|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I'd say that's happening already [conquest of Palestinian areas], and has been happening for a while. I don't see America selling the PLO helicopter gunships.
Its a flawed strategy. How can the US be an unbiased mediator while it supplies one side with weapons and not the other?
Because Israel is a state defending its borders, whereas many within the Palestinian territory will pursue nothing less than the annihilation of Israel.
Guns in Israel are used to fight terrorism and defend Israel's borders.
Guns sold to Palestine will never be limited to defending Palestine, they will be used to destroy Israel.
The West Bank was part of Jordan until 1967.
And Gaza was part of Egypt.
Until those regions, and the willing Palestinian participants who live there, waged decades of terrorism, and several wars(in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973), on Israel.
After several wars and ongoing terror, after these areas were captured and given back to Egypt and Jordan in 1948-1956, Israel opted not to give these lands back to their Arab neighbors after the 1967 war. They have been the staging points of countless raids and terrorism on Israel. The West Bank and Gaza, and the Golan Heights on the northern Syrian border, were kept as defensive regions.
It's not out of tyranny or expansionism that Israel occupies these regions, it's out of self-preservation.
These tragic Palestinians who just want their own nation and an end to occupation, routinely chant "Death to Israel!"
As do their other Arab neighbors.
The level of hate and aggression toward Israel bodes badly for the Palestinians, or any of the Arab states, honoring any agreement or plattitudes of peace for very long. The split second they have the provocation or a perceived upper hand, they will act to destroy Israel.
More to the point of answering your statement, we don't arm Palestine because we've already negotiated their sovereignty in the 1993 and 1994 Oslo Accords.
And up until Israel's invasion of the West Bank that began on March 29th, Palestinians enjoyed considerable autonomy under PLO rule, even without final completion of the Oslo provisions, 95% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were living under Palestinian rule, and most of them still are.
Israel endured TWO YEARS of suicide bombings and terror that occur almost daily, before it finally launched an invasion of the cities of Jenin and Ramallah in the West Bank, to destroy the bases used to train Palestinian suicide bombers.
Looking at Israel's "peaceful" neighbors:
Saddam Hussein in Iraq gives $25,000 to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber who blows himself up in Israel, Saudi Arabia held a Jerry Lewis Labor Day-style telethon to give money to the suicide bombers' families, Muslim leaders throughout the region praise suicide bombers and terrorists as "martyrs for Allah".
All of which convinces me that, no matter what is given, no negotiated peace will be honored by the Arabs and Palestinians.
Arms sold to the Palestinians would not be used to defend Palestinian borders, they would be used to wipe Israel off the map.
The below-linked map shows that all of Israel's population centers are well within range of artillery, once the West Bank is given up.
Which is potential suicide for Israel to relinquish, if Palestine chooses not to be a peaceful neighbor.
http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/missle.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Dave, your use of the word "war" suggests that the Israelis are fighting a war aginst a Palestinian state.
This was an act against a terrorist (the member of a terrorist organisation, not a general of an army of a foreign power) within the territory of Israel, which resulted in the deaths of civilians ostensibly under Israeli sovereignty and the responsibility that this entails.
You're using an incorrect standard, to mask the fact that the Israelis, in killing a known terrorist, also indiscriminately killed seven children.
You say a just war has its costs. What about a counter-terrorist action? Can you imagine the outcry that would erupt if this had happened in the United States, and seven children were killed during a counter-terrorist operation
For me there is no distinction.
The Palestinian terrorism is for all practical purposes an army, and it is only an abstraction of semantics to look at this act as something other than the casualty of war that it truly is.
Since 1918 (the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the beginning of British Mandate rule, and continuing on through the birth of the Israeli state in 1948, and forward), this has been part of an ongoing war termed The Arab-Israeli Conflict.
I believe the call for a Palestinian state is a sham. The true goal is the destruction of Israel.
As we discussed on a prior topic, the total annihilation of Israel is the stated goal of the PLO's founding charter ( which, as you say, was amended out of the charter in 1998, as a condition of continued negotiations with Israel foir Palestinian statehood. Although the PLO has been proven, with evidence obtained in the Israeli raids of Rammalah and Jenin, to have fully participated in orchestrating suicide bombings. See the April 8, 2002 issue of TIME Magazine, page 30, paragraph 2. On CBS news, It was reported when Sharon came to Washington D.C., he personally handed George W. Bush a 100-page file of documents showing Arafat and other PLO members personally authorized suicide bombings and purchase of bombing materials ).
And complete destruction of Israel remains the stated goal of Hammas as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
How does this dovetail in with repeated Palestinian calls for interntaional peace-keepers? Israel rejects these calls, saying that it's an internal issue which does not necessitate peacekeepers.
I fully understand Israel's reluctance to trust any U.N. force when it comes to Israel's peace and security.
There were U.N. peacekeepers on Israel's borders from 1956 until the 1967 Six Day War, and when Israel's Arab neighbors massed for a new attack, the U.N. forces just stepped aside and left Israel to its fate. It was a surprise to everyone that Israel survived that war, certainly no thanks to U.N. peacekeepers.
And as I pointed out on another topic, I mentioned a news story about Dutch U.N. peacekeeping forces, sent in to protect a Bosnian Muslim town, and far from protecting them, left the town to the Serbs, who slaughtered the people there. I saw several soldiers, officers and witnessing human relief workers interviewed on BBC a few days ago, and witnesses say that the Dutch forces knew these people were about to be slaughtered, and actually purposefully did not tell the Bosnians about the danger they were in, so they would remain calm and be peacefully led off to their deaths, without any uncomfortable fuss for the Dutch unit.
U.N. protection does not inspire a great sense of security.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Also, the US pulled out of Somalia because the corpse of an army ranger was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and this was broadcast to the US public. The US public lacks the stomach to see its troops killed in foreign theatres (understandably, in one sense). The US military was opposed to it, because it wasn't fighting, it was nation-building. And so the US pulled out. I don't think it was cowardice: it was more lack of commitment.
That's what I despised about President Clinton's administration.
Never before was a president so motivated by popular polls and the perception of what the public wanted.
Clinton had no loyalty to anything except what would get him re-elected.
When an American soldier's corpse was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Clinton immediately pre-emptively acted to immediately end the military police action in Somalia before it had a chance to become unpopular. It was not because of any outcry from the public.
I think it was the wrong policy. Clinton should have simply sent in adequate backup forces for our troops on the ground.
Ad those soldiers in Mogadishu never would have been killed to begin with, if Clinton had deployed adequate helicopters and armored tanks to back up U.S. forces in the area. Again, for politically correct reasons, Clinton had a minimum of U.S. forces, instead of the forces necessary to adequately defend themselves if they ran into a firefight. I read about this in TIME, a week or two after the incident, that expressed this view.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
You mean facing criticism is a good reason not to do the right thing?
thats my whole point, dear david.
who gets to pick which thing is the 'right thing'?
you? me? jack? W? palestine? israel? US citizens? foreign interests? global opinion? military leaders? humanitarian leaders? republicans? democrats? superman? batman? a ouija board? a magic 8 ball?
regardless of any merit and benefit found in each of the 4 basic options (outlined above), whichever we select will be the wrong decision, so says the court of public opinion.
its a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I'd say that's happening already [conquest of Palestinian areas], and has been happening for a while. I don't see America selling the PLO helicopter gunships.
