# Israel & Lebanon



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2006)

The low simmer has turned to, at least, medium heat. 

Earlier today, Israel invaded Lebanese territory with tanks and troops. Refugees are fleeing into Syria. The United States is expaditing shipments of precision weapons to the battlezone.

It is not out of the realm of possibilities, that this is a proxy war between the United States and Iran. 

It seems to me that these events are a direct result of the United States actions in Iraq. 

And only Dennis Kucinich (and approximately two dozen co-sponsers) have the guts to petition the President to demand an immediate cessation of hostilities from both sides of the conflict, to begin negotiating a settlement.

Watching these events unfold has been terribly sad.


----------



## mantis (Jul 23, 2006)

the US seems to like this war and does not want it to stop.  it's not a result of presence in Iraq, but it's the rest of the plan.  The plan that would result in a new map of the middle east.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 23, 2006)

This is absolutely a proxy war with Iran.  I suspect that it is designed to get them to retaliate and give us an excuse to get involved with Iran directly.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 23, 2006)

Whatever the reasons behind it, it is pretty scary I am assuming that this will not end in two weeks like the media says and that there will prob be no peace negotiations.  Last I heard, Lebanon stated it would fight along side Hezbollah if Israel invaded.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

Didn't Lebanon recently hold elections? 
Aren't elections the trademark of Democracy? 
Aren't we (now) fighting in Iraq to bring Democracy to the Middle East? 

And, if Israel "Invades", (which they have) doesn't every sovereign state have an obligation to fight against those who invade? So why wouldn't Lebanon fight against the Israelis? 

I recently saw an article that stated Israel's battle plans were drawn up over a year ago, and were for a three week war. I understand the plans were shown to United States foreign policy officials a year ago.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 23, 2006)

_I recently saw an article that stated Israel's battle plans were drawn up over a year ago_

Most militaries and nations draw up all sorts of battle plans well in advance.  I mean, Taiwan just carried out large scale exercises based on a plan of defense against a Chinese attack.  Should China choose to attack next year, I don't think anyway's going to be too surprised that Taiwan already has a plan.

It's important to remember that Israel attacked Hezbollah because Lebanon did not follow through, because of lack of will or lack of ability, their requirement to restrain Hezbollah.  Israel is not attacking Lebanon, they are attacking a group of people using Labanon as a base, which is an important distinction as Israel has no beef with Lebanon, other than that they did not keep Hezbollah from attacking Israel.  But this was long in coming and the fact that Israel had battle plans for this eventuality shouldn't really be construed as anything sinister.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Israel is not attacking Lebanon, they are attacking a group of people using Labanon as a base, which is an important distinction as Israel has no beef with Lebanon, other than that they did not keep Hezbollah from attacking Israel. But this was long in coming and the fact that Israel had battle plans for this eventuality shouldn't really be construed as anything sinister.


 
Yes, all nations have contingency plans. But how many share their contingency plans with the United States Department of Defense? Apparently, our DoD is completely aware of what Israel had on its drawing boards. And now, we are sitting by, doing little to solve the problem, and quite possibly much to exacerbate the problem.

And, despite your claim that Israel is not attacking Lebanon, it appears that the Lebanese are being hurt. 



> The BBC reports that 'The UN's Jan Egeland said half a million people needed assistance - and the number was likely to increase. *One-third of the recent Lebanese casualties, he said, appeared to be children*. '


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Didn't Lebanon recently hold elections?
> Aren't elections the trademark of Democracy?
> Aren't we (now) fighting in Iraq to bring Democracy to the Middle East?
> 
> ...



There are always plans on the shelf, It would not surprise me if we have plans for North Korean and also China and Pakastan and even Cuba. 

As to nations, Israel is also a religious country, and in the old testament it states that retaliation force shall be thrice the force directed at one. 

So there plans have been what we have seen. If someone lobs a bomb they throw more bombs back. If someone hits them with a missile they scramble "F"  type Fighter plans to bomb them back with multiple bombs or missiles. 

The issue goes that someone remembers that someone has died so they take it personal and they place a bomb, which kills someone else so then it continues and continues. 



I am not condoning killing people, nor any single policy only commenting that this is not something that is one day in the making. That this will not be easly resolved, unless there are lots of plans put into place to prohibit contact between people so they forget or die out. So it might take three or four generations for people to forget the personal reasons, and get it back to the religious or national reasons.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 23, 2006)

Hezbolla is to Lebanon as Hamas is to Palestine. Neither territory can control it's radical counterpart, so I'm all for Isreal taking the necessary steps.

I also like new maps...the colors are pretty.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Hezbolla is to Lebanon as Hamas is to Palestine. Neither territory can control it's radical counterpart, so I'm all for Isreal taking the necessary steps.
> 
> I also like new maps...the colors are pretty.


 
You are aware the Hamas was elected to the leadership legislature body in Palestine? I don't believe Hesbolla has been elected to anything in Lebanon. However, Lebanon did recently hold elections, and they did successfully, and relatively peacefully, remove the Syrian military from their country.

Doesn't the United States believe in Democracy?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 23, 2006)

_
Doesn't the United States believe in Democracy?_

You are starting from a faulty premise.  This is not a conflict between the government of Israel and the government of Lebanon.  This is a conflict between the government of Israel and another group that happens to be based in Lebanon (which means that, yes, Lebanese non-combatants get killed)  Of particualr importance is that their was already a UN resolution for Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel and there is a small UN force in southern Lebanon that is supposed to be enforcing this resolution.  It's that lack of effectiveness of the UN force and the lack of ability or will on the part of the Lebonese govt. that has les to Israel striking against Hezbollah targets in Lebnon.  It's sad that this has happened to the Lebonese people in the area, but if the Lebonese govt and the UN had been more serious about stopping Hezbolla from attacking Israel, then they wouldn't have come to this.

All of this has nothing to do with whether or not Lebanon is a democracy or not or the opinions of the US on the govt of Lebanon.

Iran is backing Hezbollah, but they have been for some time.  While Israel is a US ally in the area, Israel has proven they can be highly independent when it comes to their own self-defense.  To extrapolate from the current actions of Israel in Lebanon as some sort of proxy war between he US and Iran based on the situation in Iraq is simplistic and paranoid and seems to have more to do with a desire to find fault with the Bush administration than any reflection on real events or their causes


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You are aware the Hamas was elected to the leadership legislature body in Palestine? I don't believe Hesbolla has been elected to anything in Lebanon. However, Lebanon did recently hold elections, and they did successfully, and relatively peacefully, remove the Syrian military from their country.
> 
> Doesn't the United States believe in Democracy?


 
We believe in squashing terrorists, and should support anyone else who squashes terrorists.

All's fair in love and war.

The response is certainly gargantuan compared to the kidnapping, but is most likely overdue. Their history is longer than I can remember but we all know it's one big powder-keg over there.


----------



## mantis (Jul 23, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> We believe in squashing terrorists, and should support anyone else who squashes terrorists.
> 
> All's fair in love and war.
> 
> The response is certainly gargantuan compared to the kidnapping, but is most likely overdue. Their history is longer than I can remember but we all know it's one big powder-keg over there.


what's your definition of a 'terrorist' here? because it looks more gran than black or white in this instance.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 23, 2006)

I tend to defne "terrorist" as 'someone who intentionaly targets non-combatants who have no tactical or strategic value as targets other than the emotional effect their targetting will have on the enemy'


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> You are starting from a faulty premise. This is not a conflict between the government of Israel and the government of Lebanon. This is a conflict between the government of Israel and another group that happens to be based in Lebanon (which means that, yes, Lebanese non-combatants get killed)


 
So, this is like, if say, The United States has a conflict with al Qaeda, they start a war in Iraq ... where there is no al Qaeda.

How did that turn out for us?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You are aware the Hamas was elected to the leadership legislature body in Palestine? I don't believe Hesbolla has been elected to anything in Lebanon. However, Lebanon did recently hold elections, and they did successfully, and relatively peacefully, remove the Syrian military from their country.
> 
> Doesn't the United States believe in Democracy?



Im confused here Micheal.

When it came to Iraq, and the people, and overthrowing the dictator... we went and were totaly wrong to get involved... shouldnt have gone there shouldnt be there... wasnt our war.

Now this nasty piece of work comes up, and we arent there, and we are wrong, we should be there, we should be helping mop up the mess, we should take action...

*shrug*

Guess I am unsure if we should or should NOT be fighting other peoples wars for em.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 23, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Im confused here Micheal.
> 
> When it came to Iraq, and the people, and overthrowing the dictator... we went and were totaly wrong to get involved... shouldnt have gone there shouldnt be there... wasnt our war.
> 
> ...



Depends upon peoples political points of views and agendas on if we need to be there or not.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And, despite your claim that Israel is not attacking Lebanon, it appears that the Lebanese are being hurt.



When you hide your mortars in civilian populations, are you suprised that civilians are being hurt?



> You are aware the Hamas was elected to the leadership legislature body in Palestine? I don't believe Hesbolla has been elected to anything in Lebanon. However, Lebanon did recently hold elections, and they did successfully, and relatively peacefully, remove the Syrian military from their country.
> 
> Doesn't the United States believe in Democracy?



Hamas is elected, and sections of Hezbollah do hold certain offices in Lebanon. Yes, Syrian influences were "removed".

Democracy? Suppose a democratically elected government takes up arms against the US and starts supporting terror and war against the US? At that point, we have moved out of a stateless organization (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda) and moved into a state sponsored source of terrorism (Iran, Syria, possibly North Korea, Afghanistan a la Taliban). The only thing that has changed is we are targeting an entire nation rather than a small section of them.

Supposed Mexico start flying planes into our buildings. Can we not go to war because they are democratically elected? [sarcasm] Surely someone democratically elected can do no wrong. [/sarcasm]

Lebanon is a democracy, but they also have faced mandates from the UN to disarm Hezbollah. They have utterly failed to do that and have failed to secure their own borders from terrrorist infiltration. What I see Israel attempting to do is something Lebanon should have done years ago. Get rid of Hezbollah.  More power to them. If Lebanon cares at all about the UN, them start following their mandates. Get rid of Hezbollah. If you can not, get help from the UN, or possibly even the US. I'm sure they would be willing to provide at least tactical support. It seems highly hypocritical that Lebanon is crying to the UN to get Israel to stop. Do they expect Israel to follow UN mandates when they are unwilling to do the same?

I'm sad for the civilian casualties and loss of infrastructure, however this is war against Hezbollah. They are not a sovereign state. You have to take the fight to where they are. Lebanon should do the right thing. Get the two soldiers back, kick out Hezbollah. Israel would withdraw in days. Fight over. Problem now is that they are likely not to get the soldiers back alive. they were probably driven over the border to Syria through the Hezbollah controlled Southern Lebanon. Hezbollahs hatred of Israel is so great they would rather see civilians and the government of Lebanon destroyed in exchange for a war against Israel.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 23, 2006)

One thing is for sure!  If you put your hand's into a bee's nest you are going to get stung.  Anybody (insert nation hear) involved in the middle east and their continuing conflict will get stung.  What to do?  I do not know!  However, this will probably continue to go on for a long time. (or possibly even as long as human's are around)  

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 23, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Guess I am unsure if we should or should NOT be fighting other peoples wars for em.



Allow me to clarify  hehehe

whatever the Republican elected (democratically elected I might add) president and congress does, its the wrong thing.

On a more serious side, I see us fighting wars in an attempt to secure our own country and interests. If terrorist from a certain group/country keep attacking us, wouldn't it be ridiculous to do nothing?

Sometimes we have allies who are attacked. Helping one country defend itself is what allies do.

Sometimes a region is under threat. Helping stabilize those regions are what some nations do.

As the sole remaining super power, we are in kind of an odd spot. If we do something, alot of nations complain of our interferance (Iraq for instance, and those in Iraq's back pocket a la Russia/German Oil for Food). If we do nothing, people complain (Sudan, Israel for now). You are right... it is confusing. I'm not a fan of world government, so I don't really look to the UN for any kind of solutions. They are utterly powerless and have no real backbone/authority it seems...


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 23, 2006)

_So, this is like, if say, The United States has a conflict with al Qaeda, they start a war in Iraq ... where there is no al Qaeda._

No, this is like Israel has a conflict with Hezbollah and Hezbollah is in Lebonon so Israel attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Or if you wish, like the US going into Arfghanistan because Al-Queda was there (and if I recall correctly, the US didn't actually target the citizens of Afghanistan in the process).  Your attempt to tie this to Bush/Iraq is streched at best (foolish or petty at worse)

As mrhnau pointed out, Lebanon has both ample mandate , encourgament, assitance and opportunity to solve this problem, and they didn't, but the 'problem' gets Israeli people killed ,so Israel has taken matters into it's own hands, which gets Lebanese civilians killed in the process.  If Lebanon wants to retaliate against Israel for this, then I would think they were in their right, as Lebanese people are getting hurt., but Lebanon would be far better off to work *with* Isreal to disarm Hezbollah,as they should've done long ago. to avoid further damage


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Im confused here Micheal.
> 
> When it came to Iraq, and the people, and overthrowing the dictator... we went and were totaly wrong to get involved... shouldnt have gone there shouldnt be there... wasnt our war.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry for the confusion ... But, why is it the desire for PEACE is beyond your ability to comprehend?


