We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Crissa »

If you think this thread is about Israel, then you probably think that song is about you.

The topic isn't Israelis killed, it's Lebonese, Palestinians. Killed with US ammunition and in a fight which the US approved of, and then the US was the only dissenting voice from the world community telling both sides to stop.

-Crissa
Oberoni
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Oberoni »

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1155619065[/unixtime]]If you think this thread is about Israel, then you probably think that song is about you.

The topic isn't Israelis killed, it's Lebonese, Palestinians. Killed with US ammunition and in a fight which the US approved of, and then the US was the only dissenting voice from the world community telling both sides to stop.

-Crissa


Booooooooooooooo. I've seen better dodges in the Feats section of the PHB.

(For future reference, when a thread is about A, B, and C, etc., stating it's only about A and B is not such a good idea. It's roughly as good of an idea as busting on someone for typing "it's" when you were typing "Isreal" earlier in the same thread, actually.)

EDIT: I realize you might have forgotten about the thread topic because it was so many pages ago, so here you go. The original poster clearly notes Israel is one of the main topics:

The person who started this thread wrote: So, here.

Israel is blockading Lebanon because Hamas attacked Israeli security forces because...

I don't know. But we're supposed to talk about 'the war'.


One can assume that Israel, Lebanon, Hamas, and 'the war' are topics of conversation here.
Oberoni
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Oberoni »

At least Phonelobster is actually answering my questions.

I said no and I mean no. You do not respond on the same scale. You respond in accordance to law and justice, niether of which actually involve blowing random shit up on any scale at all as a matter of fact.


Ok, let's go to "in accordance with law and justice." In this current situation, what response would Israel give that's in accordance with law and justice?

Furthermore, how would Hezbollah respond to this response, so to speak?
Xander77
1st Level
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Xander77 »

Josh_Kablack at [unixtime wrote:1155616450[/unixtime]]Recent Events explain a lot of this thread to me. :tongue:
?
clef
NPC
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by clef »

Xander wrote:But you're willing to hold nations to standards that don't actually exist outside your head. Understood.


There is a fundamental difference between saying “Because the world works the way I say it does, people should do X, Y, and Z” and saying “If our goal is to try and achieve a world that works in a certain way, actions X, Y, and Z are precisely the wrong ways to go about getting there.” My post was the later and I would agree that the former would just be wishful thinking.

Xander wrote:So... generally speaking, I'm all for hitting back when you're attacked.


I’m for a reasoned response that takes into account all aspects of the situation and leads to the best results for all parties involved. Maybe that involved hitting back. Maybe not.

Look, we should probably stop talking about “terrorists” and “people who attacked Israel” or even just “Lebanese” and talk specifically about the situation at hand. It is Hezbollah that did these things, not just “them” or “those bad guys over there”. And “these things” are in particular fired rockets and captured (“kidnapped”) soldiers, and not much else besides that.

I’m ok with hand waving the idea that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. Never mind that I haven’t heard of Hezbollah doing beheadings and that HEzbollah doesn't send troops into Iraq and that Hezbollah doesn’t use suicide bombers any more and that Hezbollah publicly decries the killing of civilians as an act of resistance including objecting to 9/11. We’ll also ignore Hezbollah’s humanitarian efforts or the fact that they have increasingly in recent years shown reluctance to use terrorist tactics in their struggle against Israel. And there’s no reason to really talk about the fact that most nations of the world including the UN don’t consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization or the fact that Hezbollah repeatedly asserts that the areas that they have attacked are areas under dispute with Israel and really shouldn’t be under Israeli control. Lastly, we’ll not take into account at all the fact that Hezbollah has largely given up rhetoric of the destruction of Israel and have primarily at least overtly been concerned only with the removal of Israel from disputed territories.

Instead, we’ll assume that the media has not been lying to us and that there are probably good reasons to think of Hezbollah as the irredeemable bad guys. After all, they have ties to Iran and Syria therefore they must be bad, right? But we don’t need guilt by association, we’ll presume that someone so inclined can produce a litany of horrible acts committed officially by Hezbollah in the name of resistance in recent years and that we will see a trend of the build up of those acts up until it became so intolerable that Israel had no choice but to act. And we’ll accept the proposition so often asserted that Hezbollah is 100% constituted with the kinds of people who are never ever going to give up their campaign for the destruction of Israel and that whenever they say otherwise they are obviously lying in order to cover up their true aims.

Even if we accept all of that, I still can’t begin to tell you profoundly unhelpful the proposition “if they attack us, we must fight back” is for the determining of foreign policy. There is a large continuum of possible actions ranging literally from doing nothing at all to, to nuclear war and/or genocide. There are a number of possible actions that are on the side of little to no military force being applied and a great many more that are further on the side of not taking extreme military intervention off of the table. And you don’t have to do just one thing. You can do a lot of little things, or a big thing and little things, or you can do nothing for a while and then do something big and then do a few little things, etc.

How would one choose between these options? I submit that any consideration between these options that does not take into account what kind of end game you are trying to achieve is a very bad one. Hence, when I describe a system whereby the UN serves a more active role as an arbiter of peace, effectively policing the conflict and treating each side neutrally, I am being very serious. This is a very real goal you can work towards and certain actions are more helpful for reaching that goal than others. This is not an idea that is pure fancy that has no precedent in the history of the world. Much of the impetus for the creation of the UN was the desire to create a kind of peaceful cooperative of nations that could lead to a sort of international rule of law, or at least not lead to the wholesale destruction that occurs during a world war.

