Winds of War in the Middle East

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Sigh!! I will try and clarify my sarcastic comment. 2 countries and 2 terrorist groups were lumped together in one post, and the opinion that was in the other post made no distinction, hence my comment.

---

The fact that these countries fund and arm Hizbullah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad (and I can also assume some Al-Qaeda cells are funded by Iran as well) is bad enough to include them in the axis of evil.

I make no distinction between those who carry the order (hence Hizbullah) and those who give the orders (hence Syria and Iran). In fact, the people giving the orders are usually the worse.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Savaric
Not sure what Kestra was saying, but in my darkest moments I do say wipe out the palestinians. But more feasibly just push those assholes into Syria or some other shithole they belong in (but no one wants the Palestinians- it's my understanding even the Arab community doesn't receive them well).

---

That is quite connect. Back in the 70's, Hussein, the king of Jordan, has kicked out 50,000 Palestinians from the country (which is called "The Dark September") to Syria, and Assad the father transferred them to Lebanon, which was not strong enough to kick them anywhere, so we received Fatah, Hizbullah and El-Amal (another Palestinian terror organization in southern Lebanon).

As for Egypt - in the peace agreements between Israel and Egypt (1978) we returned Sinai to them as part of the Egyptians and offered them the Gaza strip (PM Begin understood what the strip is becoming to be) as well, but obviously, they didn't want it. They too understood what it means to control so many Palestinians (and even worse - have those Palestinians living in your contry as everyday citizens).

Quote:

---

Let me give an example. Let's say there is this group of five who are enemies of your country and people. Let's say they reside in a civilian area. At which level it is moral to attack them with missile?

---

With all due respect Edja, this hypothetical question is pointless as you are probably willing to argue any answer except "I would never approve of such a missile strike", and I notice you did not give that option in your multiple choice answers.

As someone who is in the military and has been overseas, I will tell you that I would not disagree in the slightest with the leveling of an entire neighborhood regardless of the number of people, old or young or sick or crippled who lived there, provided that it was a legitimate military objective and would provide an increase in the chance for survival of the troops already in or entering that area. I say this even knowing that the ways in which you can define 'legitimate military objective' are a largely gray area. You are completely justified in calling me cold-hearted for this, and sometimes I wonder about it myself. So, there is the answer to your question.

The problem with war is that people who shouldn't get killed get killed. I do not mean that we should embrace it, but it is impossible for you to recognize this:

Quote:

---

One thing I don't understand is how easily people shrug their shoulders and accept collateral damage.

---

and then turn around and say this:

Quote:

---

I know in war civilian death is unavoidable but...

---

because you are simply arguing yourself in circles. We know you are outraged at unnecessary human death and suffering, and it is unfortunate that it has and will continue to happen. As soon as a bomb is invented that kills only the bad guys, I am sure we will employ it. Until then, the world at war is a harsh place. That is the reality.

Edit: Also, your question itself was inherently flawed, as you asked "at what point is it moral to attack them with a missile?". As morals are subjective, this is a sensationalist argument based on an undefinable term.

It is of roughly the same clarity as "This coffee is too sweet". How much sugar is too much by your definition? No one knows. Further, someone else might not find it too sweet for them. And so on down the line.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
With all due respect Edja, this hypothetical question is pointless as you are probably willing to argue any answer except "I would never approve of such a missile strike", and I notice you did not give that option in your multiple choice answers.

---

Nope, actually no. I didn't have any "secret" points. I honestly don't want to trick anybody with that question because I hate those kind of questions. For the the choice #1 or even #2 are ok. I definitely disagree with number 6 or 7. My point is, at least for me, there is a limit that after that the damage is NOT justified.

And about the arguming in circles thing:

" One thing I don't understand is how easily people shrug their shoulders and accept collateral damage. "

"I know in war civilian death is unavoidable but..."

What I mean is that we shoud be conscious of the human damage of the war, I know it is unavoidable but because it's unavoidable it shouldn't be trivial.