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sorry for the confusion ... But, why is it the desire for PEACE is beyond your ability to comprehend?



I'm not techno, but what is so noble about the desire for peace? does justice play no role? how about being able to enforce what is right or wrong? should we do away with police since they may need to use force to apprehend someone? Should we just grin at tyrants that rape/murder/pillage their people? Perhaps we should have let Hitler have his reign? Roll over on our backs and cry "peace" next time we are attacked? Sorry, I'm not buying the cry for peace...

Peace is great, but not at the kind of price it takes in a world full of violent people/nations that hate you for no other reason than you look different, have more money/items or a different religion. I'm not interested in living in a radical Islamic world simply because peace-lovers refuse to fight.

Since this is a MARTIAL arts forum, why do you practice a martial art Michael? Doesn't it prepare you to use force if necessary? Isn't that against the philosophy of pacifism? Would you actually protect yourself if you were endangered? Assuming you would defend yourself or your family, then why should a nation not be allowed to?

Walk softly but carry a big stick.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Allow me to clarify  hehehe
> 
> whatever the Republican elected (democratically elected I might add) president and congress does, its the wrong thing.


 

We'll that's just childish, isn't it?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'm not techno, but what is so noble about the desire for peace? does justice play no role? how about being able to enforce what is right or wrong? should we do away with police since they may need to use force to apprehend someone? Should we just grin at tyrants that rape/murder/pillage their people? Perhaps we should have let Hitler have his reign? Roll over on our backs and cry "peace" next time we are attacked? Sorry, I'm not buying the cry for peace...
> 
> Peace is great, but not at the kind of price it takes in a world full of violent people/nations that hate you for no other reason than you look different, have more money/items or a different religion. I'm not interested in living in a radical Islamic world simply because peace-lovers refuse to fight.
> 
> ...


 
Wow ... How did this thread come to be about me?


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> We'll that's just childish, isn't it?



Perhaps, which is why I added "On a more serious side"

Its not far from the truth though... with a little sarcasm added in


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Wow ... How did this thread come to be about me?



Just one portion of the response. I was replying to something you personally wrote, so I responded to you. I am honestly curious to the response of how you reconcile pacifism with martial arts training. I don't see any other way to elicit a response from you other than to direct the question to you. Not trying to turn the thread into something about you, just wanting an answer. Nothing too personal 

That would actually be a great topic for another thread, if you care to split and keep this about Israel/Lebanon. Would also make a great poll (if I had the $ to make one).


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sorry for the confusion ... But, why is it the desire for PEACE is beyond your ability to comprehend?



Peace is not.

But on one hand you advocate leaving a crazy person to his killing, so there is no involvement in a war.

On the other hand you are advocating getting involved in a war, so crazy people don't go about killing.

You have to admit it sounds like playing both sides to villify the administration.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 1:It is not out of the realm of possibilities, that this is a proxy war between the United States and Iran.
> 
> 2:It seems to me that these events are a direct result of the United States actions in Iraq.
> 
> 3:Watching these events unfold has been terribly sad.



#1: There's a LOT of circumstances and causes that are "not out fo the realm of possibilities"....what makes you single this one out? Do you feel it's a probability? Why is that?

#2: *Why* does it seem like that too you? Seems to me that this has much much more to do with the Long standing and on going issues between Israel and Hesbalah. ( I think I spelled that right? ) 

#3: I agree...

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> But on one hand you advocate leaving a crazy person to his killing, so there is no involvement in a war.


 
I can only assume that you are referring to Saddam Hussein with this sentence. Prior to the Invasion of the Soveriegn state of Iraq by the United States of America, Iraq was a stable contained nation. Saddam Hussein had little opposition - no doubt through vicious tactics for the preceeding 25 years - which required violent actions.

Only after the United States invaded that country, illegally in my opinion, has it become the incredibly unstable place it is today. The Senate Minority Leader has finally called it by its name: a Civil War.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> On the other hand you are advocating getting involved in a war, so crazy people don't go about killing.


 
I am not advocating 'getting involved in a war'. 

I am advocating that the American Government, in the strongest terms possible, demand a cessation of hostilities.

For 13 days now, our government has done nothing to suggest restraint on the superior firepower of Israel. I'm trying to understand why our Secretary of State is postponing her trip to Israel to meet with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia? (incidently, that, I believe, is my first accusation toward the administration on this subject). In fact, we are expiditing weapons deliveries to Israel.




			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> You have to admit it sounds like playing both sides to villify the administration.


 
I admit no such thing. 

At this point, the administration does not need to be vilified by my. Current polls put the President in very low esteem among U.S. Citizens. 

And, if you look at this thread ...  http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=220858&postcount=1  ...you'll see I was against the Invasion of Iraq before that debacle began, too.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 23, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> On a more serious side, I see us fighting wars in an attempt to secure our own country and interests. If terrorist from a certain group/country keep attacking us, wouldn't it be ridiculous to do nothing?
> 
> Sometimes we have allies who are attacked. Helping one country defend itself is what allies do.
> 
> ...



Spot on, my friend...
spot on!!


Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Jul 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 1:Only after the United States invaded that country, illegally in my opinion, has it become the incredibly unstable place it is today. The Senate Minority Leader has finally called it by its name: a Civil War.
> 
> 2:I am not advocating 'getting involved in a war'. I am advocating that the American Government, in the strongest terms possible, demand a cessation of hostilities.



1: Didn't congress vote to do this? To go in and "invade"? Thought they did, including many democrats, what was the percentage on that vote? Didn't Carey and Clinton both vote to go in??

2: If a country "Demands" anything they have basically two ways to back up their "Demand" don't they? Sanctions or force. Don't we already have sanctions against Hezbollah? (found the right spelling) That'd leave ONE option.....right??

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> #1: There's a LOT of circumstances and causes that are "not out fo the realm of possibilities"....what makes you single this one out? Do you feel it's a probability? Why is that?
> 
> #2: *Why* does it seem like that too you? Seems to me that this has much much more to do with the Long standing and on going issues between Israel and Hesbalah. ( I think I spelled that right? )
> 
> ...


 
Brother John ... these are fair questions, but also difficult. 

Among some of the left-of-center think tank types (Center for American Progress, The Nation), there is discussion about how the American military actions have strengthened Iran's influence in the region. We have removed the Taliban (sort of) from their Eastern border. We have removed Saddam Hussein from their Western border. We currently have 10 of our 12 Army divisions working for Iraq at any one time (in country, resting after service, training for rotation). The American conventional military is currently neutered by Iraq.

Iran does support Hezbollah. Iranian President Amadenijahd has used some very strong language concerning Israel. Israel is supported militarily and financially by the United States. 

Further, Hamas, is beginning to deal with the realpolitick of being in power in Palestine. As Palestine is so very dependent on incoming financial aid, it is critical the powers there find a way of restoring some of the withheld funding. One of the Ministers was making overatures to Israel that would strike the language calling for Israels elimination from their charter. Days later, the raid killing two soldiers, and kidnapping the first soldeir occured. The parliment in Palestine was unable to secure the release of that kidnapped soldier.

These things, taken together, point to outside influence in the Hamas/Hezbollah/Israel activities. 

For these reasons, I believe reasonable people should entertain the possibility of this activity as a 'proxy war'. 

This article has some of the information I repeat in this post. 

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/567355.html


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 23, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> 1: Didn't congress vote to do this? To go in and "invade"? Thought they did, including many democrats, what was the percentage on that vote? Didn't Carey and Clinton both vote to go in??
> 
> 2: If a country "Demands" anything they have basically two ways to back up their "Demand" don't they? Sanctions or force. Don't we already have sanctions against Hezbollah? (found the right spelling) That'd leave ONE option.....right??
> 
> ...


 
Here, Brother John, you need to go back to your civics classes. 

Congress 'Declares' war, it does not vote for an 'Authorization to Use Military Force'. By never declaring war, we are in violation of our own governing laws. But, that was just the ******* in Congress abdicating their responsibility. 

Let's look at two of the specific justifications in that Resolution (Public Law 107- 243 - Vote count 296 to 133 House - 77 to 23 Senate) 

Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq" 
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations"

Are you arguing that members of 'al Qaeda' were in Iraq prior to our invasion, because I thought that has long since been proved false. 

Certainly, Iraq did not support al Qaeda, so the reference to international terrorist organizations, must mean support of Hamas ... which is now the elected leadership in Palestine (the parting on the left, is now the parting on the right, and their beards have all grown longer, overnight), but which also runs some incredibly important humanitarian operations in the 'occupied territories, and throughout the Middle East.

I'm wondering why *you* mention Kerry and Clinton? 

If Israel made a 'Demand' for the return of its kidnapped soldiers, and those demands went unheeded, the principles of a Just War would demand a response that was proportional to the initial attack. Israeli solders were killed and kidnapped. The Response has been the leveling of city blocks, the destruction of radio, television and telephone systems throughout Lebanon, the destruction of civilian Ports and Airports. 

However one would describe the events, proportional does not fit in the definition.




P.S. Oh, and even though a majority of congressmen voted for an item, does not mean that it was the 'right' thing to do. It was wrong to vote for the war.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 23, 2006)

This is indeed a proxy war. But the theories that the US is pushing Isreal in order to get at Iran is just silly.

Syria used to be pretty much the power behind all politics in Lebanon. Then after the killing of Harari, they were curtailed fairly recently. Iran has a lot of money due to oil and supports H'zbellah that way, but Syria shares a border with Lebanon and is more involved in getting things into their hands. Bush made a comment near an open mike that Syria had the power to stop this conflict.

Lebanon and Syria were not getting along well after the assasination, but now that Syria's proxies in the south have forced Isreal's hand to invade Syria might be able to regain a lot of the influence it had in the area.

The best solution I see is that the Lebanese army secures the southern part of the country and H'zbellah is either disarmed or kept out of range of the 10 to 15 _thousand_ missiles they are thought to have recieved from Syria.

Negotiating for anything other than that is pretty useless. If the Lebanese will not or can not stop H'bellah from attacking Isreal then the Isrealies have no choice but to do the job themselves. If someone shoots at you from your neighbor's house, and the neighbor won't/ can't stop them, then you have to shoot back into your neighbor's place.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 23, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> This is indeed a proxy war. But the theories that the US is pushing Isreal in order to get at Iran is just silly...


 
Never underestimate our government's ability to create a crisis in order to advance a political agenda.  

Peak Oil is the driving force behind all of this...


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 24, 2006)

No! No! It's those aliens from planet Zarg who secretly run the goverment that really are to blame for all this! Remember! Always ignore the most obvious explination and go for the conspiracy theory! Just make sure you got your tin foil hat on so they can't suck your brains out your ears.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 24, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> No! No! It's those aliens from planet Zarg who secretly run the goverment that really are to blame for all this! Remember! Always ignore the most obvious explination and go for the conspiracy theory! Just make sure you got your tin foil hat on so they can't suck your brains out your ears.


 
(fingers firmly rammed into ears)

"lalalalalala"

That is about what this amounts to.  If you can so easily ignore everything that this administration has said and done, then there really isn't any point discussing this.  

The bottom line is that the PNAC neocons desire a conflict with Iran (and Syria btw).  They have said it in official documents explaining their policy and in various interviews.  These people are strongly allied with the extreme right wing in Isreal who would like to have the US have a larger presence in the region.  Politically, all of these manuevers could accomplish these goals.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I tend to defne "terrorist" as 'someone who intentionaly targets non-combatants who have no tactical or strategic value as targets other than the emotional effect their targetting will have on the enemy'


 
Incidently, the actions by Hamas, were a raid on Israeli Defense Forces. This raid was followed by a similar raid on Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah. 

There is no definition of Israeli Defense Forces that includes the terms 'non-combatant', or 'not tactical or strategic value'. So, let us all be clear, whatever the activities taking place, it does not mee the definition 'terrorism', no matter how degraded that term has become.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 24, 2006)

Here is a little something for, ya'll to contemplate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Noble_lies_and_deadly_truths

*



Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 &#8211; October 18, 1973), was a German born Jew and naturalized American political philosopher, who specialized in the study of classical philosophy. He spent most of his career as a Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of devoted students, as well as publishing fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded, although debatably, as a leading intellectual source of neoconservatism in the United States.

Click to expand...

 



			Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the polis. Are "myths" needed to give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can men and women dedicated to relentlessly examining, in Nietzsche's language, those "deadly truths", flourish freely? Thus, is there a limit to the political, and what can be known absolutely? In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately, and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth.
		
Click to expand...