Its a flawed strategy. How can the US be an unbiased mediator while it supplies one side with weapons and not the other?
Because Israel is a state defending its borders, whereas many within the Palestinian territory will pursue nothing less than the annihilation of Israel. Guns in Israel are used to fight terrorism and defend Israel's borders. Guns sold to Palestine will never be limited to defending Palestine, they will be used to destroy Israel.
Oh come on. Its like how the Israeli conservatives recently voted against a Palestinian homeland: each side has their own idiot extremists. No one with a brain actually believes there can't be a compromise - its just a matter of how far people will go.
That Charter of the PLO: I'd like to know when it was written, whether it was drafted at a time when Israel was being particularly offensive. As if while Israelis are killing Palestinians that charter will be revoked or made less extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
You mean facing criticism is a good reason not to do the right thing?
thats my whole point, dear david.
who gets to pick which thing is the 'right thing'?
you? me? jack? W? palestine? israel? US citizens? foreign interests? global opinion? military leaders? humanitarian leaders? republicans? democrats? superman? batman? a ouija board? a magic 8 ball?
regardless of any merit and benefit found in each of the 4 basic options (outlined above), whichever we select will be the wrong decision, so says the court of public opinion.
its a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.
Wrong. Some things are difficult to assess, its true, but some things are patently obvious. And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway - even today I see the US trying to shunt back a treaty against torture, despite outcries from European allies and South American friends.
Instead of an unbiased assessment of right and wrong, here, instead, we have the pro-Israel lobby flexing its muscles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
How does this dovetail in with repeated Palestinian calls for interntaional peace-keepers? Israel rejects these calls, saying that it's an internal issue which does not necessitate peacekeepers.
I fully understand Israel's reluctance to trust any U.N. force when it comes to Israel's peace and security.
There were U.N. peacekeepers on Israel's borders from 1956 until the 1967 Six Day War, and when Israel's Arab neighbors massed for a new attack, the U.N. forces just stepped aside and left Israel to its fate. It was a surprise to everyone that Israel survived that war, certainly no thanks to U.N. peacekeepers.
And as I pointed out on another topic, I mentioned a news story about Dutch U.N. peacekeeping forces, sent in to protect a Bosnian Muslim town, and far from protecting them, left the town to the Serbs, who slaughtered the people there. I saw several soldiers, officers and witnessing human relief workers interviewed on BBC a few days ago, and witnesses say that the Dutch forces knew these people were about to be slaughtered, and actually purposefully did not tell the Bosnians about the danger they were in, so they would remain calm and be peacefully led off to their deaths, without any uncomfortable fuss for the Dutch unit.
U.N. protection does not inspire a great sense of security.
That incident brought down the Dutch government, two months ago, because the Dutch decided after an inquiry that they did not depploy enough forces. UN peacekeeping works in Cyprus, keeping apart Greek Cypriotes and Turkish Cypriotes. It worked in East Timor which has now had a peaceful transition towards a democratic government.
Why not Gaza and the West Bank?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Also, the US pulled out of Somalia because the corpse of an army ranger was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu and this was broadcast to the US public. The US public lacks the stomach to see its troops killed in foreign theatres (understandably, in one sense). The US military was opposed to it, because it wasn't fighting, it was nation-building. And so the US pulled out. I don't think it was cowardice: it was more lack of commitment.
That's what I despised about President Clinton's administration. Never before was a president so motivated by popular polls and the perception of what the public wanted.
Clinton had no loyalty to anything except what would get him re-elected.
When an American soldier's corpse was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Clinton immediately pre-emptively acted to immediately end the military police action in Somalia before it had a chance to become unpopular. It was not because of any outcry from the public.
I think it was the wrong policy. Clinton should have simply sent in adequate backup forces for our troops on the ground.
Ad those soldiers in Mogadishu never would have been killed to begin with, if Clinton had deployed adequate helicopters and armored tanks to back up U.S. forces in the area. Again, for politically correct reasons, Clinton had a minimum of U.S. forces, instead of the forces necessary to adequately defend themselves if they ran into a firefight. I read about this in TIME, a week or two after the incident, that expressed this view.
Um, that's Clinton's generals, not Clinton. He might be commander in chief, but no US president has decided strategy since Nixon picked bombing targets in Viet Nam.
This is wrong:
quote:
It was not because of any outcry from the public.
There has been a lot written on this issue, and I plainly remember the outcry myself. No academic sources to hand, as I'm at work, but I can give you extensive citations when I get home.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Dave, your use of the word "war" suggests that the Israelis are fighting a war aginst a Palestinian state.
This was an act against a terrorist (the member of a terrorist organisation, not a general of an army of a foreign power) within the territory of Israel, which resulted in the deaths of civilians ostensibly under Israeli sovereignty and the responsibility that this entails.
You're using an incorrect standard, to mask the fact that the Israelis, in killing a known terrorist, also indiscriminately killed seven children.
You say a just war has its costs. What about a counter-terrorist action? Can you imagine the outcry that would erupt if this had happened in the United States, and seven children were killed during a counter-terrorist operation?
For me there is no distinction.
The terrorism is for all practical purposes an army, and it is only an abstraction of semantics to look at this act as something other than the casualty of war that it truly is.
I see no army. I see fanatics with machine guns and explosives, but no army. An army is a state organisation, but I don't even see a state.
Israel can't have it both ways. Either they're fighting a war against a state (which they do not want to exist, at least in a form which can jeopardise Israeli security) or they are fighting terrorism, in which case the people who are in their territory come under their care and responsibility.
Dropping a one tonne bomb on civilians, in a civilain area, is the behaviour I'd expect of a terrorist group like Hamas, not the Israeli government.
quote:
Since 1918 (the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the beginning of British Mandate rule, and continuing on through the birth of the Israeli state in 1948, and forward), this has been part of an ongoing war termed The Arab-Israeli Conflict.
I believe the call for a Palestinian state is a sham. The true goal is the destruction of Israel.
As we discussed on a prior topic, the total annihilation of Israel is the stated goal of the PLO's founding charter ( which, as you say, was amended out of the charter in 1998, as a condition of continued negotiations with Israel foir Palestinian statehood. Although the PLO has been proven, with evidence obtained in the Israeli raids of Rammalah and Jenin, to have fully participated in orchestrating suicide bombings. See the April 8, 2002 issue of TIME Magazine, page 30, paragraph 2. On CBS news, It was reported when Sharon came to Washington D.C., he personally handed George W. Bush a 100-page file of documents showing Arafat and other PLO members personally authorized suicide bombings and purchase of bombing materials ).
And complete destruction of Israel remains the stated goal of Hammas as well.
Hammas I believe, even though they had finally called for restraint before this bombing. Palestinians generally I do not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Wrong. Some things are difficult to assess, its true, but some things are patently obvious.
(snip snip)
Instead of an unbiased assessment of right and wrong, here, instead, we have the pro-Israel lobby flexing its muscles.
thats a purdy naive statement, dave-o.
were the situation patently obvious, it would've been solved.
there's been fighting in that region since before there was a 'united states' -- i dont think it could be solved by a simple judge judy trial (and she's the boss, apple sauce!).
its simply rediculously complicated.
i'm not saying that we're currently (or have ever) made the right or most-benevolent moves in the situation. im sure there's always some form of political campaigning and all that other two-faced stuff.
but i am saying its not as simple as saying "the lakers won the nba championship game, they're the better team." its not cut and dry -- its cut and cut.
quote:
And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway
guh?! ![[eh?]](images/icons/confused.gif)
...