Now nobody has to accept this vision of an endgame. You’re welcome to believe that it is impossible to achieve or that the end would be worse for the region than some particular alternative. But it would be wise to spell out what that alternative vision is and to be able to justify your actions as reasonably leading to the establishment of that order.

We can look at the rhetoric and try to piece together what Israel and the US really want to do when they engage in disproportionate offensive attacks. I’m not particularly familiar with the dialogue within Israel, but here on the US side, the punditry makes repeated reference to promotion of peaceful stable democratic states throughout the middle east. I can’t quite swallow that entirely since even the nations we count as our allies and enemies don’t quite fit that rubric very well. The things we object to tend to be more about whether a particular state will be friendly to us and do as we tell them. A more complete picture seems like it is that we want capitulation to US interests first, peace and stability second, and democracy third if we can get it. A cynic might look at this and say that what we really want is to create a Middle East that is an extension of our military and economic interests, that can send resources our way as if they were states under the control of our greater empire, like South America. Is it no wonder then that our direct empyreal competitors like Russia and China aren’t exactly one hundred percent behind us in this?

Now, I’m not a cynic and as much as the plan to impose our vision of how states should behave and what kinds of political and economic institutions they must adopt sickens me, I would still be willing to get on board with it. At the very least the word “stable” sounds very good to me. At least people would not be dying, at least people would be able to go about finding whatever happiness they can without fear that every five to ten years there will be another war that requires them to up and leave their homes not sure if they are going to survive to see their next day.

But even if you believe that this is the goal, the question remains are the current actions by the US and Israel even contributing effectively to that goal. Note, I am including Israel here because there is some reason to believe that the US is very much on board with Israel’s actions here and see it as contributing to the larger US plan for the region. That’s if you don’t buy the theories starting to float about the US was largely behind the entire ordeal in the first place like here.
But if you deny this conglomeration of two very separate agendas, I am sure that the argument I have made thus far and am about to make below can easily be adapted to Israel alone.

I submit that whatever else the US is doing, these conflicts have not been particularly helpful for creating the Middle East that they are promising. And unless you think blowing up schools and hospitals, roads and bridges, shutting down air ports and forcing mass exodus is likely to result in greater “stability” or you believe that throwing a state into near civil war and increasing the power and influence of one of the more fanatically anti-American nations in the region is likely to promote US interests in the region, I just can’t understand how you could possibly make the claim these goals are being achieved.

So that leaves three possibilities that I can see.

1. The US has some other ultimate goal in sight. They have some different vision that is at odds with their rhetoric. I can’t for the life of me figure out what that is. Is it to preserve and promote the instability of the region because it is profitable? Is it to eradicate the population? Is it that we want non-democratic oppressive states that are bent under our thumb? Is it that we want to make the people so terrified that they dare not fight back? Each possible explanation seems to go further and further into wacko-land. There are not unintelligent people who really believe that something like this is the real reason for our aggression. I need more evidence before I’d accept any of the propositions. But I am at a loss to come up with an alternative vision that is being followed.

2. The “democratization” goal I’ve described or something very similar to it is the real goal, but we’ve just been making a whole lot of bad decisions. Maybe it’s shortsightedness, maybe its hubris, maybe its incompetence maybe its stupidity. But whatever it is, we’ve repeatedly unerringly made decisions that are not putting us appreciably closer to the goal that we seek and which many would argue have actually set us further and further back. I’m not saying it’s easy. I’m not above to wave my hands in the air and pull out a document called “the magic plan that any idiot can see will bring about a permanent peace in the middle east.” I can’t pretend that my knowledge and creativity is up to the task when so very many other great minds who have put their minds to it have not yet found a long term solution. I can tell you that from what I’ve read and from what I believe, the crisis mentality that has lead to many of our recent actions has not been working.

3. It isn’t this goal and it isn’t another goal. It’s no goal. The people in charge are not really looking farther than their own noses. The mentality is entirely, if they have rockets, destroy the rockets, if they have nuclear facilities destroy the facilities, if they try to kidnap soldiers beat them up and get the soldiers back, if Saddam Hussein is an evil jerk who doesn’t like us, take Saddam Hussein out of power. Perhaps the thought process never goes beyond the immediately achievable results without thought to the greater consequences. Maybe we’re just wishing that things will work out.

I honestly can’t say which of these possibilities terrifies me the most. I’ve gotta hope that the reality is a sort of modified #2. That is to say, that the US government isn’t hypocritical, it does want what it says it wants and it is going about doing it in the best way it knows how. I can hope that we are making mistakes, but not colossal, irreparable ones, and that more tangible progress is being made than is readily apparent. These things take time, perhaps hundreds of years, and it is too soon to say whether some particular act will ultimately turn out to have been a brilliant stroke or a terrible blunder. At least, that’s what I tell myself before I go to bed at night.
clef
NPC
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by clef »

Krowout wrote:Where is the part that explains why people from Lebanon (we assume) are justified to invade Israel, kidnap it's citizens, and launch missiles at its civilians then hide out in densely populated civilian areas back in Lebanon? And then to say that Israel should just turn the other cheek... ummm...