 
This may be a topic all by itself, but, I think that it applies in this case.  In order to really understand how the Neocons think, one needs to examine the philosophy of people like Strauss.  If you are familiar with this stuff, you can see the Straussian influences replete in the foreign policy of this administration.  With that being said, from a Straussian (Neocon) point of view, the political crisis above would be a "noble lie" told in order to accomplish the "greater good" that the bulk of the population is incapable of understanding.

This conflict does much to advance the neocon agenda and it does it in the guise of something else.  This is perfectly straussian and it is part and parcel of how this current administration does things.*


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Incidently, the actions by Hamas, were a raid on Israeli Defense Forces. This raid was followed by a similar raid on Israeli Defense Forces by Hezbollah.
> 
> There is no definition of Israeli Defense Forces that includes the terms 'non-combatant', or 'not tactical or strategic value'. So, let us all be clear, whatever the activities taking place, it does not mee the definition 'terrorism', no matter how degraded that term has become.



Then let us use another definition. Invasion. Or perhaps Act of Aggression. Kidnapping by a foreign militia. The term in this instance is a bit irrelevant. This pot has been stewing for years. This latest incident was just the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. Years of suicide bombers in Israeli markets does that to a nation.

An Israeli friend of mine talked to me about 9/11. Basically, it boiled down to the following: "Now you know how Israel has been living for the past 20 years". Taking into account the smaller population, they were getting 9/11's every couple of months, at least in terms of the casualties.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jul 24, 2006)

It was only a matter of time before upnorth unveiled some conspiracy theory lunacy.

As to Israel, just how long do you recommend they should tolerate ROCKETS being launched into their cities from a neighboring country?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Taking into account the smaller population,.


 
The argument that 'takes into account the smaller population', is just  foolish. Are you going to tell the 9/11 widow to 'buck up', after all, her husband's death was only 1/10th of a death for Israel?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> As to Israel, just how long do you recommend they should tolerate ROCKETS being launched into their cities from a neighboring country?


 
Great question. I think there should be a low tolerance for rocket attacks. 

Tell me, What is the range of the Hesbollah's Katyusha rockets?
What is the payload of a Katyusha rocket, used by Hesbollah?
Is the government of Lebanon authorizing the use of these rockets? 

This link may offer some information .. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0279.shtml

With the limited range, and limited destructive abilility for these Katyusha rockets, one might look for an analogy that is more easily comprehended and accurate to describe than just 'rocket' ... and applying a quanitive argument of 13,000, as one poster did above.  

These weapons are extremely primative. They are not the GPS guided cruise missles the United States fires in Shock and Awe. 

While they are prehaps a bit more terrifying than the random gun violence found in some American city 'No-Go' zones, they are quite probably less lethal.

And, this brings us back to, what is an appropriate response? 

... 381 Lebanese deaths.
.... 36 Israeli deaths.
600,000 Lebanese have left their homes ... refugees.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The argument that 'takes into account the smaller population', is just  foolish. Are you going to tell the 9/11 widow to 'buck up', after all, her husband's death was only 1/10th of a death for Israel?



*sigh*

OK Michael, I'll explain.

The US has a population of roughly 300 million. Israel has a population of roughly 7 million. We lost roughly 3000 people in the 9/11 attacks.  For Israel to have an equivelant attack (statistically speaking in terms of casualties) they would need to lose 70 people. This happened fairly frequently with suicide bombers scattered in markets through out Israel. In no way is this diminishing ANY of the deaths, either Israeli or US, but it points out the fact that killing 3000 people in the US is the same statistically as killing 70 people in Israel. If we were getting bombed by some terror organization and losing 3000 people every few months, we would probably get upset too and invade, especially if it could have been prevented by a neighboring country following UN mandates. If some group in Mexico were doing the same thing as Lebanon (harboring Hezbollah or at least letting them remain), we would probably go to Mexico and root out the problem. However, this would likely not happen since Mexico would realize this and take care of it themselves. Nor would they let a foreign body control their borders and run sections of their country.

In no way is it diminishing those deaths. I have no idea why you would assume so, unless you have some agenda/idea that requires such an asinine conclusion.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> OK Michael, I'll explain.
> 
> ...


 
I understand division and multiplication. 

And your argument *does *diminish death. 

So, if the United States Military is responsible for killing 43,000 innocent Iraqi civilians ... that is more than 14 9/11's ... what is the appropriate response from the Iraqi's?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I understand division and multiplication.
> 
> And your argument *does *diminish death.
> 
> So, if the United States Military is responsible for killing 43,000 innocent Iraqi civilians ... that is more than 14 9/11's ... what is the appropriate response from the Iraqi's?



My arguement only diminishes death in your point of view. Not in mine, and I'm wagering not in the views of many others. In no way have I claimed the deaths in Israel and 9/11 attacks are in any way diminished. Far from it. I see them in the same light. Results of terror attacks. Every one is tragic.

Have innocent lives been taken in Iraq? Of that, I have no doubt. Have innocent lives been taken in Lebanon and Israel? I have no doubt. Have innocent lives been taken in WW2? I have no doubt. Have innocent lives been taken in almost EVERY war since the beginning of time? I have no doubt. Loss of innocent life is tragic in this instance too, but sadly inevitable as a result of war.

The difference is we are not targetting civilians for death (at least them I'm aware of). 9/11 was not targetting a military structure (well, Pentagon is, but not the towers). There are casualties from wars, sometimes not the ones you want. Thats the bad part of war. The only way to get rid of innocent casualties is to stop war. However, as I highlighted earlier, living in a world w/out war only allows the crazies to maintain control. I'm not interested in living in that kind of society. Are you? Pacifism is a great ideal. In reality on a national scale, its not practical.

In answer of your question... what is the proper response from Iraq? The same from Lebanon. Remove the dangerous elements. If they were gone, we would disappear once the country can govern themselves and has a somewhat legitimate military to secure itself. The only problem I see is that civil war may be inevitable. Once we leave (or perhaps while we are still there) I see civil war breaking out. Hard for me to envision a unified Iraq in the next 10+ years.

Now, since this thread was started about Lebanon, I'd very much love to see a thriving democracy in Lebanon and a good relationship with Israel. Once the Hezbollah faction is removed and some of the infrastructure is repaired I don't see why the countries can not reconcile. As  long as Hezbollah is still infested there, peace won't be lasting. I think Lebanon can be a very good example of what a peace loving nation in the Middle East can be. They can substain a good relationship with Israel as well as other Islamic nations in the region. I'd love to see that happen! I'd also like to see Israel get back the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but thats for another thread. Land for Peace simply does not work.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And your argument *does *diminish death.
> 
> So, if the United States Military is responsible for killing 43,000 innocent Iraqi civilians ... that is more than 14 9/11's ... what is the appropriate response from the Iraqi's?



http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/canadiancoverage.html

Claims that Baghdad's civilian murder rate is lower than almost evey major city in the US, if you exclude those guys taking up arms against us (insurgents). So, if you are law abiding, you have a LOWER chance of getting killed in Iraq than in the US!

Yes, I've seen pages saying the opposite, but those typically include the deaths of gunmen and suicide bombers.




> He showed that higher murder-rate figures cited by several other scholars and the media had included victims of other causes of death, such as accidents or suicide.
> "A lot of the early counts were based on all bodies entering the morgues, including people killed in car accidents, and everything else that was there," he said in an interview.
> The more recent figures are more precise.



This was in 2003. Add in gunmen, car accidents, suicides... I'm sure its probably higher.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> My arguement only diminishes death in your point of view. Not in mine, and I'm wagering not in the views of many others. In no way have I claimed the deaths in Israel and 9/11 attacks are in any way diminished. Far from it. I see them in the same light. Results of terror attacks. Every one is tragic.


 
How do you square the sentiment listed above with this statement



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> *Taking into account the smaller population*, they were getting 9/11's every couple of months, at least in terms of the casualties.


 
and this 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> The US has a population of roughly 300 million. Israel has a population of roughly 7 million. We lost roughly 3000 people in the 9/11 attacks. *For Israel to have an equivelant attack* (statistically speaking in terms of casualties) *they would need to lose 70 people*.


 

These arguments, whether you intend them to or not, state that 70 Israeli lives are the same (equivelant) as 2,996 confirmed, reported and missing (assumed) dead Americans. 

That argument is ********. Plain and simple. 

Sean Hannity once made the statement that U.S. Soldiers were safer in Iraq than if they lived in California. Good Grief. 

And, the last thought for now ... Today, The Prime Minister of Iraq made the statement that Sectarian violence in Iraq is killing 100 Iraqi civilians a day. You're last link is a bit out of date, I think.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> These arguments, whether you intend them to or not, state that 70 Israeli lives are the same (equivelant) as 2,996 confirmed, reported and missing (assumed) dead Americans.
> 
> That argument is ********. Plain and simple.


 
For what it's worth, I read his statement as a comparason of percentages, and not a statement saying one is the same/more important that the other.


----------



## mjd (Jul 24, 2006)

This war is not about numbers, its about religion, extreme religion, there will be no PEACE, ever, they do not want peace, land, or money, only us dead.

Playing nice will only get us killed.

When 100,000's of people will strap bombs on their backs and blow themselves to pieces killing anybody they can, man, woman, and children without remorse and calling it a holy calling from their God.

What are ya gonna do, play nice.


----------



## mantis (Jul 24, 2006)

mjd said:
			
		

> This war is not about numbers, its about religion, extreme religion, there will be no PEACE, ever, they do not want peace, land, or money, only us dead.
> 
> Playing nice will only get us killed.
> 
> ...


what about when your F-16's fly and drop bombs killing everyone and everything. Remember they did not come to your land, you came to THEIRS


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I read his statement as a comparason of percentages, and not a statement saying one is the same/more important that the other.


 
Technopunk, I understand what argument he is making. I also can do the math that makes this argument seem valid, but it is not valid.

I am just saying it is a rather ridiculous argument. Peoples lives should not be reduced to 'percentages'.

70 Israeli families losing loved ones to a suicide bomber is the same as 70 Israeli families losing loved ones. 

It is not the same as 2,996 families losing loved ones in New York City. It is not the same as 381 Lebanese families losing loved ones to F-16 strikes. It is not the same as 2,567 United States families losing loved ones in Iraq. 

To make such suggestions is to attempt to 'sanitize' killing. It is to dumb down an argument to launch an emotion laden counter-argument (e.g. 9/11) - much the argument that Ms. Coulter makes concerning the widows from New Jersey by the way. 

So, in the mean time, Israel is dropping U.S. Built GPS Guided 500 pound high explosives into Lebanon in retaliation for extremely inaccurate, short range rockets, very similar to what we can buy in hobby shops in this country ... and the United States is not calling for ceasefire. 

Seems we are 'piling on'. And I just don't think that's helpful.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 24, 2006)

Here  is my question, and it's not rhetorical, but a real question:

What do you feel would have been an "appropriate" response to a terrorist missile attack on a city 30 miles from the border with a country which gives safe haven to the terrorists who've been engaged in smaller attacks for years?

Diplomacy?  Complaining to the UN?  Complaining to the "legitimate" Lebanese government?


----------



## mantis (Jul 24, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Here  is my question, and it's not rhetorical, but a real question:
> 
> What do you feel would have been an "appropriate" response to a terrorist missile attack on a city 30 miles from the border with a country which gives safe haven to the terrorists who've been engaged in smaller attacks for years?
> 
> Diplomacy?  Complaining to the UN?  Complaining to the "legitimate" Lebanese government?


ask the question from the other side:
what do you feel would be an appropriate response to a country that bombarded your country and drew masterpieces of the ugliest massacres history has ever known for more than 50 years?
what about complaining to the UN where they issue resolutions that only YOU have to follow but who attacks you does not (like resolution 425)

what terrorists are you talking about, and what attacks?! you have never openend a history book other than FOX NEWS, have you?!

look with both eyes guys! otherwise just close this thread because there's not point behind it.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 24, 2006)

Listen, Mantis, you don't know the first thing about me, so you can stop the epithets, OK?  I asked a serious question about a serious issue I've given some thought to, and I was looking for equally thoughtful ideas.


----------



## mantis (Jul 24, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Listen, Mantis, you don't know the first thing about me, so you can stop the epithets, OK? I asked a serious question about a serious issue I've given some thought to, and I was looking for equally thoughtful ideas.


that's not a question. or at least not asked in the proper way.  it's as if you are asking "what do you feel about this filthy dirty criminal?" if you ask that to anyone you will get "filty dirty criminal" for an answer
you already put the answer.  Im sorry man, nothing personal against you but i really find it ridiculous that people have no idea what's going on but they just pick up on things they hear on fox news and take them for granted!

again, i dont mean to offend you or attack you personally, but It'd be much more interesting if people use both their eyes and evaluate both sides of any conflict to consruct a positive discussion environment


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 24, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Listen, Mantis, you don't know the first thing about me, so you can stop the epithets, OK?  I asked a serious question about a serious issue I've given some thought to, and I was looking for equally thoughtful ideas.