(and btw, david... when you quote someone else's post, you can go into their part and delete some of the words -- so you're not quoting their ENTIRE argument, just a section -- that'll greatly reduce the length of your replies).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
thats a purdy naive statement, dave-o.
I don't think so. I don't even think I'm being overly idealistic. My take on the situation is this: Israel's imperative is security, Palestine's is nationhood, and on top of that there are overlapping territorial claims.
These things are not irresolvable, and not mutually exclusive.
In negotiations, its a credo that if both sides walk away from a settlement of a dispute dis-satisfied, then there is a fair resolution. All dispautes have capable resolution - the resolve to bring a resolution is as equally important as the resolve to stand by your decision.
The parties in this dispute are used to negotiating from a position of brinksmanship. Brinksmanship would ordinarily lead to exhaustion. But because both sides (Israel from the US, the Pals from the Arab states) are supported financially, diplomatically and militarily by third parties, exhaustion hasn't occurred. Instead, the intervention of third parties provides greater resources to the dispute, as well as moral vindication ("we're right, and we must be because others support us").
My dad used to say, from a position of ignorance and racism, things like,"Put a wall around them and give them all guns, that'll solve the problem." In reality, this often works - Nigeria is a classic example, where an internal armed disputes with the ethic minority was cleanly resolved, after third parties stopped interfering, and without the violence and genocide forseen against the ethnic minority.
The alternative is that if you are going to interfere, interfere properly and responsibly. Lets use a wrestling analogy. Get in there and separate the parties, like a ref in the ring. don't stand by and claim to be the ref, but keep handing one wrestler a baseball bat.
This is what I mean by "right and wrong". I think both parties have equally valid concerns. I think both parties are trying to resolve their issues inappropriately, and they are egged on by irresponsible third parties.
were the situation patently obvious, it would've been solved.
[/qb][/quote]
This is what is patently obvious about it
there's been fighting in that region since before there was a 'united states'
[/qb][/quote]
Eh? You mean the Crusades? The Ottoman Empire had fighting in Central Asia. There was not a fear and loathing of a Jewish state until the Jewish state was created.
quote:
-- i dont think it could be solved by a simple judge judy trial (and she's the boss, apple sauce!).
its simply rediculously complicated.
I remember footage of Clinton coming out of Camp David, shaking his head and saying, "Its just so hard."
Judge Judy imposes a resolution. Mediation requires the parties ot find a resolution with the assistance of a third party.
quote:
i'm not saying that we're currently (or have ever) made the right or most-benevolent moves in the situation. im sure there's always some form of political campaigning and all that other two-faced stuff.
but i am saying its not as simple as saying "the lakers won the nba championship game, they're the better team." its not cut and dry -- its cut and cut.
quote:
And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway
guh?!
As in, the US increasingly prone to doing as it will, unilaterally, without paying heed to consensus. So if it decided to go and do a Judge Judy, it could.
PS I know I can edit but I'm lazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
....i dont know what the solution to this is but i know at one time not to long ago their was an apparent resolution brokeered by Clinton but Arafat backed out, so therefore I place the most weight on the Palestinian side to do something bold to stop the violence....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
but what about the fact that there needs to be a moderator (hey, i'm a moderator!) not just for the leaders... but for each person involved (i.e; every inidividual in the area)?
the civil war (essentially) mended the north and south of america -- that was 150 some years ago. lets see ya drive a caddy with NY plates through georgia.
sharon and arafat are both dicks. personally, i think arafat is the bigger ass hole of the two, but if there were a contest and sharon happened to win, i wouldnt be disappointed.
but even if clinton, your god of mediation, or w, jack's god of destruction, were able to jump in and, somehow, place a mighty bandaid on the situation...
there are still MUH-ILL-IONS of people that hate one another, for no reason other than they were raised to -- and most all of the horrible attacking occurances over the past few decades are directly related to everyday citizens, exactly like that.
THEY are the ones that are blowin up cars and cafes and kids.
yeah, i know, the leaders have "been busy" during the planning of these attacks, and they've "accidentally" missed hearing about them or whatever. .... however, y'cant hold the leaders responsible for all of the attacks -- i wouldnt even think most of them.
there is simply years and years and years of hatred in the area. and, again, i dont think any of our "four" options are gonna fix any of them.
...
so should we do a judge judy? is that the "less wrong" of the options? can we bring in the wrestling analogy? and, if so, can i be hulk hogan? palestine can be the iron sheik, israel can be... i dunno... I.R.S?
honestly... i think thats the best way to go. i dont think its the right way, but... i havent a clue on what the right way will be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
....i dont know what the solution to this is but i know at one time not to long ago their was an apparent resolution brokeered by Clinton but Arafat backed out, so therefore I place the most weight on the Palestinian side to do something bold to stop the violence....
That lost Arafat a lot of good will in the West. The reason was twofold:
1. part of the proposal included a gridwork of Israeli checkpoints throughout the Palestinian state, to ensure Israeli security. This was unacceptable to the Pals, because it mean they were still occupied;
2. Arafat is only in notional control of some of the Palestinians. The more extreme elements would not agree to the proposal. Lacking a consensus, and without the power to get one, Arafat walked out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
but what about the fact that there needs to be a moderator (hey, i'm a moderator!) not just for the leaders... but for each person involved (i.e; every inidividual in the area)?
Humans don't generally work like that. And if there were still rogues causing trouble, the Pals would be obliged to sort them out.
quote:
the civil war (essentially) mended the north and south of america -- that was 150 some years ago. lets see ya drive a caddy with NY plates through georgia.
Really? I didn't know that this tension still existed. its not as if Georgia was going to lead the South into independence though,is it?
I had thought the only serious US separatist movement was in Hawaii.
quote:
sharon and arafat are both dicks. personally, i think arafat is the bigger ass hole of the two, but if there were a contest and sharon happened to win, i wouldnt be disappointed.
Personally, I agree that they are both dicks, but we play with the cards we're dealt.
quote:
but even if clinton, your god of mediation, or w, jack's god of destruction, were able to jump in and, somehow, place a mighty bandaid on the situation...
there are still MUH-ILL-IONS of people that hate one another, for no reason other than they were raised to -- and most all of the horrible attacking occurances over the past few decades are directly related to everyday citizens, exactly like that.
THEY are the ones that are blowin up cars and cafes and kids.
yeah, i know, the leaders have "been busy" during the planning of these attacks, and they've "accidentally" missed hearing about them or whatever. .... however, y'cant hold the leaders responsible for all of the attacks -- i wouldnt even think most of them.
there is simply years and years and years of hatred in the area. and, again, i dont think any of our "four" options are gonna fix any of them.
...
so should we do a judge judy? is that the "less wrong" of the options? can we bring in the wrestling analogy? and, if so, can i be hulk hogan? palestine can be the iron sheik, israel can be... i dunno... I.R.S?
honestly... i think thats the best way to go. i dont think its the right way, but... i havent a clue on what the right way will be.
There was a lot of antagonism between Egypt and Israel, but they now have reasonable diplomatic relations.