I for one am not arguing that Hezbollah has any right to attack Israeli border posts or capture Israeli soldiers. I AM arguing that the situation is far more complex than the narrative that we are being fed that says “Hezbollah is evil therefore anything Israel does in order to weaken or suppress Hezbollah is automatically good.”

Both parts of that are questionable at best. Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda. Just because a group is on the terrorist watch list of a few states does not make their morals cut and dry or obvious. Certain actions done by Hezbollah are undeniably bad, but then so are a great many actions done by the United States and to be honest. And to be sure we probably don’t want to set the bad that these two groups have done up side by side in order to judge their overall morality. We might not like what we find if we do that.

But the idea that Israel is automatically in the right in this is beyond incomprehensible. We can, as reasonable people assess the choices that Israel made, the consequences of their actions and decide now whether we think they make good decisions or bad. As more evidence comes along we can adjust our opinions in accordance with our newfound knowledge. Right now, I think, many of Israel’s more devoted supporters, at least those whose opinions are at least a little based on reality, have questioned the effectiveness of their tactics and some even the overall strategy. Others have gone so far as to call the war a disaster.

So even if you accept Israel’s basic justification for war, you’ve gotta wonder if the war the way it was engaged was the wisest course. I think it wasn’t. In fact, I think that no form of extreme aggression would have been a good idea in this case. I’m not saying you have to sit on your hands, but I am saying that I am a supporter of governments acting proportionally and responsibly rather than with a beat-em up knock-em down "overwhelming force" philosophy. This is what has gotten the US into trouble time and time again.

Krowout wrote:Why aren't we talking about the wars in the South Pacific or in Sri Lanka or the Pakistan/India conflict or Tibet's brutal occupation or Russia's Georgia or Somalia or a half dozen other current wars or violent conflicts around the world occurring in any place where all people do not praise Allah?


We could be. Maybe we should be. Open up another thread on them and start talking about them and maybe others will join in. I would love to learn more about these conflicts. If anything, understanding the conflicts in the rest of the world might well put the Israeli conflict into perspective. But just because we should be discussing these things doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be discussing the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.

Look, there’s no surprise that America and much of the world has been obsessed with Israel for a long time. It’s really not surprising at all that there is heated debate on this topic. In part because some of the people involved are Arabs and so are the perpetrators of terrorist attacks in many countries throughout the world, and in part because the US has backed Israel so ardently over the years and years during which conflicts have existed in the middle east and in large part because of the religious undercurrent in this conflict. Really, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a big discussion thread on this topic.

To put it simply. We’re talking about this because we want to talk about (free will or media brainwashing take your pick). It’s unclear yet if and when people will be interested in talking about something else instead of or in addition to this.

Now why is the world talking about this rather than another topic? Who knows. We know states and media set the agenda of what is the important discussion of the day. But why set this particular agenda? Well it's always the biggest most immediate tragedy that makes the best selling story, and I suspect it also probably has a lot to do with people being sick of talking about Iraq.
Tokorona
Journeyman
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Tokorona »

I know this is slightly off topic, but consider this. THe United Nations was unable to prevent 6 wars, numerous civil right violations and Iraq's rearming. When they had specific rules against this.

GIven that, it is entirely logical for Israel to conclude that the UN would be no help. Espically since terrorists, on the whole, don't really tend to respect the UN. Because, ya'know, they're terrorists.

While it is deploarable that this has to be the outcome, there is no real other choice for Israel besides limited rocket strikes back, and that will merely escolate it back as Hezebolla can move and they cannot. So, hopefully, history will bear them out, but it is as likely that it wasn't just the best move.

As for the US ammunition: Uh, yeah. Israel is a trading partner (and recieves truly insane amounts of foreign aid, too). If France, say, wanted US ammo, they could buy it too. (although, they probably don't.)
Xander77
1st Level
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Xander77 »

clef at [unixtime wrote:1155657920[/unixtime]]Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda. Just because a group is on the terrorist watch list of a few states does not make their morals cut and dry or obvious.
So it's not whether or not a group is considered "a terrorist" group by several nations that actually determines whether or not it's a terrorist group? Shocking.

BTW. Do you know what the Russian Foreign Affairs Minstry's official reason for not considering Hamas and Hizbollah terrorist groups? "Neither one operates on Russia's territory". Also the reason they don't consider crocodiles to be predators.

Oh, wait a sec. Crocodiles make neat suitcases, and there's little to be gained from cooperating with them. Wrong analogy, please ignore.


But the idea that Israel is automatically in the right in this is beyond incomprehensible.
Subtle difference. We're "on the right side" alias "the good guys" if only because the other side is so very wrong, aka "the all too obviously bad guys". That doesn't mean we're making the right choices.

Others have gone so far as to call the war a disaster.
Who are these others, and what are their given reasons for doing so?

I’m not saying you have to sit on your hands, but I am saying that I am a supporter of governments acting proportionally and responsibly
Concrete, please.

Look, there’s no surprise that America and much of the world has been obsessed with Israel for a long time.
Really? As compared the multitude of other conflicts across the world? Why so?

Really, I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a big discussion thread on this topic.
Which topic?
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Crissa »

Tokorona at [unixtime wrote:1155666604[/unixtime]]THe United Nations was unable to prevent 6 wars, numerous civil right violations and Iraq's rearming. When they had specific rules against this.

Counting the few failures of the UN vs the vast majority of the last sixty years in which we haven't had world wars...