In an ideal situation, you cooperate with the Lebonese government to get rid of the threat. Unfortunately, they do not seem to want to get rid of Hezbollah. Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars into Hezbollah, alot of which is used for social services of some fashion or the other. Its a popular group in some sections. I don't think Lebanon is going to help Israel.

Given the choices, I think Israel is currently doing what is best. The logical conclusion is going to be messy though, since Hezbollah is likely to escape into Syria and Iran. I particularily don't want to see Israel going head to head with Lebanon, Syria and Iran all at the same time. Not that I think they would lose, but it would further destabalize the region.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 24, 2006)

> have no idea what's going on but they just pick up on things they hear on fox news and take them for granted!


 
You seem to like this Fox News concept, so let me say a couple of things up front:  I DO have an idea of what's been going on, not only from reading, but from the fact that I've been following the events in the Middle East for a few more decades than you have.  Not that wisdom always comes with age, but I assure you, I've been around a lot longer than Fox "news," which I cannot stomach.  I have a doctoral degree, I am extremely well read on the subject, I do have a sensitivity to both sides of the issue.  And just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't know what's going on...it just means they disagree with you.  

Hezbollah, a terrorist organization which is not the legitimate government of Lebanon, launched an Iranian missile at Haifa, 30 miles into Israel from the Lebanese border.   In your opinion, how should Israel have responded?  That's the question.


----------



## donna (Jul 24, 2006)

The thing that upsets me the most about all this , is that while men all over the world argue , the innocents, women and children are just as dead no matter who is right or wrong, or which "side" they are on.
It dosnt seem that it will ever end, no matter which century you are born into.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Hezbollah, a terrorist organization which is not the legitimate government of Lebanon, launched an Iranian missile at Haifa, 30 miles into Israel from the Lebanese border. In your opinion, how should Israel have responded? That's the question.


 
It is a difficult question, isn't it? 

The current problem is exacerbated by the fact that nobody is talking to anybody in that part of the world. Because of that, we (the U.S and Israel) are shackled by our own policies. The 'All-Hat-No-Cattle' foreign policy is bearing fruit (and that is a reference to the current Administration).

Let's be clear, what was fired toward Haifa was a 'rocket', not a 'missile'. Hezbollah is believed to have about 13,000 Katyusha rockets with a 10 to 12 mile range (although 2,000 have been fired in the past week). They are further believed to have some rockets with greater ranges; but the vast majority of their rockets are very short range, and very inaccurate.

That the United States is not talking to Hamas (democratically elected), and that major financial aide to the Palestinians has stopped, places the Palestinians in very dire straits. Our relationship with Syria is tentative at best. We have no relationship with Iran. Our relationship with Damascus is weak.

Hamas reached out to Israel (according to the link above) and was slapped by Iran. All of these players need to sit down and talk about solutions. 

The people firing rockets are thugs. But, President Bush doesn't send the National Guard into Detroit to break up the gangs. It is perhaps a very bad analogy, but what is needed in Lebanon, is policing. And if we can't even agree to talk to the parties involved, the children are going to have a party at the house while the parents are away. 

It sure would be nice to have some 'Grown Ups' in the State Department.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 24, 2006)

Your analogy is indeed flawed. What if a group of thugs called for the destruction of the US nd started firing rockets, howerver innacurate they are, at San Diego from positions in downtown Tijuana? What would the US do? complain to the UN?


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 24, 2006)

It's terrible knowing that children are dying.  However, I think that we can surmise that, in most (if not all) violent conflicts, irrespective of the supporting bodies, governments, or organizations involved, children are going to die.

 So, the appeal to the "children are dying" emotion is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  The only way to resolve that problem is to eliminate conflict, and that's not a pragmatic viewpoint.  There is no such possibility for the elimination of global conflict without jeopardizing the freedoms or the safety of others.

 There is no global harmony.  There must always be a figure of authority to enforce justice and keep the peace.  That enforcement must be predicated upon the use of force.  Unless of course anyone has a different suggestion that is going to be of any use to a nation of people surrounded by other nations of people that want to kill them as soon as the opportunity presents itself....

 So, with that said, I suppose that we all need to decide whether we believe in Israel's right to exist, and therefore to defend itself from those who do not believe in their right to exist.  Yes, I believe that a nation's right to defend itself is implicit in that nation's right to exist.

 Note, however, that I've not suggested that I am of an opinion one way or the other about Israel's right to exist.  I am merely attempting to work out the logic of this situation.

 So, if you're following my reasoning thus far, I think that Phoenix44 raised the question that really carves to the bony center of this issue:



> Here  is my question, and it's not rhetorical, but a real question:
> 
> What do you feel would have been an "appropriate" response to a terrorist missile attack on a city 30 miles from the border with a country which gives safe haven to the terrorists who've been engaged in smaller attacks for years?
> 
> Diplomacy? Complaining to the UN? Complaining to the "legitimate" Lebanese government?


Personally, I think that in the context of their environment the only reasonable response is one that reduces the risk of harm to their populace.  It seems to be heavy handed, but seriously, their citizenry remains, for the time being, at great risk.

 As a citizen of a nation, I entrust my government to take on the responsibility of protecting me from hostile foreign nations with the appropriate usage of military might and diplomacy.  Diplomacy is perhaps more useful as a preventative measure.  I imagine my spirit would be somewhat offended if I died as a result of my government's unwillingness to militarily intervene to ensure my safety as I went about my daily business.  So, perhaps those of you who speak out loudly against this international use of force may benefit from looking deep within yourself and asking, "With whom does the responsibility lie to protect the citizens of a nation?"  Also, "At what point does that responsibility need to turn into action?"


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Your analogy is indeed flawed. What if a group of thugs called for the destruction of the US nd started firing rockets, howerver innacurate they are, at San Diego from positions in downtown Tijuana? What would the US do? complain to the UN?


 
What is .... Invade Iraq?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 24, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> As a citizen of a nation, I entrust my government to take on the responsibility of protecting me from hostile *foreign nations* with the appropriate usage of military might and diplomacy. Diplomacy is perhaps more useful as a preventative measure. I imagine my spirit would be somewhat offended if I died as a result of my government's unwillingness to militarily intervene to ensure my safety as I went about my daily business. So, perhaps those of you who speak out loudly against this international use of force may benefit from looking deep within yourself and asking, "With whom does the responsibility lie to protect the citizens of a nation?" Also, "At what point does that responsibility need to *turn into action*?"


 
Again, good questions.

Where things get fuzzy, this time, is that the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel are not strictly actions from "*Foreign Nations*". The governments of those countries are weak, the militias are reckless and supported by outside agencies.

Are there actions that could have been taken earlier to strengthen the governments? Sure ... don't cut off Hamas at the 'Peaches'. You don't have to take them to the Senior Prom, but blacklisting them is certainly going to put them in 'The other guy's camp'. 

Governments should always be ready to take action ... but that action need not be military. 

There are two thoughts concerning use of military ... that of the Just War, which I believe I subscribe to; which calls for a measured response. And there is the unconditional war ... for which 'unconditional surrender' is the only acceptable outcome .... and there are times when I think that might be appropriate.

But, what is occuring now ... is inappropriate.

I just read that Paula Zahn asked the Israeli Defense Minister if they are using Phosphorous Weapons in Lebanon .... the question was dodged. The pictures of burned babies, children, and women should be played on every TV set in America.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Again, good questions.
> 
> Where things get fuzzy, this time, is that the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel are not strictly actions from "*Foreign Nations*". The governments of those countries are weak, the militias are reckless and supported by outside agencies.
> 
> ...



Wait, so you are saying that it was wrong for America to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan?

All the points you made against Isreal's move into Lebanon are the same that could be said about Al-Queda and the Taliban.

-A terrorist orginization targets civilians.

-It is operatiing openly in a country and the goverment will not (can not) stop them from launching those attacks on the civilians of other countries.

The one difference is that America went in and took out the Taliban when they would not hand over Bin Laden and the Isrealis are not trying to overthrow the goverment of Lebanon. So America's use of force was more than the actions you are saying are unjustified.

If we are consistant with the logic we use, then either Isreal is justified to take the action that will stop rocket attacks that target their people, or America overreacted when it invaded Afghanistan. Which is it?


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I just read that Paula Zahn asked the Israeli Defense Minister if they are using Phosphorous Weapons in Lebanon .... the question was dodged. The pictures of burned babies, children, and women should be played on every TV set in America.



As should the pictures of the soldiers killed and captured in the Israeli sovereign land. As should the bodies of every Israeli killed or mained in current missile attacks as well as suicide bombers. As should the checks written to Palestinian suicide bombers from the previous Iraqi government. As should the gassed bodies of Iraqis slaughtered by Hussein. As should be the starving populace of North Korea.

Lets show both sides, shall we?



> There are two thoughts concerning use of military ... that of the Just War, which I believe I subscribe to; which calls for a measured response. And there is the unconditional war ... for which 'unconditional surrender' is the only acceptable outcome .... and there are times when I think that might be appropriate.



You don't win a war by partially defeating your enemy. you win a war by eliminating your enemy or defeating to the point of surrender, which typically comes at the point in which they can no longer wage war.

Israel has tried "measured response" before. They give up land, make concessions, bargain. They wind up still losing more civilians. They bargain again, give up more land, make more concessions. Its clearly not working.

Hezbollah's stated mission is the destruction of Israel. Its like cancer. Cancer kills you, or you kill cancer. Pretty much a binary situation that Israel has been forced to deal with. Ugly situation, but its what they have been dealt.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 24, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> (fingers firmly rammed into ears)
> 
> "lalalalalala"
> 
> ...



If you care to try to debate something, they you should try to use logic, facts and deductions and not silly conspiracy theories.

You can't really show any proof and have to say that because some folks may _want_ a desired outcome that it must be the case. There is no connection between your postulating and the actions taken. 

With a conspiracy theory, you take the dodge that you can't show any connection because it is a conspiracy. In the circular logic, the fact that their is no evidence is somehow thought of as proof to the conspiracy theory. You tend to add a little varient by saying that you have done some extensive research on the matter that none of the rest of us ever see.

But that is not the way you debate things. If you want to convince someone like me you will have to lay out all your points to see and examine. If you lack several points and can only point to possible motive with no evidence of connection they you will not get far with me.

Let me show you how things should go.

_Fact-_ Syria used to have almost total control of Lebanon.

_Fact-_ Syria backs, influences and helps arm Hizbollah.

_Fact-_ Syria lost a lot of that influence in Lebanon after the events following the assassination of Harrari.

_Fact-_ Hizbollah attacked Isreal with rockets and captured some of its soldiers.

_Fact-_ That is the reason given for Isreal's actions.

_Fact-_ People streaming out of Southern Lebanon are praising Hizbollah , expressing displeasure at the lack of support from their own goverment and showing anger at America for not stopping Isreal.

_Speculation-_ Syria pushed Hizbollah into the attacks in order to regain a lot of the power it had lost and edge out the US in the region.

Now, if you want to convince me that America set this whole thing up to go after Iran you will have to start by explaining exactly how the US goverment got Hibollah to launch the attacks that led to this state of affairs.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Wait, so you are saying that it was wrong for America to oust the Taliban in Afghanistan?
> 
> All the points you made against Isreal's move into Lebanon are the same that could be said about Al-Queda and the Taliban.
> 
> ...


 
"Which is it?" ...

Oh, yes, Foreign Policy must be a simplistic 'black or white' dichotomy. There is no room for subtlety or shades of grey. That opinion is, as I mentioned before, 'All Hat No Cattle'. 

_(postscript - Incidently, the guiding principles of foreign policy can be, effectively black and white, but, when it comes to executing that policy in the real world, realpolitick must take over - an example of this would be Ronald Reagan. The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has no Reaganesque guiding principles - it is whatever is expedient for politics)​_ 
But, there was a difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. The raids in Israel were against *military* targets. While the argument can be made that the Pentagon was a military target, it would be more difficult to argue that the World Trade Center was so. 

Another difference, as I recall, is that the United States spoke with the Taliban prior to the invasion, demanding they turn over bin Laden. Military actions came later in Afghanistan (3 weeks, if I recall) than in Lebanon.

Now, one might argue that there are military hostages involved in Lebanon, so sooner action was required. To which I would point out that Israel currently has over 9,000 Lebanese and Palenstians detained in their facilities. And, in the past, Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges.

Further, our response in Afghanistan was much more measured. While we did go about eliminating al Qaeda's training camp facilities, we did remove the Taliban from leadership positions, we did degrade to the point of useless the facilities in the country, we did not drive 20% of the population from their homes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Now, if you want to convince me that America set this whole thing up to go after Iran you will have to start by explaining exactly how the *US goverment got Hibollah to launch the attacks* that led to this state of affairs.


 
Red herring in bold.  The US government doesn't need to get hizbollah to attack Isreal.  It only needs to urge Isreal to respond and THAT is what I said in previous posts.  War by Proxy.

Here is a more detailed look at why I think this...

