MIdeast conflict

[hrothgar]

An occassional kidnapping and a rocket here and there is not a threat to Israel's existence.

9/11 wasn't a threat to USA's existence either. So your compatriots should also just lean back and take it as men, I suppose. What a morbid way of thinking.

 

Or maybe you have other moral standards when it comes to the USA? If it same applies to *your* country, I would like to hear how you will be feeling if *your* family members are blown to pieces.

 

Shrug?

 

Roland

First and foremost: People whose families just got blown up are the last ones who should be engaged in any kind of decision making processing. They will (naturally) be motivated by feelings of hurt/loss and go out seeking revenge... Michael Dukakis was famously asked whether his own feelings about capital punishment would change if his own wife was raped or murdered. My own answer to that question is that my personal feelings might very well change, however, the feelings of one aggrieved individual should not have a disproportionate impact on public policy.

 

Second: I agree with you. 9/11 was a terrible occurance, but it certainly wasn't any kind of existential threat to the United States. Personally, I feel much more threatened by the rise of the authoritarian right post 9/11 than I do from some supposed new Caliphate.

 

I think that the United State's reaction to 9/11 was completely insane... I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day 1. I have mixed feelings about our intervention into Afghanistan. Personally, I think that some kind of response was necessary. However, I think that the core of this effort should have been composed of foreign aid and trade liberalization rather than military intervention.

 

The United States deliberately cultivated the rise of militant madrasah in Pakistan. The CIA armed and trained the Mujahadeen. We tried to use Islam as a weapon that could be selectively wielded against the Soviet Union. When the Soviets were forced to retreat out of Afghanistan, we left Afghanistan to rot. We cut off (almost) all aid and allowed the country to collapse into civil war and anarchy. The decision came back to bite us. The most recent US intervention in Afghaistan seems to be failing. We did a great job driving the Taliban out of the major cities, but we are failing miserably at "nation building", and nation building is what is necessary to build a lasting peace.

 

9/11 was a defining moment for the US and Bush had enormous political capital. I wish that Bush had chosen to use this opportunity to create some kind of Marshall plan for the Islamic world rather than squandering this opportunity trying to show his daddy up by invading Iraq the "right" way...

[pbleighton]

"9/11 wasn't a threat to USA's existence either. So your compatriots should also just lean back and take it as men, I suppose.."

 

A silly distortion.

 

"What a morbid way of thinking"

 

I suppose you are cheering the great success the U.S. is having in Iraq?

 

Peter

[Walddk]

"9/11 wasn't a threat to USA's existence either. So your compatriots should also just lean back and take it as men, I suppose.."

 

A silly distortion.

 

"What a morbid way of thinking"

 

I suppose you are cheering the great success the U.S. is having in Iraq?

 

Peter

It's not a distortion at all. Israeli lives are as precious to Israel as American lives are to Americans, and Lebanese lives are to Lebanese. Percentagewise Israel and Lebanon have lost many more lives during this conflict than USA lost on 9/11.

 

Populations:

USA: 295,737,134

Israel: 6,352,117

Lebanon: 3,874,050

(July 2006)

 

The ongoing war in the Middle East is a tragedy, as was 9/11, and yes I cheer the USA, Israel, the United Kingdom, France, etc. for trying to fight terrorism, regardless of where in the world you encounter it. This is far from easy, but in my opinion it's dead wrong just to lean back and let it happen.

 

You can't and should never negotiate with terrorists, so you have got to fight them with war.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

The ongoing war in the Middle East is a tragedy, as was 9/11, and yes I cheer the USA, Israel, the United Kingdom, France, etc. for trying to fight terrorism, regardless of where in the world you encounter it. This is far from easy, but in my opinion it's dead wrong just to lean back and let it happen.

 

Some would argue that its possible to combat terrorism without destroying Iraq or Lebanon... Indeed, many believe that said military actions are counter productive.

 

From what i can tell, the Israeli public has concluded that Olmert really screwed the pooch this time

[pbleighton]

"It's not a distortion at all. Israeli lives are as precious to Israel as American lives are to Americans, and Lebanese lives are to Lebanese. Percentagewise Israel and Lebanon have lost many more lives during this conflict than USA lost on 9/11."

 

My reference was to your obnoxious "take it like a man" phrase.