...Which is a longer time than any in written history that major powers have not been in active conflict.

Sounds like a success to me.

Xander, I think you've gotten the message I've been trying to give. And there's lots of options beyond the few our medias and governments show us.

Trading partners don't get arms. We don't sell carbon fiber bicycles to China because they might be used for weapons - they are our largest, and most favored, trading partner.

The original topic was the 'lack' of response on the topic of the American government's behavior by the minority party here in the US. ...I should know, I set it.

-Crissa

PS, Iraq wasn't re-armed. Sorry. Besides, it didn't need companies trading in criminal practices to arm itself, either - though there were many US companies doing just that. You can't stop a child from picking up a rock.
clef
NPC
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by clef »


Xander wrote:
There's also the fact that "fast and full force, knock-em down and keep-em down" was the right strategy when faced with much larger and slower opponents, and our country hasn't actually gotten around to "let's think about what our goals, means, strategies, tactics and concerns are, now and in the future" during the last 30 year


That just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to me that if your enemy is big and slow what's the rush? You have time to plan a more involved strategy because there's no real chance this big slow, and let's face it in this case extremely weak, relatively speaking, enemy will be able to destroy you in the near future. It seems to me that if you were facing an enemy with overwhelmingly more powerful force than you, that's when you'd pretty much have to worry about survival and not have time to look at the bigger picture. But in any, case you'd be better off if you make time to look at the broader picture no matter which situation you're in. I'm quite sure Hezbollah has a pretty broad view of this conflict, as probably does Iran and Syria and the US.

And on the other hand, you say this "terrorist" problem has been with Israel for so many years. Are you saying that nowhere a long those many years did anyone wonder if maybe they ought to figure out what the heck they are fighting towards? Defense and planning aren't mutually exclusive. It seems to me that Israel should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time...

If Israel doesn't have any kind of long term strategy at all, then their actions are just reactions probably quite predicatable to the rest of the world. In that case it seems very likely that they are simply being manipulated. By everyone. That's not a good place to be.
clef
NPC
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by clef »

Crissa wrote:Counting the few failures of the UN vs the vast majority of the last sixty years in which we haven't had world wars...

...Which is a longer time than any in written history that major powers have not been in active conflict.

Sounds like a success to me.


Well the UN has done alright despite being undermined at every turn primarily by the US but also occassionaly by other nations who decide that despite the UN's rulings they'll do what they want anyway. But I wonder if the lack of world war doesn't have a lot more to do with the fact that we have nuclear weapons now and although people don't talk about it very often the prospect of a nuclear war scares the shit out of people.

Tokorona wrote:
GIven that, it is entirely logical for Israel to conclude that the UN would be no help. Espically since terrorists, on the whole, don't really tend to respect the UN. Because, ya'know, they're terrorists.


The UN's call to disband independent militant groups in the area mostly worked. All of them did disband except Hezbollah. Hezbollah argues that it is in a different category, that they are "Resistance Fighters" and so the resolution does not apply to them. They also claim some degree of connection the Lebanese government. So there's some abiguity here, arguments can be and are made that Hezbollah doesn't have to abide by this resolution.

The real "problem" here is that the Arab countries agree with Hezbollah. And it's unclear how many other nations in the world agree with them if it came down to a vote on the matter. So for anything to happen there would have to be some further proposition in the UN clarifying their status. But the question is if there had been a resolution specifically targetting Hezbollah, requiring it to disarm in Lebanon and authorizing the use of military force to make them disarm or calling for the creating of a multinational force that would undergo the mission of disarming, it isn't clear how much support it would get. I don't know if there have been such resolutions or even recommendations that are even close to that. I haven't researched it at all. But you don't have to look too far to imagine that if there were, it might not work. I'm not sure Israel would even have wanted to propose such a thing and risk Hezbollah gaining any sort of legitimacy should the measure fail.

And... why should other nations support anything like that really? It all boils down to an analysis of power. Most states don't have any particular interest in Israel expanding its already considerable power in the region by eliminating another potential hurdle. Many see Hezbollah as a potential deterrent to what they see as Israel's aggressive tendencies and a barrier to US interests in the region. Sure it's a little disturbing that nations make these cold hearted political determinations without concern for the plight of the people involved, but all nations including the US and Israel do it all the time.

But even so it is really absurd to say that the UN is not useful at all because "terrorists don't listen to them." That's not a good argument at all. Right now we have a situation where everyone listens to the UN ONLY when they consider it to be in their best interest to listen to them. That's the example set by the super powers. Hezbollah will disarm when they see that as helping to advance their interests which they say involve bringing freedom and peace to Palestinians and "liberating" certain Israeli controlled areas. Other nations will support that proposition and perhaps even try to influence Lebanon and Hezbollah in order to bring about a faster disarmament when they see that as being in their best interests. That's what diplomacy is about. You have to give a little in order to get a little. This is pretty much the way the system has always worked. But it's important to keep in mind that Hezbollah is in a much weaker position miltarily than Israel and that when it boils down to it, nobody's likely to jump in to save Hezbollah and Hezbollah knows this. You probably wouldn't have had to negotiate particularly hard to get them to disarm. But saying to them "We refuse to even look at you, let alone talk to you, you terrorist scum" doesn't exactly get the job done.