1.  Who backs hizbollah financially?  Iran.
2.  Who desires regime change in Iran?  Neocons in America.
3.  Who is providing Isreal with massive shipments of arms in order to launch this campaign?  The US.

At the very least, it is feasible to say that the US supports this action and it is not out of the question to say that the US urged this action as a way to start cutting away Iran's influence in the Middle East.  Isolating an enemy like Iran is obviously a good tactical decision if one's goal is ultimately to change the regime to something more "America Friendly".

Don, neoconservative journals like the Weekly Standard and think tanks like the Project for the New American Century have been writing about this stuff for years.  All of this has served as a blueprint for the Bush Administration's foriegn policy.  

This document in particular, cooked up by an unelected think tank, should be particularly startling in the accuracy of its prose.  This lays out a general outline of everything that would be done.  Things like extending America's hegemony, increasing our military spending through the roof, repositioning our military to control the middle east, weaponize space and controlling the internet are all layed out.  

And if you pay attention, even a little bit, you can see all of the steps being taken in order to accomplish these goals.

Okay, here is another question...

5.  What is the impetus behind all of these radical changes?  Because of 911 many people would answer terrorism, but IMHO a closer examination reveals something a little different.

I postulate that Peak Oil is the driving force behind all of this.  Our nation is incredibly threatened by the increase in competition for this resource and by its inevitible decline in production.  Everything we do requires this resource and if we are not able to secure a place at the top of the pile when it comes to competition for it, then we will not be able to maintain much about our way of life for long.  

The threat of terrorism doesn't even come close to magnitude of this threat to our country.

Anyway, back to this situation.  You have called this a "conspiracy" theory and in the attempt to snipe you actually stumbled onto a hint of truth.  "Conspiracies" are the epitome of the Straussian Noble Lie, which I detailed above.  This is the philosophic backbone of neoconservatism.  It's how they get the job done.  In a netshell, a Noble Lie is a lie told the populace in order to accomplish the greater good.  A learned few know the truth and what is good for everyone and everyone else needs to be taken there by any means possible.  This used to be a liberal philosophy, but it was eventually eschewed by intelectuals because of its obvious elitist implications.  It eventually found a home on the Right, IMO because of a number of unquestioned philosophic myths like "American Excellence" that are easy to exploit and hide behind.

With that being said, here is another question...

6.  How many times has this adminstration said one thing to the people in order to accomplish an entirely different goal?

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me," doesn't even begin to describe the answer to this question.  EVERYTHING that this administration does follows this template.  From domestic programs like No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies, and Healthy Forests, to the War on Terror, all of them are classic examples of the Straussian Noble Lie.  The "greater good" or goal that is known by a few is shrouded behind smoke and mirrors.  From all of this, it should be crystal clear that neoconservative is to conspiracy like butter is to toast.

From all of this, I think it is perfectly rational to believe that the US secretly influenced Isreal to take this action in order to begin a proxy war with Iran.  The perfect situation exists to tell a Noble Lie.  However, if you understand the philosophic underpinnings and you are aware the administrations influences and their stated goals, you will see something entirely different.  

You (and many others) are doing nothing but parroting the Noble Lie and it is truly nothing but a political carrot on a stick.  And in the meantime, the jackass that American politics have becomes moves on toward "greater good" of the "hidden" goal.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 25, 2006)

michaeledwardBut said:
			
		

> military[/B] targets. While the argument can be made that the Pentagon was a military target, it would be more difficult to argue that the World Trade Center was so.
> 
> Another difference, as I recall, is that the United States spoke with the Taliban prior to the invasion, demanding they turn over bin Laden. Military actions came later in Afghanistan (3 weeks, if I recall) than in Lebanon.
> 
> ...


 
Te rocket attacks conducted by Hezbollah since Israel withdrew behind the internationnaly recognized Lebanese border are not against military targets. Hezbollah fires rockets from whithin civilian population. The launchers are indeed military targets. The prisonners ae convicted criminals. There a also thousands of Israelis who have fled their homes in Northern Israel.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 25, 2006)

Foriegn policy is indeed a matter of what you want to do according to your principles, and what you actually _can_ do with what you have. But we are arguing those principles here and your principles point to the idea that we were wrong to strike back at the Taliban.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, there was a difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. The raids in Israel were against *military* targets. While the argument can be made that the Pentagon was a military target, it would be more difficult to argue that the World Trade Center was so.
> 
> Another difference, as I recall, is that the United States spoke with the Taliban prior to the invasion, demanding they turn over bin Laden. Military actions came later in Afghanistan (3 weeks, if I recall) than in Lebanon.
> 
> ...



Hezbollah did indeed attack military targets _as well as civilian ones._ The rockets coming down now are targetted at civilian targets and not military bases. That makes them terrorist in my book.

When you say that we did not cause 20 percent of the people from their homes, you fail to take into account that we did everything we had to do. When a group calling and targetting you for extinction like Al-Queda did with us and Hezbollah is now trying with Isreal, you either elimintate them or they will eliminate you. Period. The matter of Hezbollah and Lebanon has been known and discussed for a lot longer than three weeks. If nothing has happened by now, there is no reason for Isreal to believe that Lebanon would do anything in the future.

The fact that you ignore the reason for the large numbers of civilians at risk scares me. Hezbollah sets up rocket launchers and bases its military forces close to civilians in the hope that Isreal will not target them. If we hold Isreal responsible for fighting back and not those that set off rockets in school yard- who gets the advantage? Not those that try to avoid civilian deaths.

The principle is the same. Whether it is Afghanistan or Lebanon, if someone is attacking you from an area and the goverment there can't or won't step in to stop them, then you need to take action yourself to _eliminate the threat._


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 25, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Red herring in bold.  The US government doesn't need to get hizbollah to attack Isreal.  It only needs to urge Isreal to respond and THAT is what I said in previous posts.  War by Proxy.



You can't expect Isreal not to respond to attacks. And you are not proving that the US encouraged them in any way to do so. 

Look at what you call _sources._  Anything from the goverment? Nope! Some people on the internet call for something, and since some of the political views of the writers may be held by certain people in the goverment, you hold that up as _proof_?!?!?

You might as well hold up the writings of Osama Bin Laden and say that he is behind every Muslim group in the world.

Now if you tried that, you would be asked to prove things. So now try to prove something like a link and a reasonable postulation as to how America got Hezbollah to attack Isreal. Because it is certain to anyone who knows the region that Isreal will attack those that attack it despite the best efforts of some past administrations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> You can't expect Isreal not to respond to attacks. And you are not proving that the US encouraged them in any way to do so.


 
Sure, it makes sense for Isreal to respond.  This is why it is the perfect Noble Lie.  However, some questions a rational person might ask would be why now?  How long have these attacks been going on?  Who is supporting this invasion?  Why are these people supporting this invasion?



> Look at what you call _sources._  Anything from the goverment? Nope! *Some people on the internet* call for something, and since some of the political views of the writers may be held by certain people in the goverment, you hold that up as _proof_?!?!?


 
Do you want a signed document that details that the US secretly urged Isreal to respond to Hizbollah's attacks by invading Lebenon?  Don't be silly.  Also, if you would even both to read my posts, the links presented and the ideas shared, you might have noticed that these people I'm talking about are more then just "people on the internet."  Have you ever looked at who actually is part of PNAC?  Have you ever looked at what the believe?  Have you ever attempted to understand their worldview, their philosophy?  Obviously not.  

The bottom line is that any reasonable person who has done all of that can see a pattern forming in the current events.  It fits the profile.



> You might as well hold up the writings of Osama Bin Laden and say that he is behind every Muslim group in the world.


 
This is nonsense.  



> Now if you tried that, you would be asked to prove things. So now try to prove something like a link and a reasonable postulation as to how America got Hezbollah to attack Isreal. Because it is certain to anyone who knows the region that Isreal will attack those that attack it despite the best efforts of some past administrations.


 
More nonsense.  

Don, as usual, you have no rational response to my arguments.  I suspect the sniping is about to commence...that, too, fits the profile.  Here is a little friendly advice.  Stop typing.  Read.  Think.  Respond to the points actually raised in prose.  That is how you will formulate a rational response to my ideas.  This isn't a black and white issue and it is much bigger then Isreal responding to rockets fired from Hezbollah.

Your problem, IMHO, is that you lack the big picture...


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Foriegn policy is indeed a matter of what you want to do according to your principles, and what you actually _can_ do with what you have. But we are arguing those principles here and your principles point to the idea that *we were wrong to strike back at the Taliban.*


 
Don Roley .. that is not the argument I have made. 

That is the argument you want me to have made, so you can climb atop your high horse. 

You just go on putting words in my mouth.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 25, 2006)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> Te rocket attacks conducted by Hezbollah since Israel withdrew behind the internationnaly recognized Lebanese border are not against military targets. Hezbollah fires rockets from whithin civilian population. The launchers are indeed military targets. The prisonners ae convicted criminals. There a also thousands of Israelis who have fled their homes in Northern Israel.


 
Yes, you are correct. The rocket attacks are launched into civilian areas. I'm not sure you can say they 'target' civilians, because there is no targeting mechanism on a rocket. The Katyusha rockets really are a weapon of fear. While there are some casualties and fatalities, it is a very inefficient weapon.

I agree that the launchers, and those who launch those rockets are appropriate military targets. We're there launchers on the runways of the Beruit airport? In the broadcast studios of Lebanon radio and television stations? The Banks? 

What is the appropriate weapon for eliminating a Katyusha rocket, launcher, and operating personnel? 

Personally, I am not certain it is a 500 pound GPS guided bomb. 

I have done a quick search on 'Israeli Refugee' and 'Israeli leaving Northern Israel' ... and I find no substantiation of large numbers of Israeli's leaving Northern Israel. I'ld be interested to read such article.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2006)

In 1982, Isreal invaded South Lebenon and occupied Beruit.  They attempted to install a pro-western government that would sign a peace treaty with them...and ultimately failed.  If Isreal sticks around to do this again, I would have to say that that action supports PNACs goals and that my assessment was spot on.  However, if the Isreali army limits their actions to South Lebenon and leaves the Lebenese government alone, I would reassess my opinion that the US had a major hand in precipitating this action.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 25, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In 1982, Isreal invaded South Lebenon and occupied Beruit.  They attempted to install a pro-western government that would sign a peace treaty with them...and ultimately failed.  If Isreal sticks around to do this again, I would have to say that that action supports PNACs goals and that my assessment was spot on.  However, if the Isreali army limits their actions to South Lebenon and leaves the Lebenese government alone, I would reassess my opinion that the US had a major hand in precipitating this action.



and the fact that Israel would be acting in its best interest has nothing to do with it? I don't see any way Israel can be successful without some modification of the Lebanese government. The Lebanese need a different approach towards rooting out Hezbollah. Diplomacy seemed to not work, so the only tool Israel has left is force. This hardly seems to support the hypothesis that PNAC had anything to do with the decision making process.

If Israel can effectively limit Hezbollah by staying in South Lebanon, that is what they will do. If it requires going North, that is what they do. I hardly think PNAC comes into the decision process. I also think Israel will lose all international support if they completely destroy the entire nation if taking out only the South will do. Evaluating that decision is going to be the difficult part, especially since they have a leaky border with Syria. Who is to say Hezbollah isn't going to jump across the border and wait for a withdrawl in a few weeks/months? Or encourage a more regional war that involves Syria and Iran?


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 25, 2006)

An interesting read.



> The shop where he works abuts a vast mural depicting a female suicide bomber with a baby in her arms, accompanied by the words I LOVE MOTHERHOOD, BUT I LOVE MARTYRDOM MORE.



How would you suggest combating someone like this? Obviously there are those out there that believe this, even though its not the popular opinion.

How does one fight someone willing to blow up themselves and their children to support a cause?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> and the fact that Israel would be acting in its best interest has nothing to do with it? I don't see any way Israel can be successful without some modification of the Lebanese government. The Lebanese need a different approach towards rooting out Hezbollah. Diplomacy seemed to not work, so the only tool Israel has left is force. This hardly seems to support the hypothesis that PNAC had anything to do with the decision making process.
> 
> If Israel can effectively limit Hezbollah by staying in South Lebanon, that is what they will do. If it requires going North, that is what they do. I hardly think PNAC comes into the decision process. I also think Israel will lose all international support if they completely destroy the entire nation if taking out only the South will do. Evaluating that decision is going to be the difficult part, especially since they have a leaky border with Syria. Who is to say Hezbollah isn't going to jump across the border and wait for a withdrawl in a few weeks/months? Or encourage a more regional war that involves Syria and Iran?


 
Hezbollah is backed by Iran and the Lebenese government has, at many times in recent history, been nothing but a thrall of the Syrian government.  Even now, the Lebenese government is highly influenced by Syrian Baathists.  