Having said that, I personally think the peacekeeper route is the best way to go, because its the most expedient. I keep mentioning Cyprus. The strategy there is to keep the two sides apart until the dispute is enough of a memory that the distinction becomes meaningless. I don't know if that is realistic, but it saves lives, and quickly, and because the other option of not interfering isn't an option in US and EU policy. Stick some Norwegians, Turks, New Zealanders and Indians in between the Pals and the Israelis. Make the Gaza Strip West Palestine, and the West Bank East Palestine, as separate states.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I don't even think I'm being overly idealistic. My take on the situation is this: Israel's imperative is security, Palestine's is nationhood, and on top of that there are overlapping territorial claims.
These things are not irresolvable, and not mutually exclusive.
The Arab neighbors have made very clear in the last 50 years, four wars and relentless terrorism that their true goal is the annihilation of Israel, not peace with Israel in ANY form.
If this were not so, then Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and a large bloc of the Egyptian people, if not the Egyptian government, would not all be actively funding, or otherwise endorsing/enabling terrorism against Israel.
As I said prior, Palestine's statehood is just a stepping stone, on the path toward further terrorism toward Israel, and Israel's eventual destruction. I've yet to see any evidence of goodwill by the PLO or any surrounding Arab nations, beyond lip service to peace.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
<strong>
This is what is patently obvious about it
there's been fighting in that region since before there was a 'United States'.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Eh? You mean the Crusades? The Ottoman Empire had fighting in Central Asia. There was not a fear and loathing of a Jewish state until the Jewish state was created
I think that's rather the point, counter to the point you were making, T-Dave:
The Arabs are extremely hostile to the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
As in, the US is increasingly prone to doing as it will, unilaterally, without paying heed to consensus. So if it decided to go and do a Judge Judy, it could.
On the Bill Moyers program I mentioned earlier, there was a panel of scholars, many who favored the Arab and European perspective of Israel (i.e., pro-Palestinian ), and repeatedly condemned U.S. support of Israel, and other U.S. foreign policy as "simplistic".
To which Charles Krauthhammer finally responded that U.S. "simplicity" had bailed out European sophistication three times in the last century (referring to U.S. action in WW I, WW II and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc between 1989-1991.
I'd also add the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which was the equivalent of neutralizing Hitler in 1938, before Hitler became a threat).
The point being, any number of times, American unilateralism has occurred in similar circumstances, when the rest of the world refuses to act.
We've seen how effective U.S. cooperation with U.N. policy and world opinion has worked in bringing down Saddam Hussein's government in the last 12 years.
(As in completely INeffective.)
And even with the U.S. complying with U.N. resolutions in Iraq, which provides enough of an economy for Saddam Hussein to more than provide for his people, the U.S. is blamed by the Arab world and liberals worldwide for the suffering of the Iraqis.
So if we comply with world opinion we're vilified, and if we invade Iraq and try to put an end to Hussein's tyranny, then we're arrogantly acting unilaterally, and imperialists and so forth.
Same thing in Afghanistan.
Same thing in Bosnia.
Same thing in Somalia.
Same thing in Haiti.
Same thing in Kosovo.
And other places, I forget.
[ 07-27-2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Dave the Wonder Boy ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I don't even think I'm being overly idealistic. My take on the situation is this: Israel's imperative is security, Palestine's is nationhood, and on top of that there are overlapping territorial claims.
These things are not irresolvable, and not mutually exclusive.
The Arab neighbors have made very clear in the last 50 years, four wars and relentless terrorism that their true goal is the annihilation of Israel, not peace with Israel in ANY form.
If this were not so, then Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and a large bloc of the Egyptian people, if not the Egyptian government, would not all be actively funding, or otherwise endorsing/enabling terrorism against Israel.
How does the recent Arab League proposal sponsored by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia fit into that theory?
You acknowledge that the Egyptian (and the Jordanian and Turkish governments) have very normal relations with Israel. How does this fit into your theory?
quote:
As I said prior, Palestine's statehood is just a stepping stone, on the path toward further terrorism toward Israel, and Israel's eventual destruction. I've yet to see any evidence of goodwill by the PLO or any surrounding Arab nations, beyond lip service to peace.
Do you honestly mean to say, then that you do not think there should be a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
This is what is patently obvious about it
there's been fighting in that region since before there was a 'United States'.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Eh? You mean the Crusades? The Ottoman Empire had fighting in Central Asia. There was not a fear and loathing of a Jewish state until the Jewish state was created.
I think that's rather the point, counter to the point you were making, T-Dave:
The Arabs are extremely hostile to the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
As in, the US is increasingly prone to doing as it will, unilaterally, without paying heed to consensus. So if it decided to go and do a Judge Judy, it could.
On the Bill Moyers program I mentioned earlier, there was a panel of scholars, many who favored the Arab and European perspective of Israel (i.e., pro-Palestinian ), and repeatedly condemned U.S. support of Israel, and other U.S. foreign policy as "simplistic", to which Charles Krauthhammer finally responded that U.S. "simplicity" had bailed out European sophistication three times in the last century (referring to U.S. action in WW I, WW II and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc between 1989-1991.
A glib, ludicrous answer from Krauthammer. US simplicity consisted of incredible reluctance to be involved in opposing tyranny until well after the event had started. It consisted of the long standing school of thoguht that it should not be part of Europe's wars, and that the rest of the world should be left to its own problems.
The fact that the US had the resoucres to stem of swing the tide is something else entirely from its policies.
I'm gratified that there is now a proclativity towards international proactive conduct. Heads out of the sand, and a realisation that the globe is smaller. Sept 11th should have taught Americans that, if nothing else.
quote:
I'd also add the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which was the equivalent of neutralizing Hitler in 1938, before Hitler became a threat).
The point being, any number of times, American unilateralism has occurred in similar circumstances, when the rest of the world refuses to act.
The Gulf War was a coalition war. I don;t see your point on that.
quote:
We've seen how effective U.S. cooperation with U.N. policy and world opinion has worked in bringing down Saddam Hussein's government in the last 12 years.
(As in completely INeffective.)
Hang on a minute. Since when it is in the UN charter to bring down governments?
There is a pervasive school of thought in the US that the UN is something which it is not - the tool of the West. It is not, and was never meant to be so. It is a forum for diplomacy, not somehting the US (or anyone else) can count on to do its bidding.
quote:
And even with the U.S. complying with U.N. resolutions in Iraq, which provides enough of an economy for Saddam Hussein to more than provide for his people, the U.S. is blamed by the Arab world and liberals worldwide for the suffering of the Iraqis.
The suffering of the Iraqis is due to the whims of Saddam in refusing to allow weapons inspectors in. Sanctions were the only leverage available againt Iraq.
I agree with you though if you're saying that Arabs have an unhappy history of externalising blame.
quote:
So if we comply with world opinion we're vilified, and if we invade Iraq and try to put an end to Hussein's tyranny, then we're arrogantly acting unilaterally, and imperialists and so forth.
You're now drifting in your argument away from something which I think you were weak on, towards invading Iraq (which I agree with).
quote:
Same thing in Afghanistan.