It is also simply not the case the "terrorists" groups have any kind of monopoly on thwarting UN agendas or flat out ignoring international bodies. The US totally ignored a decision by the world court in 1986 that required the US to cease activities in Nicaragua. Here's a link.

I'm sure anyone determined enough can find numerous other examples probably such of which are even more gross violations than this one. This is just the one that stuck in my head.

But ordinarily neither the US nor Israel has to ever bother to actually disobey the UN being as they can just block thinks outright. There are numerous instances where votes are overwhelmingly in favor of various proposals with the few exceptions of the US and Israel. I think everyone pretty much knows that this is all kind of a farce anyway since the US and Israel have never done anything that would suggest that they ever had any intention of abiding by any decision passed by the UN that doesn't coincide exactly with what they had intended in the first place. That's pretty much said openly in the media and by our politicians. Given that as a "model" for behavior, is it any wonder that others disobey.

If the UN lacks authority it's because powerful nations ignore it or activily fight against it, or refuse to enforce its posiitions, not because of weak dissident groups.
Xander77
1st Level
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Xander77 »

clef at [unixtime wrote:1155692354[/unixtime]]

That just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to me that if your enemy is big and slow what's the rush? You have time to plan a more involved strategy because there's no real chance this big slow, and let's face it in this case extremely weak, relatively speaking, enemy will be able to destroy you in the near future.
You do realise that I'm not referring to terrorists, right? Because "last 30 years" and "proved effective when dealing with another sort of enemy" are about that.


If Israel doesn't have any kind of long term strategy at all, then their actions are just reactions probably quite predicatable to the rest of the world. In that case it seems very likely that they are simply being manipulated. By everyone. That's not a good place to be.
As are everyone. So far, any attempts to "turn things around" have just made the situation worse.
clef
NPC
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by clef »

Xander77 wrote:
Subtle difference. We're "on the right side" alias "the good guys" if only because the other side is so very wrong, aka "the all too obviously bad guys". That doesn't mean we're making the right choices.


Frankly whenever any group as large and diverse as a nation characterizes itself as the "good guys" I get a little nervous. The real world is rarely that simple. It's the kind of vacuous assertion we make when we want to make ourselves feel good not when we are concerned with accurately characterizing the reality. But I only get a little nervous because usually it's just harmless.

More to the point, I think the proposition that the other side is "the all too obviously bad guys" is quite questionable. You or somebody will have to convince me that it is so very obvious that they are the bad guys because I listened to watched and read many news sources in the mainstream press in the US and none of them were satisfactorily convincing to me on this one single point that the other guys are really so very much the unparalleled model of evil. That's why I say for the sake of argument I'm willing to "accept" the near unanimous moral perspective expressed in the media, when in truth I'm not convinced of it at all.

I do think that it is very easy to get bogged down on the question of morality. In this case in particular is very difficult to build any kind of moral concensus if you have a reasonably diverse audience. I tend to prefer the focus upon the more tangible question of whether Israel has made good choices under the circumstances. Neither topic should be off limits of course, its just that one I predict will yield a breakdown in communication and possibly a flame war whereas the other I think can be used to spread understanding and perspective even if it skirts the "real" issue.

Who are these others, and what are their given reasons for doing so?

Concrete, please.

Really? As compared the multitude of other conflicts across the world? Why so?

Which topic?


Do you teach? Sounds like it. This is very much the kinds of stuff that gets scribbled in the margin on rough drafts of papers in college. Luckily my posts don't constitute a paper being submitted for critique. I'm writing to express ideas and foster dialogue. You can tell the difference by the lack of footnotes. I usually ignore these kinds of snipes because I suspect they are just attempts to detract attention away from the main ideas being expressed. You know get people to focus on the minutia. Like when people bring up spelling and grammar when the spelling and grammar mistakes don't really have a bearing on one's ability to grasp the points being made. That leads to nitpicking wars which in turn almost invariably lead to flame wars.

But hey maybe you are just seriously asking...

So anyway:
1. I didn't have any particular persons in mind but a quick search for Israel Lebanon War Disaster yielded quite a few:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/0807 ... htm[br]You can read the articles for their reasons but I think there isn't anything new that hasn't been brought up earlier in this thread.
2. Proportional responses aren't particularly hard to understand their just out of favor right now. The ideas pretty simple. You destroy one of my facilities, I destroy a bigger more important one of your facilities or maybe two. And so on repeatedly. The idea being to make it clear that it is to create a deterrent for further action because it becomes costly. It doesn't solve anything but in certain conflicts it it is a reasonable intermediate action while working toward a negotiated settlement.
3. Yes and I don't really know, but my guesses were in that same paragraph.
4. The Israel/Hezbollah conflict
clef
NPC
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by clef »

You do realise that I'm not referring to terrorists, right? Because "last 30 years" and "proved effective when dealing with another sort of enemy" are about that.


No. I misread that. But now I'm not at all sure what you were trying to get across.

So far, any attempts to "turn things around" have just made the situation worse.


Perhaps, but my point remains that chances are very good that the other major players are working with at least partial sight to what they want to be the case in the region as a whole, long term. There plans probably don't even have making the situations "better" for Israel as a part of the calculation. I can't say for certain what those motivations are, but I can guess that Iran is looking toward some sort of alliance of Shi'a controlled states including Iraq, and Saudia Arabia perhaps with nuclear capabiliies underlying that alliance. Such a body would control much of the world's oil supplies and could not be ignored by anyone and would not have to worry as much about the possibility of US invasion and it could negotiate with Israel on more stable footing in the future with regards to the palestinians. The US doesn't want this of course. We don't want to see any more powerful competitors. We certainly don't want to test the strength of our alliances in the region when nations see another possible force they can align themselves to.