The Project for the New American Century is a neoconservative think tank that thought up the foreign policy for the United States.  Most of its signatory members now hold key behind the scenes positions in the current administration.  Part of their strategy, as they have written many times in documents easily available on the internet and on their website is to limit the influence of Syria and Iran and move toward regime change.  (The other two places where they called for regime change was in Afghanistan and Iraq, btw.)

If Isreal occupies South Lebenon in order to curb Hezbollah and then they move north to Beruit in order to install a government that is more pro-west, then they would be making large steps toward the goals stated in the PNAC documents (the blueprints for the Bush Administration's foreign policy).  Thus, it makes perfect sense for the US (via the Bush Administration under the guidance of PNAC) to provide money and arms to the Isreal as they undertake this action.  This is why it is my current position that the US secretly urged Isreal to take these actions in order to wage a proxy war against our "enemies".

I hope this clear things up a little...


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 25, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Don, as usual, you have no rational response to my arguments.  I suspect the sniping is about to commence...that, too, fits the profile.



Your comment about me is an attack of its own. By saying that _as usual_ I have no rational response and that the sniping is about to commence you have painted me as a troublemaker and attacked me and my reputation. In short, you are attacking me while trying to convince people that I am the guilty one.

I will point out your attacks on me whenever you make them. But I will not respond in kind. Instead I will deal with what you say instead of attacking your charecter.

And the whole problem with your theories is that they lack logic, facts and cohesion. Your theory is quite similar to one I saw on Japanese TV documentary last night where a North Korean made the argument that the US is behind the famine in his country.

First there is the *Evil Intent.* In the case of the North Korean, American capitalists are seeking to control the entire world and enslave the non-white races.

For you, it is that the US wants oil. You call it Peak Oil- a theory that I am familiar with.

In both cases of the Evil Intent (EI) there really does seem to be some benefit to the supposed hatcher of these conspiracies. But there is rarely anything that most of us would say is valid proof. 

Then there is the *Evil Statement of Intent.* In North Korea's case, the guy was able to point to a lot of papers, groups and even some goverment folks that said that North Korea would be better off under a new goverment.

In your case, you are able to point to several papers and magazines like the New Republic as well as a _private_ think tank written by people who think alike in many ways to some people in goverment.

In both the North Korean and your cases, the influence these sources have over the goverment is not laid out real well and taken as a matter of faith. The reason given in conspiracy theories like this is that there can't be a lot of proof since everything has to be secret. You really echoed something the North Korean said when you wrote,



> Do you want a signed document that details that the US secretly urged Isreal to respond to Hizbollah's attacks by invading Lebenon?  Don't be silly.



The response for the North Korean when asked how America could cause the crop failures and such pretty much was along the line of, "do you think they are going to make it obvious?"

And it is clear that you make a huge leap of faith when you credit the neocons desire for a new goverment in Tehran with a desire to steal their oil. You overlook some much simpler explinations that make a lot more sense to cram your desired outlook on the facts at hand. The North Korean idea of people writing bad things about his country due to a desire to enslave them makes a similar leap over better explinations. I will deal this tendancy to ignore easier, more likely explinations later.

Finally there is the *Evil Result.* In the case of North Korea there is the famine they had. In your case it is the invasion of Lebanon. You can't dispute that these things happened. And thus the whole theory is "proved" in the minds of those that want to believe it.

But of course, at each point in these theories you have to make a leap of faith that the actual points are true and are conected. Since it is a conspiracy and since the attitude is, "Do you want a signed document that details that the US secretly urged Isreal to respond to Hizbollah's attacks by invading Lebenon?  Don't be silly." you can generally cover over the lack and the over emphasizing and speculation that needs to go on to make these things come even slightly close to working. Sure the PNAC did all the things you say- but of course you can't really lay it all out do to their secrecy, eh?

At each point there is a lot of doubt as to whether the points are true, and there is even more doubt if there is any connection with the EI, ESI and ER on them. But if you don't accept that the points are true and they are connected, you are attacked for having a narrow point of view.

And there are always, in cases like this, explinations that are much easier to explain and believe than the huge conspiracy theory that never gets blown like Watergate was.

Lets look at the idea of a lot of people in Washington not liking Iran. Do you think that maybe, just maybe it could be because of all the things Iran has done that makes us so cool towards being buds with them? Things like them having 'death to the US' rallies, sponsoring groups that do suicide bombings, mining vital sea routes, that little thing with the embassy, their seeking nuclear weapons and causing trouble in a region that is of great interest to us? Do you think that maybe the guys that don't like Iran might do so for these types of reasons rather than some complicated plot to seize their oil by getting Isreal to attack Lebanon? Gee, you think?

And as for why we are not pressing Isreal to stop as much as we could, do you think that maybe, just maybe, it could be because we see it as a case of a country reacting to an enemy that keeps attacking them? Or maybe that we don't want to run counter to them unless there is good reason for it? Or how about this- we aren't attacking Isreal to make them stop hitting Hezbollah because Hezbollah is a group that does suicide bombings, it rabidly anti American and has killed hundreds of Americans? Gee, you think?

Or do you want to go with the more complicated explination that by somehow taking out Hezbollah Isreal will make it easier for us to get Iran's oil?

(and as an aside, considering the damage that this has done to the US efforts to wean the Lebanese goverment from Syria's control it seems to be another case of a well worked conspiracy that is competent enough to remain secret, but not enough to avoid doing more damage than good.)

How about this comment by you,




> Sure, it makes sense for Isreal to respond.  This is why it is the perfect Noble Lie.  However, some questions a rational person might ask would be why now?



Gee, you think that maybe they are attacking now because a couple of thier soldiers were just grabbed? Hmmm?

Or do you want to say that they were all ready to invade just as their soldiers were grabbed?

I guess I am going to be accused of not having the brains to accept what is the truth because I go for the more likely, visible reasons rather than attribute things to something I can't see and really don't make a lot of sense.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 25, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Don Roley .. that is not the argument I have made.
> 
> That is the argument you want me to have made, so you can climb atop your high horse.
> 
> You just go on putting words in my mouth.



I did not put words in your mouth. I demonstrated how your logic applies itself in the case of the Taliban. I am not accusing you of saying that we should not have attacked the Taliban. But the logic you tried here could be used to make that point.

I am pointing out the inconsitancy in your logic, not accusing you of supporting the Taliban.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I guess I am going to be accused of not having the brains to accept what is the truth because I go for the more likely, visible reasons rather than attribute things to something I can't see and really don't make a lot of sense.


 
Visible is to Don Roley as to Red is to a 700 A filter.  You and I are operating in paradigms that are in direct conflict.  That was determined in other threads in the Study.  However, I understand what you are saying in regards to Isreal's right to defend itself, yet I refuse to believe that even you cannot see that the US's support of these actions would accomplish mutliple goals that our administration desires.  Particularly, the isolation of Syria and Iran.  It is not a jump in logic to assume that the US secretly urged these actions.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 25, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Visible is to Don Roley as to Red is to a 700 A filter.



Again a personal attack on myself. As I said, I would point them out when you engaged in them instead of trying to debate me.

And I again say that you have failed to show even a little bit of proof that the US is pulling the strings of this invasion. The events were initiated by the attacks started by Hezbollah that resulted in two Isrealis hostages.


----------



## Monadnock (Jul 26, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Visible is to Don Roley as to Red is to a 700 A filter. You and I are operating in paradigms that are in direct conflict. That was determined in other threads in the Study. However, I understand what you are saying in regards to Isreal's right to defend itself, yet I refuse to believe that even you cannot see that the US's support of these actions would accomplish mutliple goals that our administration desires. Particularly, the isolation of Syria and Iran. It is not a jump in logic to assume that the US secretly urged these actions.


 
Even if this were true, Syria has been suspected of holding some of Iraq's WMD stash, sending terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans and Iran has stated Isreal should be wiped off the map. Since they use Hezbollah and other means indirectly to cause trouble, shouldn't we be cutting off their arms and legs?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 26, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Again a personal attack on myself. As I said, I would point them out when you engaged in them instead of trying to debate me.


 
Get over it man.  It's not a personal attack.  I'm only saying that your viewpoint is myopic.  If you disagree with my assessment, fine.  You don't need to assume the role of the victim here.  Just engage the ideas presented.



> And I again say that you have failed to show even a little bit of proof that the US is pulling the strings of this invasion. The events were initiated by the attacks started by Hezbollah that resulted in two Isrealis hostages.


 
Who is providing Isreal with money and weapons for this invasion?  The US.  Who has been made aware of Isreali plans to invade, including tactics?  The US Department of Defense.  All of this has been shown by other posters in this thread.  I feel like you aren't even reading them.

And I don't know how many times I have to say this, but given those things and the things that I have brought up *it is not a great jump in logic to speculate* that the US secretly urged Isreal to do this.  Feel free to disregard this assessment if you will, but I feel that it is well grounded...based on what I have posted.

The "proof" you ask for can take many forms.  Some of them are going to be unattainable via the internet and some of them would be attainable just by observing as the situation unfolds.  I would say that if Isreal stays in South Lebenon and attempts to change the Lebenese regime in Beruit, that would definitely support my speculation.  Also, I would say that if we see US troops inserted into this situation as "Peacekeepers" then that too would support my speculation.  We'll just have to wait and see though.

On the other hand, if Isreal leaves Beruit alone and pulls back from South Lebenon in a few weeks, that would NOT support my speculation and I would have to reassess it.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 26, 2006)

Here is an interesting aside on the concept of proof...

Logically, proof can take many forms.  This is because there are various standards for it...some standards are higher and some standards are lower.  In the absence of a higher standard, a lower standard must be considered.  And no standard is ever absolute.

An example of a high standard of proof (or disproof) would be met if someone claimed that a certain phenomenon occured and someone was able to show that this phenomenon violated several physical laws, thus it would be impossible.

In this case, a high standard of proof would be met if someone was able to obtain DoD memos that would show that the US secretly urged the Isreali invasion and occupation of Lebenon.

An example of a lower standard of proof would be something that occurs in paleontology when looking at fossil remains.  The paleontologist looks at the features of the bone and the surrounding environment in order to *intuit* what the creature may have looked like and where it lived may have looked like.  

In this case, a lower standard of proof is being met one I claim that the US may have secretly urged the Isreali invasion of Lebenon in order to accomplish several strategic goals.  The information that I have laid out allows me to *intuit* that this may have happened.

No assessment of various phenomenon is failsaife.  Even those that are held to a high standard of proof.  Newton's Laws were once considered to be proven to a high standard, but then along came Einstein.  All standards of proof are subject to being supplanted by higher standards, because *there is no ultimate standard of proof*.  There is no such thing as "proven beyond all doubt," the possibility of being wrong or right always exists in some proportion.

People often confuse this concept.  In paleontology it occurs by the layman because that person cannot understand how the scientist intuited so much from a few bits of bones and dirt.  The layman would say things like "he hasn't proven his conjecture," when in fact that scientist has.  It is, however, a lower standard of proof then what would be obtained by actually observing the animal and environment.  

What the layman doesn't understand is that the only way to show that the paleontologist is wrong is to engage the paleontologists ideas and attempt to bring about a higher standard of proof (or disproof) for his ideas.  When the layman says that the paleontologist hasn't "proven" his speculation, he has made an assessment of his own that requires support.  The only way to do this is to engage the ideas presented by the paleotologist.  

Thus, if one wishes to engage a claim made in any thread including this one, one must engage the ideas presented.  This is the only way to supplant a lower standard of proof with a higher standard.  Pointing out that a higher standard may exist has not been met is not an argument against a lower standard.  It is the impetus of an argument.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 26, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Syria has been suspected of holding some of Iraq's WMD stash,


 
Anyone who suspects this hasn't been paying attention to the proof of UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and ISG. Each of these entities was engaged in the process of determining the Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities of Iraq over the past 14 years. With each successive inspection regimen, the 'stash' has been shown less and less likely to exist. The latest 'official' information concerning "Iraq's Stash" ... is that it has not existed at all since 1998 or earlier. 

It seems odd, that one would demand proof of the 'proxy war' argument, when the 'proof' of Iraq's WMD stocks prior to the 2003 invasion was so readily accepted. Perhaps it is experience and lessons learned, or, perhaps it is politics. 

While I do not dispute upnorthkyosa's assertion that behind the scenes, American players could be directing Israel's actions, I also think that it is equally plausible that the United States ambiguous statements, the wink and nod, if you will, are more than sufficient to indicate intentions to Israel.

All branches of the United States government should be synchronized in their call for an immediate end to hostilities by all beligerants involved in the conflict. One accusation about the Bush Administration that is not incorrect, is that it presents its arguments in very stark terms. The fuzzieness of the State Department's comments, I believe, are adequate to the task of signalling objectives.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> All branches of the United States government should be synchronized in their call for an immediate end to hostilities by all beligerants involved in the conflict.