Huh? World opinion is with the US on this. the complaints I have heard have been about the number of civilian casualties. Overall, there is recognition that the US is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties by using expensive smart weaponry (it'd be cheaper to use dumb bombs, but higher in civilian deaths). The current complaint it that the US is not willing to help Afghanistan in nation building, unwilling to match the contributions of Japan and the EU.
quote:
Same thing in Bosnia.
Same here. Which newspapers were you reading?
quote:
Same thing in Somalia.
US opinion was to get out when soldiers were killed. World opinion favoured the military and humanitarian intervention.
quote:
Same thing in Haiti.
How was world opinion against intervention in Haiti? My recollection was that the only complaint was, again, the half-heart job. Lack of committment to getting a job done is a valid cause for complaint.
quote:
Same thing in Kosovo.
And other places, I forget.
And again, wrong. How on earth was world opinion against US inetervention in Kosovo? I remember headlines screaming for a land assult, and the US being criticised for relying upon aircraft.
Something tells me that your version of world opinion, shaped by your media which in turn provides your public with the news it wants to hear - that the US is an unappreciated martyr for its efforts - is quite different from the media I hear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
I see no army. I see fanatics with machine guns and explosives, but no army. An army is a state organisation, but I don't even see a state.
Israel can't have it both ways. Either they're fighting a war against a state (which they do not want to exist, at least in a form which can jeopardise Israeli security) or they are fighting terrorism, in which case the people who are in their territory come under their care and responsibility.
Dropping a one tonne bomb on civilians, in a civilain area, is the behaviour I'd expect of a terrorist group like Hamas, not the Israeli government.
Dave, this is what I'd like to see you answer.
The Israeli government are behaving as despicably as the people they describe as terrorists.
I saw footage of the apartment block on BBC World this morniing. It was a heavily populated area, and there can be no doubt that an F-18 dropping a one tonne bomb on such an area would result in extreme civilian casualties.
Can the Israeli government really say that it did not calculate that deaths of innocents would result? Either they are stupid, which I do not believe, or they were cold-blooded and did not care.
Nine children were sleeping in their beds, and are now dead because Sharon authorised this inhumane assassination attempt.
The only distinction between the terrorist group Hamas (whose actions in killing civilians, you'll note, I have not condoned) and the Israeli government is that the Israelis have US weapons.
Indiscriminately killing children is terrorism. If Hamas had done it, you'd be condemning it. Because Israel has done it, you're excusing it.
A spokeswoman for Peace Now, an Israeli peace movement, said the attacks must have been designed to de-rail the peace program, and that the signs that Hamas were willing to suspend suicide bombers have now been obliterated.
I suspect that the Israeli government follows your reasoning to a great degree, Dave. Preoccupied by a paranoid siege mentality, driven by the ghosts of the past, they are incapable of accepting that a peace is possible: they proactively turn on signs that a peace is possible and scuttle those plans, and seek to rebuff the publicly delivered peace proposal delivered by the Saudis (and thereby humiliate them into not doing it again).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
quote:
The alternative is that if you are going to interfere, interfere properly and responsibly. Lets use a wrestling analogy. Get in there and separate the parties, like a ref in the ring. don't stand by and claim to be the ref, but keep handing one wrestler a baseball bat.
I'm a little embarassed that I never thought of this analogy myself. :)
I understand your confusion over my apparent dichotomy, Rob. All I can say is that I consider myself a patriot, and not a casual one, either. I'm very into the Founding Fathers (especially Jefferson), and very much a believer in the principles of democracy and freedom.
But one of the Fathers -- I think it was Franklin -- once said something along the lines of, "The ones you have to watch out for are the ones who raise their flags the highest." At the moment -- ever since the fifties, really -- our culture has equated patriotism with conservatism.
But our country was not created by conservatives. Our country was created by lunatics, warlords, black magicians, radicals and madmen. They risked and often gave their lives for the very principles that guys like the Shrub are now trying to undermine.
Kites in lightning storms. That's America, man. Politicians whose first answer to every problem is to consolidate more personal power? That's a dictatorship waiting to happen. And it will happen, and it is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
Did you actually read my post?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38 |
Wow, Dave, you gave me so many points to answer that it's difficult to catch up and respond to them !
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
The Arab neighbors have made very clear in the last 50 years, four wars and relentless terrorism that their true goal is the annihilation of Israel, not peace with Israel in ANY form.
If this were not so, then Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and a large bloc of the Egyptian people, if not the Egyptian government, would not all be actively funding, or otherwise endorsing/enabling terrorism against Israel.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
How does the recent Arab League proposal sponsored by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia fit into that theory?
You acknowledge that the Egyptian (and the Jordanian and Turkish governments) have very normal relations with Israel. How does this fit into your theory?
I think what the Saudi government offers is crap. I've forgotten everything the king offered, but they were basically promises of diplomatic recognition for Israel's statehood and other diplomatic pleasantries, but nothing that guaranteed Israel's security. It seemed to me it was an offer of a little, in expectation of huge concessions from Israel, and the Saudis knew damned well that Israel would politely tell them to go jump in the lake with it.
And it was a doubly false offer of peace, because right about the time the Saudis offered this, they had their telethon for suicide bomber families, which to me is the same as endorsing Palestinian terrorism. And of course, Islamic leaders were offering the usual holy war on Israeli pigs and infidels rhetoric during the telethon.
If Saudis wanted peace with Israel, and disapproved of Muslim terrorism in general, they would take a much harder line against such rhetoric within their own country. Saudi Arabia is the center of the rhetoric that is breeding fundamentalist/terrorist splinter groups throughout the Muslim world, terrorism that is also spreading outside the Muslim world, in places such as the Phillipines, Chechnya, and the World Trade Center.
The U.S. needs Saudi intelligence and cooperation, but the Saudis simultaneously do a lot to undermine the war on terror with Saudi inaction and implicit support of such hardline fundamentalist/extremist rhetoric. If they were truly allies and wanted an end to Palestinian extremism, and other Muslim extremism that makes the war on terrorism necessary, then they would be arresting these Muslim leaders, or at the very least criticising these Muslim leaders. They are an enemy of the U.S. clothed as a friend, and our government knows it, but cooperates for the vital minimal support the Saudis give us.
And I think that Egypt as well would jump ship and turn on Israel and the U.S. as well, if it was not sure it would lose another war. Certainly, the Egyptian people hate the U.S. and Israel, and have expressed their desire to wage war on the side of the Palestinians, as the Bill Moyers report I mentioned points out.
As well as an article I posted to another of these Israel/Palestine topics, about how 30-50% of the population in Muslim countries are boycotting American goods.
Only the certainty that they would lose prevents Israel's Arab neighbors from engaging in another war. And particularly in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, if they lost their military arsenals in another war with Israel, they would likely be weak enough to be overthrown in popular uprisings, and be replaced with radical Islamic governments.
It's out of self-preservation, not lack of hatred for Israel, that Arab nations are cooperating to some degree, but never discouraging Palestinian terrorism. More to the point, negotiating peace until a time when they're able to destroy Israel.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
As I said prior, Palestine's statehood is just a stepping stone, on the path toward further terrorism toward Israel, and Israel's eventual destruction. I've yet to see any evidence of goodwill by the PLO or any surrounding Arab nations, beyond lip service to peace.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Do you honestly mean to say, then that you do not think there should be a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank?
There's an implicit condescending tone in the way you ask the question, but hell yes that's what I'm saying.