 

"The ongoing war in the Middle East is a tragedy, as was 9/11, and yes I cheer the USA, Israel, the United Kingdom, France, etc. for trying to fight terrorism, regardless of where in the world you encounter it. This is far from easy, but in my opinion it's dead wrong just to lean back and let it happen."

 

IMO it is dead wrong to commit a war crime, i.e. attacking a country which had not attacked the U.S. (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). Under the Geneva convention, any country which starts a war is guilty of a war crime. Also, collective punishment is a war crime as well (you can look it up), so Israel's intentional bombing of civilians certainly qualifies.

 

And no, one war crime doesn't excuse another.

 

It's also stupid, racist, and self-destructive to lump all Muslims together under the "terrorist" label, which is the practical effect of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. now has far more Muslim enemies than it had 3 years ago, and is far less secure.

 

Peter

[rona_]

QUOTE (rona_ @ Aug 12 2006, 12:48 AM)

Yes we are used to the speeches and apologies by now. Israel is deeply deeply sorry for the unfortunate loss of civilian life..and boom within the next few minutes another civilian building has been levelled and 30 civilians dead. No one buys their stories anymore. I don't like Hezbollah but at least they're don't pretend to be sorry for what they have done. Let's face it. Israel is a terrorist state, they have had 3 prime ministers that were terrorists, hezbollah and hamas are also terrorists in my view. Ariel Sharon masterminded the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982 in Lebanon and guarded the Palestinian camps while the Phalangists (a Lebanese militia group), executed a few thousand palestinian refugees. Posting that speech here is in bad taste. I am not siding with anyone, I just think that one-sided propaganda speeches shouldn't be posted here. This is supposed to be a forum for friendly discussion and not for Zionist or Arab propaganda. How about some history instead . Tell readers about the Balfour Declaration in 1917, how the state of Israel was created, why Hezbollah was created etc.

 

Rest assured that you will be the first to know if I want your opinion as to what's appropriate to write or not write in the forums. I didn't even express my view. It was a 100% correct quote, and I find it interesting, whether you like it or not.

 

"Israel is a terrorist state", you write. I do not agree, but you are certainly entitled to think and write what you want. Perhaps you would allow others to do the same?

 

"I am not siding with anyone", is truly hilarious when you claim that the Israelis are terrorists and say nothing about what some of their neighbours are.

 

Roland

 

What is truly hilarious is the fact that on line 6 or 7 I said exactly what you thought I didn't say.

[luke warm]

My reference was to your obnoxious "take it like a man" phrase.

i think you might have misunderstood the 'take it like a man' thing... as far as i know, i was the first to use the phrase when richard said,

 

"The Israeli's made a concious decision to act as colonial overlords and used military force and ethnic cleansing to seize large amounts of Arab land.  The Israelis deliberately subsidized the colonization of the West bank by granting large tax breaks to settlers.  In return, the Israelis get to live with the occasional rocket attack and suicide bombings."

and i answered, "ahhh... it's their fault, so take it like a man"... richard then said, "Yes, to some extent countries need to suck it up and take it like a man and exercise restraint because the alternative doesn't work..."

 

so roland simply used the same phrase as we did, though neither he nor i believe either israel or the usa should have simply 'taken it like a man'...

 

Under the Geneva convention, any country which starts a war is guilty of a war crime.  Also, collective punishment is a war crime as well (you can look it up), so Israel's intentional bombing of civilians certainly qualifies.

to be sure i understand this, when nazi germany attacked poland, it was a war crime... when the allies got involved and bombed berlin, that also was a war crime... when japan attacked pearl harbor, that was a war crime... when hiroshima was bombed, that also was a war crime... what exactly do you (and the geneva convention) suggest?... as richard stated, war is hell... to wage war seems almost by definition to invite reprisals against those responsible... is lebanon responsible? well, some would say yes... after all, hezbollah sets up shop in the cities and population centers of lebanon... presumeably the people living there support them, and by extension their agenda

 

It's also stupid, racist, and self-destructive to lump all Muslims together under the "terrorist" label, which is the practical effect of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy.

this is, of course, completely inaccurate... if i'm in error as to its accuracy, maybe you can point to some official governmental policy from either country stating as much...

[Winstonm]

A question regarding lumping all Islamic groups together:

 

If a branch within a larger group terrorizes, is it up to the victim to weed the terrorists from the non-terrorists or is it the responsibility of the larger non-terror group to disassociate from the smaller terrorist group?