If Lebanon seriously wanted a cease fire, then meet the demands of Israel. Help establish peace and get Hezbollah out of control of South Lebanon. Return the kidnapped soldiers. Thats the only way. Hezbollah is going to resist, since its their stated claim that they want Israel destroyed. If Lebanon wants to end the bombing, then accept the assistance of Israel and/or the UN/US to eradicate Hezbollah from South Lebanon. They will likely go to Syria/Iran, but at least the immediate crisis will be over. We can start pressuring Syria/Iran at that point and let democracy in Lebanon have a chance. Establish boarder security, not allowing Hezbollah back in, at least not in large enough numbers to regain control of the South.

With Hezbollah leaves alot of cash from Iran. A great gesture from Iran would be to take that cash that supported Hezbollah and give it to the Lebanese government to distribute and rebuild. That would go a LONG way in helping Lebanon recover as well as prove the good intentions of Iran, smoothing things over.

What I find aggrevating is that all these groups hate Israel simply because they are Israel/Jewish. I don't see Israel claiming they want to destroy all Islamic nations simply because they are Islamic.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jul 26, 2006)

_Mod. Note._ 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-David Russ
-MT Moderator-


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 26, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> What I find aggrevating is that all these groups hate Israel simply because they are Israel/Jewish.


 
Well, that's a sweeping generalization, isn't it? 

It all comes down to anti-semetism. Why can't those Aye-rabs behave like the indiginous North Americans, and get thee to the reservations, and open casinos.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, that's a sweeping generalization, isn't it?
> 
> It all comes down to anti-semetism. Why can't those Aye-rabs behave like the indiginous North Americans, and get thee to the reservations, and open casinos.



a generalization? not too sweeping. what I'm claiming is there exist radical islamic groups that seek to eradicate Israel. I don't see the analogy groups in Israel/Judaism. I'm making no claims about the bulk of Islam. Can you name two or three radical Jewish/Israeli groups that seek to overthrough Saudi Arabia, where Mecca resides? How many Jewish suicide bombers have been seen in the past 10 years? Been blowing up many planes lately?

The analogy with Native Americans is flawed. Israel, to my knowledge, is not seeking to remove every muslim from their native lands. They have not been overly expansive, in fact, they are giving away land lately. Bad analogy.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 26, 2006)

When you use phrases like "all these groups", such pronouns demand anticedents. A very small minority of radicals in Lebanon seek the destruction of Israel. In your post, your description could include Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and the Lebanese Government.

Israel has removed muslim's from their native lands. While I don't understand the complete history, as to whether Isreal was created in the early 20th century or mid 20th century, the state was carved out of the map by the victors in those wars. At the time, I understood, approximately 900,000 people were displaced from their homeland to provide the Jews a State. 

That is the fight that is waging today. 

The indigionous middle eastern residents, apparently, did not have the same attitudes toward the land as the native North Americans ... Muhammed never traded the fertile crescent away for 26 dollars worth of beads. 

In North America, as I understand it, the native peoples never conceived of the idea of 'ownership' of land. It wasn't their land to give away.

How'd that work out for them?


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> When you use phrases like "all these groups", such pronouns demand anticedents. A very small minority of radicals in Lebanon seek the destruction of Israel. In your post, your description could include Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and the Lebanese Government.


 
I suppose it could be read to mean that. It was perhaps a bit vague. I'm not implying all of Lebanon, rather radical groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Regardless, I'd still like to hear if you are aware of such radical groups in Israel.



> Israel has removed muslim's from their native lands. While I don't understand the complete history, as to whether Isreal was created in the early 20th century or mid 20th century, the state was carved out of the map by the victors in those wars. At the time, I understood, approximately 900,000 people were displaced from their homeland to provide the Jews a State.
> 
> That is the fight that is waging today.


Brief history of the modern Israeli state
The land has been handed back and forth for ages now. Everyone has their own unique claim on it, just different eras. At the time it was created in the '40's, it was under the control of Britain. They had the right to "give" it to whoever they wanted to. It was also called for by the UN, [sarcasm] which we both know can do no wrong [/sarcasm].




> The indigionous middle eastern residents, apparently, did not have the same attitudes toward the land as the native North Americans ... Muhammed never traded the fertile crescent away for 26 dollars worth of beads.
> 
> In North America, as I understand it, the native peoples never conceived of the idea of 'ownership' of land. It wasn't their land to give away.
> 
> How'd that work out for them?



Not relevant. I can bring up thousands of naughty things people have done through every single generation. Thousands of examples of wars that have displaced people. Every nation has done something bad in its history at some point. This is the second time you have brought up Native Americans. If you like, start a new thread and we can discuss that in depth. Let this discuss Israel and Lebanon and the current crisis, which from my understanding was your original intent.

Israel is clearly not trying to steal more land, but accepted the land granted by Britain and OK'ed by the UN. In fact, they have given land back in an attempt to harness peace. How has that turned out? This makes the analogy clearly flawed and not strictly relevant. If you want to discuss who has historic claims to the land, we need to go back WAY further, and start using texts and things I KNOW you won't trust/like.


----------



## mantis (Jul 26, 2006)

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411424/796783
i find it interesting how the US objects cease fire regardless of both military and civilian deaths!


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 26, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting aside on the concept of proof...
> 
> Logically, proof can take many forms.  This is because there are various standards for it...some standards are higher and some standards are lower.  In the absence of a higher standard, a lower standard must be considered.  And no standard is ever absolute.



How about this...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And that _possible_ motives do not necceasarily lead to the conclusion desired to make a conspiracy theory work.

And those wishing to push a theory are the ones required to provide proof for it. And if only one person or two in a thread think that the conclusions are reasonable and clear- then it is quite likely that they are wrong and *not* that the rest of the particpants are just too stupid to realize it.

Oh, and another one- Occam's Razor. The simplest and least complicated explination is the one most likely to be correct.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 26, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> And those wishing to push a theory are the ones required to provide proof for it. And if only one person or two in a thread think that the conclusions are reasonable and clear- then it is quite likely that they are wrong and *not* that the rest of the particpants are just too stupid to realize it.
> .


 
But this thread seem to be comprised of about four or five people. Then the ration becomes a 40% to 50% of the thread. But even then, sheer number do not in any equal the correctness of an argument. 

Think back five hundred years ... the 'rest of the participants' were confident the sun went around the earth.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> But this thread seem to be comprised of about four or five people. Then the ration becomes a 40% to 50% of the thread. But even then, sheer number do not in any equal the correctness of an argument.
> 
> Think back five hundred years ... the 'rest of the participants' were confident the sun went around the earth.



I was speaking in general about proof and conspiracy theories. One of the things that I have seen a lot is that a lot of people that push conspiracy theories seem to have a sense of superiority about them. They can see things that most of humanity can't. Thus they seem to feel they are more intelligent than the rest of humanity.

In some threads on martialtalk there is comments that the people who refuse to believe some outrageous conspiracy theories "Lack a wider view" or something along the line that the fault is in their lack of intelligence. It is hardly in the spirit of the friendly discusion they want here at martialtalk and one of many reasons IMO why there was talk of closing down  the study.

I feel rather strongly that the more a theory depends on evidence that we can only speculate about, the less likely it is. Call me suspicious, but the more someone says that the nature of the theory is that there *can't* be any proof the more I think that they should be kept away from flamables and sharp objects.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 26, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I was speaking in general about proof and conspiracy theories. One of the things that I have seen a lot is that a lot of people that push conspiracy theories seem to have a sense of superiority about them. They can see things that most of humanity can't. Thus they seem to feel they are more intelligent than the rest of humanity.
> 
> In some threads on martialtalk there is comments that the people who refuse to believe some outrageous conspiracy theories "Lack a wider view" or something along the line that the fault is in their lack of intelligence. It is hardly in the spirit of the friendly discusion they want here at martialtalk and one of many reasons IMO why there was talk of closing down the study.
> 
> I feel rather strongly that the more a theory depends on evidence that we can only speculate about, the less likely it is. Call me suspicious, but the more someone says that the nature of the theory is that there *can't* be any proof the more I think that they should be kept away from flamables and sharp objects.


 
You talk about the rest of the not being able to see something. Or is it not wanting to see something. 

The manifesto of the Project for a New American Century has been widely available on their website for years. You can hear direct descriptions of that manifesto every time Bill Kristol speaks on the public airwaves. If their plan is secret, it certainly is hidden on the kitchen table. 

How many of us know the signatories to the United States Declaration of Independence? 

How many of us know the signatories to the PNAC? 

How many of those signatories currently hold office in the Executive Administration? 

Then, look at what the PNAC desires ....

And look at the events in the world ....

Do they line up at all? The PNAC original document is, what, 10, 12 years old? These guys either have a fabulous crystal ball ... or they have worked methodically toward their objectives, either in the administration or not. 

Then, what other items are in their objectives, that have not yet come to pass? 

You talk as if this stuff is Nostrodamous. Decrying peers on this message board, but not disputing the claims, and demonstrating no evidence that you have even looked at the information.

Post Script ... 
Signatories to the PNAC

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J Bennet
Jeb Bush
Richard Cheney
Eliot A Cohen
Midge Dector
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C Ilke
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W Rodman
Stephen P Rosen
Henry S Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Google 'em .... knock yourself out.


But wait ... there's more ... 
The PNAC wrote a letter to President Clinton asking for a strong policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power ... that letter was signed by many of the above, but also ... 

Richard L Armitage
John Bolton 
Richard Perle
William Kristol
R James Woolsey

Any of those names look familiar?


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You talk about the rest of the not being able to see something. Or is it not wanting to see something.



Quite the opposite. I would say that people who want to see a evil conspiracy, like the North Korean, will see it no matter what. Some points will fit their theories, but they will reject anything that does not fit in with what they want to believe. So one source of possible influence becomes the *sole* influence. And anything they can't prove other than extreme conjecture will be explained away as part of a conspiracy.

And then they will accuse others of being stupid or too biased to see the truth that they, with their greater clarity and intelligence, can clearly see.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Then, look at what the PNAC desires ....
> 
> And look at the events in the world ....
> 
> ...



ok, here is where I have a problem. There are somewhat clear motives behind every political group. There are clear motives behind private groups. Are we going to start eyeballing all of the members of the AARP when some kind of Social Security reform is passed? Will we start investigating and crying about the NAACP when minority right legislation is written? Would it be suprising that any bill written removing restrictions on gun laws would be favorable to the members of the NRA?

What about the lobbies? Members of the NRA/AARP/NAACP clearly are working in Washington, making their cases to congress and the president. Is this not how the legal process these days works? Some group proposes an idea and others make opposite claims. This does not make NRA/AARP/NAACP dire groups with evil motives. Are any members of congress members of any of these organizations either now or in the past? If so, why?

Does congress make laws -only- because NRA/AARP/NAACP wants them? Wouldn't it be CLEARLY stupid to pass laws they want that are not good for the American people, or laws that have NO support or logical purpose behind them? Would it be in the interest of America to give all Americans access to fully automatic weapons? Or some other strange desire specific to these groups?

So, lets extend this analogy... are the PNAC claims clearly outrageous? Would they be in the best interest of the country? Is the government following these desires ONLY because PNAC is making them? Other groups make claims about how the world should be, shall we jump on them next if anything in their lists of wants is experienced?



Lets tie this directly to the current crisis. Its clear the US has supported Israel for a long time now, and likely will continue. So, should Israel NOT defend itself to satisfy your paranoia over the PNAC? Should we start allowing crazies to do crazy things to satisfy your fear over PNAC? Should we encourage instability and leadership in the Middle East that is opposed to our nations best interests? Should Israel and the US write up a list of things it should NOT do that coincides with the PNAC stated claims/desires? If thats the case, lets do that with every group in the US. NRA, NAACP, AARP. Every group with ANY form of lobby or leadership that has any vision on how the world or the US should be.

I don't find a conspiracy when a groups claims happen to coincide with the governments position. What I find is that people in that group think in the same manner, and given current circumstances made decisions that are similar. Unless you can convince me of some form of mind-control, membership of a majority of congress/cabinet/judiciary or something, I'm not all that interested. Unless they have done something clearly illegal, I don't understand the difference between them and any organization with a lobby or any organization with membership that has any kind of vision. Sorry, simply don't see it right now.

Don is right... conspiracy theories are so much fun. You can't disprove them easily, but you sure can't easily prove them.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 27, 2006)

As far as this region goes the logic is reletively simple to me.

If the Arabs lay down there weapons and stop fighting, the war with Isreal stops.

If Isreal lays down its weapons and stops fighting, the Arabs destroy Isreal.

Thats pretty much the plain truth of it at this point.  Everything that lead up to the situation as it now sits is kind of irrelevent.  As things are right now, the Isrealis have very limited choices. Either they leave, they fight or they die.  Thats really about all there is to it.

I can't say I blaim them for fighting.

Edit:  That was a good post mrhnau.  I doubt that it will be taken to heart by the people your are responding to though.  The way they see it a law or objective cannot be good for the counrty unless they agree with it 100%.  They don't agree with anything the PNAC advocates, therefore any of its objectives that get accomplished are not accomplished becasause they are better for the country / world, but rather because the PNAC controls the country / world.  Probably from some clandestine hideout and useing mind control over weak minded people like our president.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 27, 2006)

I am not getting into this thread, but there has been a few questions about the history of the region, maybe this will help

The Readers Digest version of Palestine/Israeli history in the region. 