The US is probably looking toward a different end game. I floated theories about that in a previous post. Basic summary: democracy and freedom provided they do exactly as we say.

But you're saying Israel doesn't have any long term agenda in this? Not one aligned with another nation? Not one opposed? Not an evil dictatorial agenda. Not a benevolent savior agenda. Just no agenda at all? What? Because the leadership somehow forgot how to think over the last thirty years?

I honestly hope not. I can't imagine engaging in a major war without any long term plans, but then I'm not in politics. But how would you know whether your war has brought you any closer or further away to an outcome you want if you don't even really know what that outcome is? That'd be like driving off a cliff not because you think your car can fly and not because you're trying to commit suicide but because you just enjoy driving.
Krowout
NPC
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Krowout »

Personal attack deleted.

-The Great Fence Builder
Xander77
1st Level
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Xander77 »

clef at [unixtime wrote:1155705593[/unixtime]]
Frankly whenever any group as large and diverse as a nation characterizes itself as the "good guys" I get a little nervous.
Ahhm... I'd get a little nervous arround people who didn't characterise themselves as the good guys. I've stated my reasons in my first post.

Do you teach?
Yes. Being an eternal student in the university of life, I've also taken up a position as a TA.

Luckily my posts don't constitute a paper being submitted for critique. I'm writing to express ideas and foster dialogue.
And pointing out that your ideas are flawed, unclear, incoherent and so on is incorrect? One would believe you'd appreciate the assistanse - after all, it would lead to clearer and more precise dialogue.

Like when people bring up spelling and grammar when the spelling and grammar mistakes don't really have a bearing on one's ability to grasp the points being made.
IME, those are usually brought up in response to claims of superior intelligence.

1. I didn't have any particular persons in mind but a quick search for Israel Lebanon War Disaster yielded quite a few:You can read the articles for their reasons but I think there isn't anything new that hasn't been brought up earlier in this thread.
The words you originally used are "Israel's supporters". Your links didn't provide any.

4. The Israel/Hezbollah conflict
Which... isn't what we're discussing right now?

But now I'm not at all sure what you were trying to get across.
We had our last actual war, vs actual, larger, stupider, slower armies, 30 years ago.

Because the leadership somehow forgot how to think over the last thirty years?
Our military. Our military hasn't actually re-evaluated it's goals and means, from the roots up, in the last 30 years.
Xander77
1st Level
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Xander77 »

Krowout at [unixtime wrote:1155715930[/unixtime]]Wow Crissa. Just wow.
Umm... how about relaxing a bit, and not getting yourself banned just yet?
Krowout
NPC
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Krowout »

Fair enough. I tend to get frustrated when the same mantras are repeated regardless of the evidence against them but I can keep a lid on that. The critique of my writing style is probably what set me over the line. Maybe my skin isn’t as thick as I think it is.

In any case, I don’t mean to hijack the thread so I’ll get back to the point.

All of these critics of Israel’s actions have failed to suggest any reasonable alternative. Looking at the last 30 years of history in that region we definitely do see expended periods where Israel just bent over and took the abuse without significant response (or in many cases any at all). It has only resulted in more of the same.

Every instance of appeasement has resulted in more violence and almost all of it against civilians. The only strategies that have resulted in extended periods of calm in this century have involved harsh military actions and (or including depending on your perspective) building the wall.

I fail to understand how a person can live under constant attack and not demand their government do something about it. Furthermore I fail to grasp how an outsider can view the situation and not see this.

How can a person actually fail to recognize that Hizbolla asked for this? Begged for it? They invaded the country and took a prisoner. That’s an act of war. And it’s not remotely the first.

By the way, I see some people putting faith in the UN. How’re they doing with Oil for Food? I see Kofi Anan’s family and Sadam’s Family both made a killing on that one.

How’re the Korean or Iranian Nuclear talks going? Kashmir? Sri Lanka? Somalia? Tibet? Haiti? Chechnya? Indonesia? Guinea-Bissau ? Women’s rights in the 2nd/3rd world? The Congo? Sierra Leonne? Child Soldiers? Sudan? Avian Flu? AIDS?

How’s that Human Rights Council doing? Still focused on Abu Gahraib are they? Still ignoring the situations in Zimbabwe, Iran, Cambodia, Congo, Haiti, Cuba, and a score of others in order to allow more time for investigating US and Israeli actions?

I have to say, with friends like Kofi Anan, who needs enemies.

Mark my words, this is not over. Hizbollah and it’s backers do not want peace. ‘UN Peacekeepers’ will die in Lebanon. Are we forgetting that it was Beirut where US troops were stationed for one of these UN Peacekeeping missions and a couple of hundred sleeping men were blown up? That hostages were taken to Iran. That Jimmy Carter could not handle the situation and that’s primarily why Regan beat him when he was the incumbent?

For a group that wants the US out of the Middle East, this tact is more assuredly going to put more Americans in the Middle East. And that is not where we want to be. Neither does it do anything to get Lebanon out from under Syrian/Iranian control nor stem the proliferation of terrorists (read civilians with rockets that travel a hundred miles and bombs strapped to children). In fact, I think this turn of events is counter productive to those ends.