If giving Palestine its freedom opens up Israel to further terrorism, wars and destruction by the vulnerability it creates, then I would say absolutely NOT to an independent Palestine. Which I think is the case here.
It just buys Israel a few months or years, while Arabs consolidate for a devastating war on Israel.
(As I said: when that territory was previously under Arab control until 1967, it was very coincidentally used for multiple wars on Israel, and again, very coincidentally, Jordan opted out of participation in the 1973 war on Israel, after that territory was seized from Jordan. I'd say the loss of land in the 1967 war, and the mountainous buffer it created, discouraged Jordan from further aggression. Take away the West Bank secured zone, and war with Israel is much more likely. )
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I think that's rather the point, counter to the point you were making, T-Dave:
The Arabs are extremely hostile to the existence of Israel, in any shape or form.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
As in, the US is increasingly prone to doing as it will, unilaterally, without paying heed to consensus. So if it decided to go and do a Judge Judy, it could.
On the Bill Moyers program I mentioned earlier, there was a panel of scholars, many who favored the Arab and European perspective of Israel (i.e., pro-Palestinian ), and repeatedly condemned U.S. support of Israel, and other U.S. foreign policy as "simplistic", to which Charles Krauthhammer finally responded that U.S. "simplicity" had bailed out European sophistication three times in the last century (referring to U.S. action in WW I, WW II and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc between 1989-1991.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
A glib, ludicrous answer from Krauthammer. US simplicity consisted of incredible reluctance to be involved in opposing tyranny until well after the event had started. It consisted of the long standing school of thought that it should not be part of Europe's wars, and that the rest of the world should be left to its own problems.
The fact that the US had the resources to stem or swing the tide is something else entirely from its policies.
To some extent I agree that it was a rather sweeping statement. But for me to explain the subtleties, of where the line is drawn, is far more time than Krauthhammer had in the alloted time given him.
The U.S. was isolationist up until 1941, that's true.
In 1914, the U.S. had citizens from all the major players in WW I, and was reluctant to take sides. It was less clear who the good guys and bad guys were in that war.
The U.S. only became involved when repeated ships carrying American civilians were sunk by German submarines, and Germany's revealed aggression toward the U.S. in a secret pact with Mexico, for Mexico to invade the U.S., that finally pushed the U.S. to enter the war in 1917.
But even before, we were still aiding the British with military supplies in WW I (which was partly the reason the Germans were sinking ships with Americans aboard, they may have been used for military supplies as well as passengers).
And even before WW I was over, it was President Woodrow Wilson who proposed a 14 Point Plan for peace, and a League of Nations to diplomatically resolve disputes, that was rejected and abandoned by other imperial powers.
Of the 14 Points, the "right of self determination" proposed by Wilson, for people who consider themselves of a particular nationality that was not part of the empire they were ruled by, resulted in new nations of Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary and Yugoslavia, and in this alone vastly changed the landscape and freedom of Europe.
So even in 1918, the U.S. did its best to establish peace and stability in Europe, despite its population's desire for isolationism.
It was the insistence of Britain and France that Germany be held liable for the entire debt of WW I and pay huge war reparations, and dividing East Prussia from the rest of Germany, and France's seizure of the German Rhineland industrial region, deliberately humiliating Germany and causing hyperinflation and near starvation in Germany, that inevitably bred the anger in Germany that led to Hitler's rise, and a second World War.
And again, even in the early years of World War II, before the U.S. officially entered the war in December 1941, the U.S. was again suppying Britain with war materials and otherwise assisting the British Navy by reporting location of German ships (and often firing on them), and the Lend-Lease Act, which allowed huge military supplies on credit to Britain and the Soviet Union. So as much as Franklin D. Roosevelt could participate in the war without being thrown out of office by an isolationist uprising, the U.S. participated in doing what it knew was necessary.
So if you want to nitpick about details, you could say that what Krauthhammer said is incorrect because of U.S. entry into WW I and WW II after both parties began.
But as I've just said, the U.S. government did pretty much everything it could to pursue both war and lasting peace, even before it entered both wars, despite widespread isolationist opinion of U.S. voters.
The U.S. didn't just have the resources to "stem or swing the tide", it USED them. At first a bit clandestinely, to circumvent popular opinion.
I think by the end of WW I, most of those in government saw the necessity of U.S. diplomatic involvement in Europe. By 1939-1941, the necessity of this became apparent to the American people as well.
It really wasn't until about 1900 that the U.S. really had the military and naval might to intervene in Europe anyway.
U.S. policy evolved as its ability and necessity were made manifest.
As compared to Europe's treatment of Germany that led to the war. After being so hard on Germany in total disarmament and war reparations and other induced hardship, Britain and France surprisingly did nothing to stop acts of increasing German aggression:
allowing German re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936, doing nothing to stop Germany's annexation of Austria in 1938, Britain and France's contracting Czechoslavokia's sovereignty over in late 1938 to Germany (without even consulting the Czech government), and allowing Germany's participation in in the Spanish Civil war in 1939, bombing Spanish civilians (which was essentially a dress rehearsal for the invasion of Poland later that year).
Unlike Britain and France, the U.S. did act before the German Blitzkrieg was at its doorstep, as much as they were able to, with a U.S. population resistant to European intervention.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
U.S. simplicity consisted of incredible reluctance to be involved in opposing tyranny until well after the event had started
While Europe in the 1930's was seeing all sides and attempting to negotiate a deal with Hitler that would appease him, the U.S. came into both wars committed to end the conflict and create a lasting workable peace.
I find your statement a bit unfair, when you review Britain and France's record for the same period.
I think the U.S.'s lack of reluctance was far less than that of Britain and France in both wars, even before we were officially involved.
And that same lack of reluctance to put out flames before they become forest fires is what we're vilified for in various actions over the last 50 years.
Once again, damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I'm gratified that there is now a proclitivity towards international proactive conduct. Heads out of the sand, and a realisation that the globe is smaller. Sept 11th should have taught Americans that, if nothing else
I'm not sure what your point is here, Dave.
The U.S. is vilified for action in virtually all the countries it has done police actions over the last 5 decades.
If the U.S. "has its head in the sand", then what are we to assume about Britain, France and other nations with militaries large enough to do police actions, that do nothing before the U.S., and then criticize the U.S. for the action that IT takes.
Actually the British government seems to be the one exception to this (but definitely not the British press !)
Oddly, Britain is the best friend the U.S. has in the world, but you wouldn't know it from what so many British citizens have said on this and other message boards.
Why do so many British citizens feel hostility toward U.S. policy?
Dave, you seem to on one hand acknowledge the wisdom of various U.S. interventions, and then damn the U.S. for specifics of its operations.
Even as a patriotic American, I recognize that the U.S., even as a superpower, has limited resources, and that Afghanistan is not the last stop on the Anti-Terrorism tour, when the head of the beast is in Iraq and Iran, that we can't exhaust our resources to occupy one Muslim country the size of Texas.
And if we enter a larger force in Afghanistan, the Muslim world will just spin it as aggression/permanent occupation/further imperialism/imposing Western values and culture on a Muslim country, or whatever.
Even if we're building schools and businesses and handing out food.
I really believe that with so many terrorists just across the border in Pakistan or hidden among the Afghan population, a heavy American presence would be like Vietnam, with Americans out daily on the equivalent of "search and destroy" missions, waiting to get shot at by an unseen enemy.
