapons so we won't attack them, then orders the HZ to attack us and thereby forcing us to retaliate, and we have to invade, which we didn't want in the first place 
DS:
"They are not strong enough to"
then they should disown the south, which would make it a legitimate country with HZ in the government and then this would have been much simpler.
"If you kill someone that a man cares about, he'll seek vengeance on you directly, not Iran or Hezbollah for initiating this round of events"
the fact that that man chose to sit on the fence while the HZ continued terrorizing us is what started the whole mess - and if he can't see that it seems to me he doesn't want to see that.
in addition in beirut the houses that are bombed are those of the HZ, the rest are strays or facilities (which are bombed to send a message to the northerners).
a two way approach is required here:
1) bomb the HZ HQ in beirut and take over the caves, which is what we are reluctantly doing now
2)send a message to the northerners to pick themselves up and take care of their country
the utmost is being done to prevent killing the northeners.
"As for the UN, you remind them that you are not killing civilians, and your enemies are-- that your people are trading their lives for land and the eventually safety that comes with distance. Ask them which is more valuable, desert soil or human life? Progressive peoples must answer this question with "lives" and so that makes you the greater victims, who are courageously respecting human rights and defending yourselves, while your opponents try to target innocent women and children."
should i remind what happened last time we tried that? evidentially there aren't enough progressive people in the UN because they couldn't understand this the last time. and besides not occupying territory as least gives you international justification to do what we are doing now.
Baltar:
interesting question and a good point. i do know one thing: we got this country of the ground (i'm talking about the first 15 years or so) pretty much by ourselves (financially speaking). where would we be today? much more worse off than we are now, that's for sure (don't get the impression that we are not immensely grateful BTW) but i DO think we would have survived. and as for demanding your own country as an agnostic, well, don't you think there's a small difference between being hounded at every corner for roughly 2000 years to finally end up being with your back to the wall and being slaughtered in the millions to having some uneasy feelings? and beside the point, if you think that as an agnostic the people who share your religion (or perhaps lack of it) stand an existential threat, then yes, i do.
"You are talking about war without rules"
first off, does terrorism adhere to any rules ?!? and second, i wasn't talking about rules, i was talking about responsibility (at least that's where we started...), don't you agree that the responsibility would have been shared by cuba in that case?
"Uh huh...and our FBI fly around in Apaches and blast random bystanders in the process of catching a 'suspect'. Moreover you guys don't even have the pretence of 'due process'. Suspected terrorist = dead."
those bystanders usually aren't random but an intentional human shield, i didn't say the FBI did anything like that i just brought up so you can understand the institution holding the proof
and we are NOT talking about "suspects" here, these are people with the hands on the buttons!
i would like to see a scenario where the FBI had solid proof that terrorists will commit the 9/11 attacks and that they had them on their sights with a missile and they didn't shoot. and don't tell me they could have apprehended on the way - cells don't work that way - the suicide bombers are usually like submarines - they dive (or go to ground) and you won't see them until it's too late.
"And you feel safe there?? Frankly, I have trouble seeing how it is a 'moral' decision. Please explain this. Moreover, why does this moral decision require my continued financial support?"
wouldn't you feel safer in your home than in some one elses home?
you were regarding the decision to erect israel as a "foreign policy decision" - namely, politics. the way i see it is: "these people aren't safe anywhere and won't be safe until they have a place they can call home." and as for moral decisions requiring financial support - did you object having the US send financial support and food to all the countries damaged by the tsunami?
"Of course it is possible. You just don't want to. Not that I'm suggesting you should"
it's possible in the same way the US could have relocated to space in order to avoid the dangers of the cold war - that is - possible but immensely unpractical.
"Another question for the class: What in the hell do Syria and Iran want with Israel? IE, what would the destruction of Israel mean to these countries? Not sure what the benefit is to either."
governments in a precarious condition need to divert the minds of the masses from their current conditions and therefore ignite religious fire. in addition the international heat on them is growing and they want to divert it. in a single word - diversions, diversions and more diversions...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2006, 10:41:02 am by distant watcher »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