What’s the solution? There is NO short term solution. The long term solution is a cultural shift in ideology. Propagating ideals that teach children to become productive members of their society rather than martyrs is the direction that needs furthering. Is that going to happen in Iran? Doubtful. They are moving the opposite direction actually and have been for some time now. Is that going to happen in Iraq? Quite possibly. Certainly it’s more likely now than it was under Hussein. Is it going to happen in Gaza? I see no signs that indicate the next generation will be any different than the last.

It does not matter what appeasements are offered. Genocide is the only solution their leadership endorses. Anyone supporting the organizations / governments who preach hatred and genocide, likewise supports the same racism and murder taught by these foul regimes.

So in conclusion, it just burns me up to see people who obviously have two brain cells to rub together teaming up with the worst elements of humanity and blinding themselves to other possibilities. But I guess hatred will do that (make people blind).

I know people are going to say, ‘Oh I don’t hate…’ But I can see no other explanation for the blindness, the one-sidedness, or the refusal to accept logic or even common sense. At the very least I would think empathy were possible but it seems that empathy can only be achieved when we do not hate the subject.

I’ll sit back for a while now and see if anyone has any actual ideas to offer or if we’ll just see more of the same. Which is to say, criticism of everything that is tried and no productive or realistic ideas put forth besides blind faith that the UN is a panacea.

Obviously I’m hoping for the former but expecting the later.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Crissa »

I dunno, apparently 'not kill civillians' and 'support democratic change' aren't reasonable suggestions, so why are you even in the thread?

-Crissa
User avatar
Hey_I_Can_Chan
Master
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Hey_I_Can_Chan »

I dunno, apparently 'not kill civillians' and 'support democratic change' aren't reasonable suggestions, so why are you even in the thread?


When one's foe is given material support by those civilians--which includes hiding one's foes in their homes--those civilians assume some risk, don't they?

If a legally elected government came into power in a neighboring state and said its goal was wiping your country off the map, is your country still obligated to aid that government in the name of "supporting democratic change"?

I don't like the tactics, either. I think the whole thing was handled poorly. But, really, when confronted with these on an analogous level, I can't help but have some understanding.

I can't believe the US'd say to Canada, after the Anti-US party takes power there and vows to destroy us and won't recognize our legitimacy, that we'd say, "Oh, hey, yeah, that's great, and maybe we should go out for pizza later after we give you $10 billion in aid."

That just seems unlikely, especially considering the adversarial world climate.
clef
NPC
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by clef »

[Off Topic]
And pointing out that your ideas are flawed, unclear, incoherent and so on is incorrect? One would believe you'd appreciate the assistanse - after all, it would lead to clearer and more precise dialogue.


Not… incorrect exactly. Maybe Inappropriate is the right term. It’s very dismissive. Like someone gives an argument and your response isn’t, I agree, I disagree, I hate your guts, or any number of things that would be honest reactions but instead it's “You know you could probably express yourself better if you clarified yourself right here.” People in academia don’t generally do that to one another even when the disagreements are very bitter indeed and I know the writers are dying to. The implication is that the person you are responding to isn’t even worth really responding to until they reach your level of competence. And that’s perfectly fine a belief to have. Nobody is forced to engage with anyone. I just think it doesn't further the conversation very much. But then, that’s just my own perspective. Take it as you will.

IME, those are usually brought up in response to claims of superior intelligence.

Yeah sometimes. But it’s not a coherent response. Unless the person actually believes that intelligence is highly connected with tendency to use spell check. I’m sure nobody actually believes that, so I stick with my theory that it is an attempt to discredit. Why not just say "I think you're an arrogant arse" instead? That's more honest. I'm fine with that.
[/Off Topic]

The words you originally used are "Israel's supporters". Your links didn't provide any.


I went back and reread it and I apologize. The way I phrased it was very sloppy. I had never really intended to directly link “Israel’s supporters” to the notion of “disaster”. “Israel’s supporters” were the ones that are now questioning the manner in which the war was carried out. I think that’s empirically verifiable. Just pick up just about any news paper and there are plenty of stories about this now. “Said it was a disaster” I meant only that I have heard “others” meaning some people say that they consider the war to be a disaster. And I have. Even outside of the links I've posted, on national television and radio, but I can't recall if anyone in particular was someone who was one of "Israel's supporters" so I'm going to assume that none of them were. Now I could probably find someone who was a supporter of Israel at the beginning of the war and now thinks and is willing to say pulbically that it was a disaster. But it would be a pointless endeavor as that was not my intention or my point.

Which... isn't what we're discussing right now?

Now I’m confused. It is. That was my point. I would be surprised if we weren’t discussing it but we are hence I’m not surprised.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Crissa »

Hey_I_Can_Chan at [unixtime wrote:1155862766[/unixtime]]When one's foe is given material support by those civilians--which includes hiding one's foes in their homes--those civilians assume some risk, don't they?

Yes, those poor souls gave aid by hiding terrorists in their fishing boats hundreds of miles from the fighting.

Must've hid them on the freeway, too.

Yep, you're so responsible for hiding terrorists when they buy the house next door to you.