Or what happened to the Russians in the 1981-1989 Russia/Afghan War (which Russians have called their own Vietnam).
For all the liberal press whining, the U.S. military knows what it's doing.
Hindsight is perfect, the U.S. has made many mistakes.
But it infuriates me that my country has tried to do something good in Afghanistan, and this, like so many things about the U.S., are spun into something negative.
The U.S. has more than enough problems to legitimately criticize (prevalence of drugs, teenage pregnancy, unnecessary cynicism that is corroding a new generation's outlook of its future, in a place where we should be grateful for what we have and the rare opportunities here, the near collapse of our healthcare system, the widening gap between rich and poor, the stranglehold of campaign contributions and lobbies that motivate government laws toward Big Money interests over those of the American people, Enron/Worldcom and the accompanying corporate investment crisis, etc.)
Even if the U.S. is making some mistakes in the Afghan situation, at least acknowledge some respect for the good that is being done as well.
None of us are on the battlefield, we're all making judgements from what we've seen or read from news sources, that ALL have a particular view of their own that enters their portrayal of the news.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
Did you actually read my post?
why bother?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
I'll get into the specifics of what you've said in a little while, but you make an interesting point about "spin" and criticism by allies. I have always thought it interesting that while Americans encourage internal debate and criticism domestically through the country's various institutions, they can be very sensitive to stepping on the toes of allies. Or rather, go ahead and step on the toes of allies, and wonder why they receive complaints. Within the EU there is often no consensus on a variety of issues, and yet these things are worked out through compromise. By contrast, because of the lack of a formal partnership outside of the defence umbrella of NATO, the US seems to see little need to consult with its allies prior to doing many things which might upset them. Kyoto, the ICC, and the two recent decisions ot divert money away from UN Family and Population Fund and the convention against torture are all thngs which the US unilaterally and without much if any warning has done thing which if any other country did it would seem to be calculated to annoy and aggravate its partners. Winston Churchill said, "You can always count on the United States to do the right thing - once it has exhausted all the alternatives." I think that this statement reveals a deep understanding of the American internationalist psyche post WW2. The other things is that I think, as I have stated before, you have developed a jaundiced view of foreign concerns over US actions from your press. In the UK at the moment and for quite a while there has been a press-led revolt against joining the Euro, as an undermining of UK sovereignty. I'm not exposed to the US press at all, so I don't know where you're sourcing your information, but America-bashing is not as common as you seem to think. Several times time you ahve complained of criticism of US policies in respect of several things, and quite honesty I don't know what you're talking about. Two more quick things: 1. you still haven't addressed my issue of how the Israeli government is no better than Hamas, in its bombing of Gaza. The 27 July issue of the Economist talks more about how the bombing looks suspiciously planned to ruin peace talks. It points out that there had been only one suicide bombing this month prior to the attack: that the al-Aqsa brigades (the Fatah movement's militia) had declared a moratorium on suicide bombings: and how even Hamas said that it would stop killings of Israeli civilians if, amongst other things, the siege of Palestinian cities stopped. And then - whammo, a one tonne bomb on a residential area in the middle of the night, and suprise surpirse, Hamas are now saying that the streets will be filled with corpses. 2. your statement that there should be no Palestinian nation stomps over the right of self-determination of all people. I find this a unique statement from an American citizen, given your country's admirable respect for the right of people to determine their own lives and their own destiny. Even Sharon concedes that the Palestinians should have their own state (he would like it broken up into little pieces, but at least he thinks there should be a state). So, your position is to the right of Sharon's, and I have to say I'm troubled as to how to deal with that. My tone wasn't meant to be consdescending - it was simple disbelief. quote:
There's an implicit condescending tone in the way you ask the question, but hell yes that's what I'm saying.
If giving Palestine its freedom opens up Israel to further terrorism, wars and destruction by the vulnerability it creates, then I would say absolutely NOT to an independent Palestine. Which I think is the case here.
I am an optimist - I think things have changed since the Arab wars of the sixties and early seventies, and that you overlook the silent majority of moderate Arabs who want to get on with their lives. It reminds me of the Australian concern over the "yellow peril" in the 1950s (and even today, to a limited extent) - that there are vast hordes of Asians who want to invade Australia and send the white Australians home.
Of course, Israel has historical proof of Arab animosity, because of those wars. But it is history - its common knowledge that Israel military preparedness for an Arab invasion is not good - the Arabs and the Israelis know this, and yet there is no invasion. Egypt might have a large section of its population who view Israel with susupicion and hatred - and who can blame them when they see their fellow Arabs blown up with missiles and their cities occupied. But Egypt has no desire to antagonise Israel - it would rather see peace in the region, as would most of the countries there.
You complain that Arab governments do nothing to curb their citizens from anti-Israeli rhetoric - which again sounds funny from an American, with the high value your country places on freedom of speech.
Your statement
quote:
It just buys Israel a few months or years, while Arabs consolidate for a devastating war on Israel
offers no hope for a resolution of the conflict whatsoever. While there is no resolution and no hope for Palestinians, you can expect more suicide bombings, more deaths, and no peace in Israel. The Israeli people, as well as the Palestinians, deserve more than what you envisage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
So what you guys are saying is that you didn't bother to read my post, you just object to it instinctively?
Aw, heck. Why be offended? If I were you guys, I'd be DECLARING VICTORY! over something. I'm never sure what you guys think you've won, or how you think you won it, since absolutely anything qualifies as grounds for victory. You guys are like Shwarzkopf insisting that his Patriot missiles really do kick ass, honest, wouldn't lie, nosireebob.
Seriously. A dog could trot over to you, piss on your shoes, and you would shout, "I win!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
So what you guys are saying is that you didn't bother to read my post, you just object to it instinctively?
Aw, heck. Why be offended? If I were you guys, I'd be DECLARING VICTORY! over something. I'm never sure what you guys think you've won, or how you think you won it, since absolutely anything qualifies as grounds for victory. You guys are like Shwarzkopf insisting that his Patriot missiles really do kick ass, honest, wouldn't lie, nosireebob.
Seriously. A dog could trot over to you, piss on your shoes, and you would shout, "I win!"
Jack, this is an example of the pot giving the chef a spoon to stir.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
So what you guys are saying is that you didn't bother to read my post, you just object to it instinctively?
Aw, heck. Why be offended? If I were you guys, I'd be DECLARING VICTORY! over something. I'm never sure what you guys think you've won, or how you think you won it, since absolutely anything qualifies as grounds for victory. You guys are like Shwarzkopf insisting that his Patriot missiles really do kick ass, honest, wouldn't lie, nosireebob.
Seriously. A dog could trot over to you, piss on your shoes, and you would shout, "I win!"
I WIN AGAIN!!!!!
....to easy jack, its like fishing in an aquarium......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Jack, this is an example of the pot giving the chef a spoon to stir.
....dont ruin it for him!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221
200+ posts
|
|
200+ posts
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 221 |
Fine, let the guy stand there with piss on his shoes. No skin off my nose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
just another car tipped over.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
or stab yourself in the hand.........
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
The Economist reported this week that the PLO had agreed to unconditionally stop suicide bombings, and the document announcing this was due to be released the same day that Israel dropped its bomb on the residential area. Israel had been goven a draft, which had been prpared in co-ordination with the Europeans. This was in addition to Hamas's offer to stop suicide bombings, on certain (difficult) conditions.