 

If a fragment of Islam declares jihad againt the U.S, are those moderates within Islam guilty of silent collaboration if taking no active part in the ridding of the active minority?

 

It is senseless to adopt a reactive posture, unless adopting an Israeli-like stance that if you take 2 from us we take 100 of yours in return. The U.S. does not have the stomach for this type of retributional war so is better served with a proactive stance, IMO. But a proactive stance would mean war against the nation that initiated the hostilities, in this case Islam - although only a small fragment is involved. It would then be up to Islam to produce and identify the terrorists within their larger body. If this smaller body is not truly a part of Islam, and hence not protected by Islam as a whole, there would be no problem turning them over. If they are a part of Islam, and if Islam condones the actions by non-action, then Islam is a part of the enemey and should be treated as such.

[kenrexford]

As with all good arguments that are emotionally charged, logic often drops to the side. Without expressing my view, I would point out one classic example of a logic error.

 

The invasion of Iraq is described as a "war crime" because Iraq was not involved with 9/11.

 

Whether it is a stupid policy or brilliant, it is absurd and illogical to describe the invasion of Iraq as a "war crime." Iraq invaded, unprovoked, one of the allies of the U.S., Kuwait. Defending the allies through military means, to repel an invasion, is authorized under all versions of international law ever discussed. Once that military action occurs, the loser, if the initial aggressor, may, under international law, be compelled to surrender with any and all conditions not barred by international law. If the opposing side, at any point, refuses, then the "surrender" is incomplete, and hostilities may lawfully resume.

 

This is NOT in any way to provide a defense or excuse or rationale to invading Iraq. However, this argument, strained or reasonable, negates any claim of "war crimes." To claim "war crimes" merely infuriates the debate opponent, and those on the fence, with irrational and emotional fight words.

[jtfanclub]

Iraq invaded, unprovoked, one of the allies of the U.S., Kuwait. Defending the allies through military means, to repel an invasion, is authorized under all versions of international law ever discussed. Once that military action occurs, the loser, if the initial aggressor, may, under international law, be compelled to surrender with any and all conditions not barred by international law. If the opposing side, at any point, refuses, then the "surrender" is incomplete, and hostilities may lawfully resume.

So I suppose the U.S. is going to invade Great Britain any time now.

 

Iraq didn't surrender to the United States. They surrendered to the United Nations. They negotiated a peace treaty. The U.N. at no time stated that Iraq should be attacked in 2003, nor did they agree to be a party to the attack.

 

The United States had no more legal standing to attack Iraq in 2003 than Poland did- they were both merely a part of the UN forces. They agreed to abide by the United Nations treaty same as Iraq did. The United States, not Iraq, broke that treaty.

 

I don't know how you anyone can leap from a treaty violation to a war crime, but it was pretty clearly a treaty violation.

[kenrexford]

OK. So, the United Nations got together and decided to invade Iraq in the early nineties. The United States was willing to go along with the international concensus. Later, Iraq surrendered to the United Nations. The United Nations then got angry with Mr. Hussein. The United States then went crazy and attacked Iraq.

 

This sounds like a claim that the condom had sex, I was just there backing it up.

[zasanya]

we are at war but I have no idea what the other side really wants, who we should talk to, and how we give it to them.

Mike this excerpt from your original post is the crux of the matter.Everybody on either side of the fence have made up their minds.Every new fact ,every argument is twisted around to confirm their predetermined conclusions.

 

All the posts are from expert bridge players.I am sure, when they are playing a contract, at trick 1, they would make a plan based upon their view of the oppnents cards and if during the course of play they find cards are not as they assumed, that their original plan will not produce the desired result they would certainly change their plan trying to find a new one.

Alas! Emotions take over and logic takes a back seat when normally sane and lovable people discuss international politics.

[jtfanclub]

OK.  So, the United Nations got together and decided to invade Iraq in the early nineties.  The United States was willing to go along with the international concensus.  Later, Iraq surrendered to the United Nations.  The United Nations then got angry with Mr. Hussein.  The United States then went crazy and attacked Iraq.

 

But it's the bolded part that's crucial. The UN did not get angry with Mr. Hussein, or at least not angry enough to authorize force. If they had, there'd be no argument- this would be legal.

 

Take out that sentence, and see what conclusion you come to.

[kenrexford]

First of all, I never said that the United Nations authorized force in the "got angry" comment. Enacting multiple resolutions is "getting angry." "Went crazy" and attacked Iraq reinforces this.