If a legally elected government came into power in a neighboring state and said its goal was wiping your country off the map, is your country still obligated to aid that government in the name of "supporting democratic change"?

Well, your option says that democracy is a bad thing...

...And since democratically elected countries generally don't go to war, one might think there's something to letting people decide for themselves. And if you can convince that may people that going to war is a good idea... You'd think maybe there was a reason for it.

Too bad you get to decide for them, huh? Democracy is okay, just not for others?

-Crissa
Krowout
NPC
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Krowout »

What you are not recognizing is that the terrorists themselves are counted as civilians most of the time. And yes, if you hide terrorists in your boat or in your house then you have joined the war. If the terrorists in question fire missiles or retreat into civilian areas then it is they who have brought those people into the conflict. They do it for a reason. There is ample discussion among terrorists (check the AlQueda manual!!) about increasing civilian casualties and how to use that as a tool for war in the media.

I'm not sure I understand why Supporting Democratic change is mentioned here but it seems to me that in that part of the world, democracy is not helping to stem the violence. Israel is a democracy and now Gaza is too. So where does this idea that "democratically elected countries generally don't go to war" apply here?

Lebanon on the other hand, is a puppet of Syria (and riddled with terrorists), which in turn bows down before Iran. Which comes back to your point about 'hiding on the freeway' because thousands of missiles were being imported into Lebanon to arm Hezbollah and their ilk. So destroying those routes makes good sense.

As Agent J (MIB) said, "Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'"

It's a Forest Gumpish kind of wisdom but I find it applicable to this situation. It seems to me that Israel is quite content to live in peace but not content to ignore being attacked. The solution is simple. Put down the Kalashnikov and the Hookah, get a job, raise a family, pray to Allah, and enjoy this life because 72 virgins are over-rated in the extreme.

I just don't think anyone of prominence is saying that over there because anyone who does gets persecuted or killed and frequently their families with them.

On another board I read the frustrations of some Muslim posters that their culture allowed very little room for tolerance and that anyone desiring peace felt that they had to keep it to themselves while the war-hawks felt free to shout it on every street corner.

It's an entirely sad situation.
User avatar
Hey_I_Can_Chan
Master
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by Hey_I_Can_Chan »

Let me keep this simple.

A) Yes, those poor souls gave aid by hiding terrorists in their fishing boats hundreds of miles from the fighting. B) Must've hid them on the freeway, too. C) Yep, you're so responsible for hiding terrorists when they buy the house next door to you.


A) Are you sure they didn't? Are you good friends with a Mossad agent or something?

B) Bombing freeways sure slows down fighters from getting around. It's unfortunate that it slows down everyone else, too.

C) If a terrorist moves in next door to me, and the government wouldn't do anything about, I'd fvcking move.

[You mentioned that the US and Israel should] 'support democratic change.'
If a legally elected government came into power in a neighboring state and said its goal was wiping your country off the map, is your country still obligated to aid that government in the name of "supporting democratic change"?
A) Well, your option says that democracy is a bad thing... B) ...And since democratically elected countries generally don't go to war, one might think there's something to letting people decide for themselves. C)And if you can convince that may people that going to war is a good idea... You'd think maybe there was a reason for it. D)Too bad you get to decide for them, huh? Democracy is okay, just not for others?


A) WTF? Where? My option is not providing support to people who hate you and want to destroy you. That seems reasonable. Could you explain how it's not? 'Cause, really, I think the burden of proof's on you for that one.

B) WTF? Democratically elected governments go to war all the damn time.

C) Huh?

B) I'm no longer sure what you're talking about. If you could trace the path from "not supporting notjobs who want to kill you" to "that means you hate democracy" I'd appreciate it.
__________________________________________________

Crissa, my statements were simple ones, but I'll simplify further: terrorists are civilians, so civilians will get killed in any fight against terrorists. Providing money and moral support to people who want to destroy your people is stupid and no government should expect that degree of tolerance, no matter how democratically elected.

In the second case, that doesn't mean bombing them immediately back into the stone age or whatever, but it can certainly mean not giving them cold, hard cash and refusing to deal with them.

Honestly, what part of this doesn't make sense?
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: We're not talking about 'the war' enough

Post by PhoneLobster »

wrote:At least Phonelobster is actually answering my questions.

For some reason I waste my time dealing with inane stuff like those questions.

wrote:
Ok, let's go to "in accordance with law and justice." In this current situation, what response would Israel give that's in accordance with law and justice?

There are authorities. You go to them, you tell them to do something, if they can't you help them if they won't you go to other authorities.

What you don't do is go off your nut climb the local clock tower and start shooting people in the head. Which is the Israeli strategy for everything.

wrote:
Furthermore, how would Hezbollah respond to this response, so to speak?

Depends on their agenda but ultimately its not about Hezbollah's response, really it isn't.

Its about the rule of law, follow it and you strengthen it, really it actually works like that.

Its also about more than ONE act of not engaging in senseless genocidal slaughter. Its like AA, one not going off your nut and killing innocent people in massive numbers at a time.

See you want to be on the non genocidal wagon. When you are on the non genocidal wagon people are less inclined to run at you and blow themselves up. Its crazy really but quiet true.

I mean look at Britain, they went on the lets not kill the northern Irish wagon, and look where it got them, safely into not having Irish bombs in London, and remind me again what they lost in that deal, oh yeah, getting to kill the Northern Irish...
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Post Reply