All that follows are excerpts from 
Terrorism 4th edition
2002 Update
Jonathan R. White
Part 2
Chapter 7

1915 in return for support Arab support against the Turks the British made an unclear promise to support a United Arab homeland after the War (WW I). The Arabs believed they had been promised the ancient Arab realm of Islam. 

1917 The Balfour Declaration In return for Palestinian Jewish support against the Turks Britain promises a Jewish national homeland in Palestine.

In 1922 Great Britain received permission from the League of Nations to create the protectorate of Transjordan. This gave Britain the control of Palestine and placed then in the center of Middle Eastern affairs. This made neither Arabs nor Jewish happy. The Arabs felt they were lied to and the Jews wanted a homeland.

The violence began in 1920 

In the 1940s both Arabs and Jews believed the only solution to the Palestine issue was to expel the British. 

After WW II more Jewish peoples immigrated to the Middle East even though the British had put a ban on such immigration. 

In 1947 the UN decided that Palestine should be split, part to the Jewish part to the Arabs. The Jewish were elated the Arabs were not. 

For the record in the early Palestinian Jewish conflict the first to use terrorist tactics were used by a Jewish Terrorist organization called Irgun Zvai Leumi and it was used against the British. Right around the same time of the UN resolution to split Palestine.


----------



## mantis (Jul 27, 2006)

ginshun said:
			
		

> As far as this region goes the logic is reletively simple to me.
> 
> If the Arabs lay down there weapons and stop fighting, the war with Isreal stops.
> 
> ...



Why? how did you come to this "plain TRUTH"?  How's it that "logic"?!  and why doesnt israel have other choices?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 27, 2006)

Man, this is gettin old.

Personally, I think the Libs and Cons need to just **** and get it over with.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the Libs and Cons need to just **** and get it over with.


 
I'm not quite sure how this issue breaks down on the 'Liberal/Conservative' lines.... 

I mean, I know that I am fairly liberal on domestic policy, but how does that fit with actions by other states? But, because I want the bombs to stop dropping, that's a liberal issue?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure how this issue breaks down on the 'Liberal/Conservative' lines....


 
Its more the same people arguing back and forth than the specific issue.

I swear I could hold up a shaped piece of wood and ask "what is this?" and accurately guage who would argue whether it was a "Bat" or a "Club"


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 27, 2006)

Check out this article: http://www.yahoo.com/s/357130


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 27, 2006)

This article by Michael Hirsh makes some of the points I am arguing. No doubt, he will be painted as a member of the 'Liberal Media'. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14046789/site/newsweek/



> In strategic terms, the U.S. endorsement of Israel's retaliation against Hizbullah had some merit at the start, within limits: a Lebanon with an armed Hizbullah in its midst was never going to graduate to real democracy. The Israeli action is also, in a way, a proxy war against Iran and its nuclear program. Reducing Iran's influence in the region by degrading the power of its principal means of terror (and therefore of retaliation) is in America's interest, as well.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 28, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> Why? how did you come to this "plain TRUTH"? How's it that "logic"?! and why doesnt israel have other choices?




Maybe its Hizbulla's stated intentions the wipe Isreal off the map that drew me to that conclusion.

What exactly do you think Isreals other options are?

Its seems as though you guys are off the opinion that since Isreals actions are in the USA's best interst, that somehow makes them automatically wrong and part of some big consirousy.


----------



## mantis (Jul 28, 2006)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Maybe its Hizbulla's stated intentions the wipe Isreal off the map that drew me to that conclusion.
> 
> What exactly do you think Isreals other options are?
> 
> Its seems as though you guys are off the opinion that since Isreals actions are in the USA's best interst, that somehow makes them automatically wrong and part of some big consirousy.


you are mixing facts.  It's hamas that say Israel needs to be wiped out. Hizbullah wants 2 things: withdrawal from lebanese farms of Shabaa, and exchange hostages.

other options for israel is to agree to allow palestine to declare a state with the 1967 borders and go forward with the peace process.  Do not tell me the arabs want to wipe israel because arabs only react to offensive actions of israel.  Arabs are the least proactive nation on this planet.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 28, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> you are mixing facts. It's hamas that say Israel needs to be wiped out. Hizbullah wants 2 things: withdrawal from lebanese farms of Shabaa, and exchange hostages.



Hamas, Hizbullah whatever.  You say potatoe, I say pototoe.

Hamas' own website confirms that it has recieved money and training assistance from Hizbullah.  They are not one and the same, but their goals are about as different as Bush's and Cheney's



> other options for israel is to agree to allow palestine to declare a state with the 1967 borders and go forward with the peace process.



And that would end all the fighting in Isreal / Palastine?  
Whatever it is you're smoking, save some for me, cause it must be good stuff.




> Do not tell me the arabs want to wipe israel because arabs only react to offensive actions of israel. Arabs are the least proactive nation on this planet.



I am confused, are Hamas and Hizzbullah not arabs?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 28, 2006)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Hamas, Hizbullah whatever. You say potatoe, I say pototoe.?


 
Actually it is more like you say potato and he says tomato.  



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> Hamas' own website confirms that it has recieved money and training assistance from Hizbullah. They are not one and the same, but their goals are about as different as Bush's and Cheney's?


 
And since Hezbollah took over Palestine Hamas and Hezbollah have been fighting. They are by no means one in the same

If you study the region you will see many assist each other in there cause many splinter off to form other groups and they can be fighting each other and supporting each other at the same time.

And not all people in the Middle East are Rejectionists. Some want peace with Israel some do not. It is an incredibly complicated area of the world and I am not going to type it all up here. 



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> I am confused, are Hamas and Hizzbullah not arabs?


 
Actually no, they are Palestinians. 

And not all Arabs are the same either, for starters some are Sunni and some a Shiite some are Rejectionists some aren&#8217;t.


----------



## mantis (Jul 30, 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5228224.stm

Qana over and over again!
who's the terrorist now?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jul 30, 2006)

WWII whole cities are leveled and its "par for the course". These days, one mistake in precision bombing and everybody is calling it war crimes and the conflict must end. Its all ********. Welcome to war everybody its not pretty and never has been, unfortunately its sometimes necessary for a nations survival.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> WWII whole cities are leveled and its "par for the course". These days, one mistake in precision bombing and everybody is calling it war crimes and the conflict must end. Its all ********. Welcome to war everybody its not pretty and never has been, unfortunately its sometimes necessary for a nations survival.


 
Which nations' survival are you suggesting was threatened?


----------



## mantis (Jul 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Which nations' survival are you suggesting was threatened?


regardless.  If you say party A needs to survive then the same exact argument is valid for party B unless we are really really biased.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 30, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> regardless. If you say party A needs to survive then the same exact argument is valid for party B unless we are really really biased.


 
This of course is logical, and quite probably true.

But, I'm wondering which of the belligerent groups was actually threatening the survival of anything? It seems to me a hyperbolic claim. Perhaps?


----------



## mantis (Jul 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This of course is logical, and quite probably true.
> 
> But, I'm wondering which of the belligerent groups was actually threatening the survival of anything? It seems to me a hyperbolic claim. Perhaps?


In martial arts if we both are grabbing each other's throats then neither of us would let go because both our lives are threatened.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> In martial arts if we both are grabbing each other's throats then neither of us would let go because both our lives are threatened.


HELLO PROFESSOR FALKEN

WHAT A STRANGE GAME.

THE ONLY WINNING MOVE 
IS NOT TO PLAY.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?​ 


War Games was on last night.


----------



## mantis (Jul 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> HELLO PROFESSOR FALKEN
> 
> WHAT A STRANGE GAME.
> 
> ...


haha that's funny! and true too.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 31, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> haha that's funny! and true too.



Problem is when one side wants to fight, and the other does not. Laying down arms is great, until your enemy picks them back up.


----------



## mantis (Jul 31, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Problem is when one side wants to fight, and the other does not. Laying down arms is great, until your enemy picks them back up.


what's interesting about this particular conflict is both parties want to stop at least the lebanese do after Qana, but the US just does not want to stop it.  the US wants the new-born middle east to come out of this conflict and they are just not willing to make it stop.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 31, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> what's interesting about this particular conflict is both parties want to stop at least the lebanese do after Qana, but the US just does not want to stop it. the US wants the new-born middle east to come out of this conflict and they are just not willing to make it stop.



Just so I have this straight.

Your assertation is that neither the Irealis nor the Palastinians want to fight, but they are fighting because the US wants them to?

And Lebanon doesn't want to fight, but they don't want to talk either.  What exactly is it that they want again?

Also, hasn't Isreals doctrine of massive retaliation been in place for like 30 years or something?  Basically saying that if you directly attack us we are going to bomb the **** out of you.  What did Hizbullah think was going to happen?

I feel terrible that civilians are getting hurt and killed, but thats what happens when you have a wing of your government that is a terrorist organization, and all its leadership is intermingled with civilians.  Maybe next time Isreal warns people to leave they will.


----------



## mantis (Jul 31, 2006)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Just so I have this straight.
> 
> Your assertation is that neither the Irealis nor the Palastinians want to fight, but they are fighting because the US wants them to?
> 
> ...


no, that's what happens when your entire state is a terrorist state but you have the 'democracy' cover
warning people to leave is not enough especially when you bomb all roads and bridges and isolate the towns you are satisfy your sadistic lust in.
Israel does not have the right to 'warn' people to leave their homes. in fact no one does not even the lebanese gov't. 
they're not fighting because the US wants them to, but they cannot stop because of that.  it's obvious that Israel has a green light to commit more genocide, massacres, and war crimes.


----------



## crushing (Jul 31, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> what's interesting about this particular conflict is both parties want to stop at least the lebanese do after Qana, but the US just does not want to stop it. the US wants the new-born middle east to come out of this conflict and they are just not willing to make it stop.


 

We have been hearing how US interference in the Middle East has caused so many problems and so much distrust.  How should the US interfere in the conflict between Israel and Hizzbullah?  Is the US the only country in the world that can do anything about it?

I'm not saying the US shouldn't step in and try to get some sort of talks started, since no one else in this gd world can do it.

I saw a Power Point slide show of some of the destruction.  It included some bombed out vehicles and dead children by the side of the road.  This whole thing is so ****** up.

I gotta go.  I'm on a break at work and I can't really get emotional right now thinking about those poor families on both sides.


----------



## mantis (Jul 31, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> We have been hearing how US interference in the Middle East has caused so many problems and so much distrust. How should the US interfere in the conflict between Israel and Hizzbullah? Is the US the only country in the world that can do anything about it?
> 
> I'm not saying the US shouldn't step in and try to get some sort of talks started, since no one else in this gd world can do it.
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Veto_Power
look at how many times veto has been used by the US and why


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> Is the US the only country in the world that can do anything about it?
> 
> I'm not saying the US shouldn't step in and try to get some sort of talks started, since no one else in this gd world can do it.


 
crushing, 

I don't know the answer to your first question, except for this. The United States is a very strong and constant partner of Israel. If you look at other Nation States around the globe, you will find they are either a bit more ambiguous, or strong and constant partners of the Palestinians. 

Many other nations have been calling for a cessation of the hostilities. 

Currently, the United States has not taken a strong stand on this point. The President talks about a 'sustainable peace' ... but not about stopping the shooting. Now, just because the President calls for both beligerents to stop shooting doesn't mean they will. But, the ambiguous signals (and who knows what specific words SecState Rice has conveyed), certainly keep Israel on the war path. 

Remember, the United States sells Israel great quantities of highly sophisticated weaponry. We have currently accelerated the delivery of a sales agreement from last fall, at Israel's request. What kind of signal does that send?


----------



## Monadnock (Aug 2, 2006)

> In an interview in Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told The Associated Press the fighting will stop only once an international peacekeeping force is in place in southern Lebanon.
> 
> "We can't stop before because if there will not be a presence of a very effective and robust military international force, Hezbollah will be there and we will have achieved nothing," he said.


 
I like that move. It puts more responsibility on the international community than to just sit there saying "Stop it, stop it..." And in the meanwhile, they can keep getting the job done.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2006)

Reuters News Service has recently suspended a photographer, following a published doctored photo. 

http://www.leftandright.us/index.php/site/reuters_faking_photos/


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 6, 2006)

_
Currently, the United States has not taken a strong stand on this point. The President talks about a 'sustainable peace' ... but not about stopping the shooting. Now, just because the President calls for both beligerents to stop shooting doesn't mean they will. But, the ambiguous signals (and who knows what specific words SecState Rice has conveyed), certainly keep Israel on the war path._

One twist on this is that the Iraqi governement has come out as being very ani-Israel on this whole subject.  I'm wondering if  that has an impact on how much the US is willing to officially say either way.


----------