 

Second, my point was apparently missed. I am trying to point out that the United Nations was not really the driving force to all of this, Part I or Part II. Rather, the United States merely used the United Nations as a prophylactic, to protect the U.S. from international reprisal by claiming that UN policy determined US course, not that the US acted unilaterally.

 

Assume that the UN never did anything in this matter. If the US simply invaded Iraq during Part I, in defense of Kuwait, and then reinvaded when Iraq did not comply with straight US demands, this would be acceptable from an international perspective, at least "acceptable" in that it would not be a "war crime." It might be completely unacceptable behavior from a diplomatic perspective, or from an ethical perspective, or from a logical perspective. But, not a war crime.

[jtfanclub]

First of all, I never said that the United Nations authorized force in the "got angry" comment. Enacting multiple resolutions is "getting angry." "Went crazy" and attacked Iraq reinforces this.

 

Second, my point was apparently missed. I am trying to point out that the United Nations was not really the driving force to all of this, Part I or Part II. Rather, the United States merely used the United Nations as a prophylactic, to protect the U.S. from international reprisal by claiming that UN policy determined US course, not that the US acted unilaterally.

 

Assume that the UN never did anything in this matter. If the US simply invaded Iraq during Part I, in defense of Kuwait, and then reinvaded when Iraq did not comply with straight US demands, this would be acceptable from an international perspective, at least "acceptable" in that it would not be a "war crime." It might be completely unacceptable behavior from a diplomatic perspective, or from an ethical perspective, or from a logical perspective. But, not a war crime.

I did miss your point, and I agree it's not a war crime. So does this mean the insurgency is the U.S.'s love child with Iraq because we refused to wear a condom this time?

 

I like metaphors and condoms. They're both very stretchy. :)

[kenrexford]

Actually, to be technical, I think what happened is that when we "went into" Iraq the second time, the United Nations "slipped off" and resulted in the "birth" of a troubled child, the insurgency.

 

Now, some may protest that we need a DNA test to see if the U.S. is the "father" of the insurgency or whether Iran snuck in their "seed" into Iraq and is the true "father" of the insurgency. If that is the case, then the United Nations "slipping off" was irrelevant.

[rona_]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiyeh_power_station_oil_spill

 

Just wanted to ask Jimmy if msnbc or fox news discuss this topic. It has been big news in my part of the world since it happened. As you see the oil slick is moving towards Cyprus. Considering that tourism is the backbone of our country's economy mainly because of our beaches, we are less than pleased that the plant burned for ten days because the Israeli jets wouldn't allow the fires to be put out. Cyprus is neutral in this conflict. We are friends with both the Israelis and the Arabs. The ecological damage is frightening.

 

On another subject. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4797425.stm.

 

If anyone can post names of books I can read to understand why, I would very much appreciate it. I have read all the comments but can't make up my mind what I think yet.

 

Rona

[luke warm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiyeh_power_station_oil_spill

 

Just wanted to ask Jimmy if msnbc or fox news discuss this topic. It has been big news in my part of the world since it happened.

for the record, i rarely watch fox (though i will say that fox seems less biased, going by the relatively few times i've watched the fox nightly news with shepard smith) and almost never watch msnbc... that being said, i don't think this story has gotten the attention it deserves... understandable, in a way, since other news has pretty much drowned it out... maybe that can change now

 

On another subject. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4797425.stm.

 

If anyone can post  names of books I can read to understand why, I would very much appreciate it. I have read all the comments but can't make up my mind what I think yet.

what are you trying to make up your mind about?

[hrothgar]

On another subject. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4797425.stm.

 

If anyone can post  names of books I can read to understand why, I would very much appreciate it. I have read all the comments but can't make up my mind what I think yet.

what are you trying to make up your mind about?

Here's my best guess at what Rona is asking about:

 

The article in question discusses the thoughts and feelings of a number of people who have recently made a decision to emigrate to Israel.

 

Do people believe that this type of emigration to be a desirable policy?

 

Personally, I think that its very regretable... These days I am feeling extremely pessimistic about any chance for last peace in the Middle East. I find it incomprehensible that anyone would want to move into this type of War Zone.

 

Long term, I'm starting to believe that there is going to be a third diaspora as anyone with half a brain decides to get the hell out of Dodge. This is going to be a painful and expensive process. Every additional person who moves in is one more that will need to evacuate...