Two things come out of this:
1. Sharon's hardline policy almost got results. This surprises me, but it seems to have worked.
2. Despite this, either there was a terrible blunder in dropping that bomb, or Sharon did it calculating that it would spoil prospects for peace.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38 |
If Hamas and the PLO really wanted peace, they would have continued to pursue peace regardless of a single incident. At least in the case of the bomb that Israel dropped on an apartment building, it was to eliminate a leader of Hamas, who has orchestrated hundreds of suicide bombings and attacks on Israel was planning more. By killing this one man, who was planning more terrorist attacks, Israel has disrupted and stalled further terrorism. In contrast, how many Palestinian terror attacks have been on innocent civilians, with no pretense of an objective, beyond spilling as much Israeli blood as possible? They are truly pointless deaths. Palestinian terror from then until now, and planned to be ongoing, has already killed TWICE as many as were killed in Israel's July 22nd bombing. If Hamas really wanted peace, they wouldn't have used this incident as an excuse to launch an all-out terrorist assault on Israel, to the point that Israel had to pretty much shut down Palestinian travel in Israel this weekend, due to an onslaught of terrorist incidents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44757-2002Aug5?language=printerTo me it just further proves Arafat and the PLO's untrustworthiness as a peace partner, and how quickly an independent Palestine would be used to wage maximum damage on Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
It really is amazing just how different we perceive things on this issue, isn't it Dave?
I'm grateful for your take on this. It demonstrates how wide a gap there is between the US position and that of the Europeans (which I self-evidentally share).
No wonder peace in this region is currently so remote a prospect, since everyone thinks they are right and the other side is wrong.
On what you said - the one "incident" as you describe it came at a time when peace was within sight. It was a deal-wrecker, when Israel knew there was a deal on the table. Irrespective of whether Israel was justified in killing the military head of Hamas (as a quick aside, I think they were, although not in the circumstances in which they did it), it seems calculated to spoil things. Which it did. It is politically impossible for the split factions which the PLO barely manages to represent to talk peace after Israel indiscriminately bombs 9 children dead, just as it would be if Hamas or Islamic Jihad did the same thing in reverse. Israel could not be expected to talk peace if 9 Israeli kids were murdered. Not acknowledging that is not acknowledging the political reality of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
No wonder peace in this region is currently so remote a prospect, since everyone thinks they are right and the other side is wrong.
y'know...
if you guys werent so damn interested in all them big, fancy woids, and things like "sentences" or "capital letters" or "points"...
y'woulda realized i said that a dozen or so times already.
me am pretty smart, y'know.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
Yeah yeah, but we're debating the detail of it. One thing I have to point out is that despite invitation at least two times, Dave has been unable to answer this: quote:
you still haven't addressed my issue of how the Israeli government is no better than Hamas, in its bombing of Gaza.
other than to say this:
quote:
If Hamas and the PLO really wanted peace, they would have continued to pursue peace regardless of a single incident.
At least in the case of the bomb that Israel dropped on an apartment building, it was to eliminate a leader of Hamas, who has orchestrated hundreds of suicide bombings and attacks on Israel was planning more. By killing this one man, who was planning more terrorist attacks, Israel has disrupted and stalled further terrorism.
In contrast, how many Palestinian terror attacks have been on innocent civilians, with no pretense of an objective, beyond spilling as much Israeli blood as possible? They are truly pointless deaths.
Palestinian terror from then until now, and planned to be ongoing, has already killed TWICE as many as were killed in Israel's July 22nd bombing.
which really doesn't explain how Israel is on higher moral ground than Hamas.
Sure, we concede that Hamas is a terrorist organsation which kills civilians in order to achieve its aims. But now, so is the Israeli government.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38 |
I just read this on AOL News: ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif) ____________________________
AOL: AOL News: Report -- Reagan Aided Iraq Despite Chemical Weapons
NEW YORK (Aug. 18, 2002) -- The United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Ronald Reagan even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons, The New York Times reported on its Web site on Saturday.
The highly classified covert program involved more than 60 officers of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency who provided detailed information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq, the Times said.
The Times said it based its report on comments by senior U.S. military officers with direct knowledge of the program, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity.
Iraq and neighboring Iran waged a vicious and costly war from September 1980 to August 1988, with estimates of 1 million people killed and millions more left as refugees.
U.S. intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned the use of chemical weapons by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's forces, but also never opposed such action because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival and feared that Iran would overrun the crucial oil-producing Gulf states, the Times reported.
It has been known for some time that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq during the war in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed. But the complete scope of the program had not been known until now, the Times said.
The Times noted that Iraq's deployment of chemical weapons during its war with Iran has been invoked by President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, as justification for seeking "regime change" in Iraq.
'A CATASTROPHIC EFFECT'
"Having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran, the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy," the Times quoted an unidentified former Defense Intelligence Agency official as saying.
While senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's use of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other chemical weapons, Reagan, Vice President George Bush -- the father of the current U.S. president -- and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the covert program, the Times quoted military officers as saying.
Current Secretary of State Colin Powell, who at the time served as national security adviser, was among the Reagan administration officials who publicly condemned Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially one incident in March 1988.
The Times said that in early 1988, after the Iraqis, with U.S. planning assistance, retook a key peninsula in an attack that restored Iraqi access to the Gulf, defense intelligence officer Lt. Col. Rick Francona was dispatched to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers.
Francona found that Iraq had used chemical weapons to secure its victory, observing zones marked off for chemical contamination and seeing unmistakable evidence that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to guard against the effects of poison gas used against the Iranians, the Times said.
Powell, through a spokesman, called the Times account of the program "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it, the newspaper said. Both the Defense Intelligence Agency and retired Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, who supervised the program as the head of the agency, refused to comment, the Times said._________________________________ This bothers me, because all they had to say was "If you use chemical or bio-weapons, we'll cut off all aid to Iraq." Or just voice some milder objection to using chemical weapons. The U.S. military could have offered U.S. air support or some other military option as an alternative to chemical weapons. Or simply warned Iran that if they advanced, chemical weapons would be used, thus deterring the Iranians from advancing. Maybe it WAS the only way to stop Iran from overrunning Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but I'm still uncomfortable that the U.S. was complicit in the use of chemical weapons we are now criticizing. I have no doubt the hypocrisy of U.S. advance knowledge, and field intelligence given for Iraq to use these chemical weapons, is loudly condemned in the Arab world. It does rather undermine our moral high ground. It can be argued it was the only way to stop Iran at the time, but I can't help believing we had other options, and let it happen anyway. Perhaps as payback for the 1979-1981 Tehran embassy hostage crisis. [ 08-19-2002, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Dave the Wonder Boy ]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,346 Likes: 38 |
Dave, sorry for not responding earlier, I haven't been over to these boards for a while.
I needed to get away from serious issues for a bit, and went on the DC boards to discuss such vital issues as the lesbian escapades on Paradise Island, and porn-star pseudonyms for Superman. And other mindless diversions.
I'll try to give you an answer to your Israel questions in the next few days.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 14 |
Not a problem.
Thanks for the article: I am posting it at SPIT for comment (given I think I am in the embryonic stages of pro-Iranian support).
|
|
|
|
|