The biggest reason the West continually fails to "deal with" the Middle East is because the West (and especially the elitist West) refuses to actually learn about and understand the Middle Eastern arab/muslim culture (hereafter: MEAMs) as it exists today. Instead, they just superimpose their own morals, ethics, and beliefs onto the MEAMs and try to act accordingly.

Well, that just doesn't work. The MEAMs don't care about the same things we do. They don't prioritize things the same way we do. They don't have the same values. They don't share the same outlook on life. They don't have the same cultural upbringing. They simply ARE NOT THE SAME. They embrace suicide and terror as completely valid and LAUDABLE means of exerting their will. They consider the complete extermination of another people and country totally acceptable. They have no qualms about genocide so long as it is perpetrated on those who share different religious views as them.

Well, this isn't the first time in history that the people of Israel have faced an enemy bent on genocide.

One thing is clear, the MEAMs respect and defer to only one thing: strength.

It should come as no surprise then, that all the MEAM nations are tyrannies/dictatorships of one sort or another.

Why else do they repeatedly reject and rebuke all efforts to strike peace accords and resolve disputes in a diplomatic manner? They use diplomacy only as a way to get temporary breathing space to build up for their next attack.

Could there be a reason for the the timing of these recent, extremely aggressive attacks against Israel?

Could it possibly have anything to do with the widely held perception that Ehud Olmert (PM of Israel) would be far weaker than many previous Israeli' PMs? I imagine Olmert gave credence to this perception when on May 24, 2006 (about 5-6 weeks before the attacks) Olmert addressed a joint session of the US Congress and said Israel would proceed with a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank.

I have a feeling even Hezbollah would have been less willing to risk such a brazen attack against Ariel Sharon or especially Benjamin Netanyahu.

So you have a momentary perception of weakness, and the response is not "hey, our enemy is taking it easy on us and talking about peace, what a great opportunity to end the conflict peaceably!" Instead, the response is "our enemy is talking peace, they must be weaker.... STRIKE!"

The sooner the elitists of the West start to understand this, the sooner they will be able to either help Israel or get out of the way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ejda
Nope, actually no. I didn't have any "secret" points. I honestly don't want to trick anybody with that question because I hate those kind of questions. For the the choice #1 or even #2 are ok. I definitely disagree with number 6 or 7. My point is, at least for me, there is a limit that after that the damage is NOT justified.

And about the arguming in circles thing:

" One thing I don't understand is how easily people shrug their shoulders and accept collateral damage. "

"I know in war civilian death is unavoidable but..."

What I mean is that we shoud be conscious of the human damage of the war, I know it is unavoidable but because it's unavoidable it shouldn't be trivial.

---

Really?

Blanket statements such as "it's never ok to kill more than a certain number of civilians" is not logical.

For instance. Let's use history! Do you think that America, that would be us, was wrong in dropping nuclear weapons on the Japenese during WW2? Sure, it was a horrific use of force on a very large number of civilians. But it also saved the lives of countless soldiers.

Which leads me to my next point -----> soldiers are citizens too... and when you are in a country like Israel, I believe that soldiers are civilians as well. There is a mandatory draft, mandatory service.

If Israel has to level a major city in order to protect its citizens and its soldiers, then so be it. Those "civilians" over in the other country should be holding; 1- each other responsible for not reigning in the terrorists, 2- each other responsible for not electing a government that would reign in the terrorists, 3- the government responsible for being completely impotent.

There are no black and white lines in how many civilians are "acceptable losses" in war. In war you fight to win. Nothing more, nothing less. If you lose, your most likely going to pull a Poland and disappear until an ally comes through to save you.

Back on track though... I think one of the reasons that this is happening is that Lebanon is completely impotent in its ability to deal with terrorist groups and then you have Syria that is all about fostering them.

For instance Lebanon's PM has continously complained that Israel is "cutting lebanon to pieces". No kidding. But the interesting part is that he keeps this up despite the fact that Israel has come out and said that we will stop when:

1- We create a sufficient buffer; and
2- We get our troops back.

If Lebanon really wanted to end this, I mean really wanted to end this, they would force their terrorist wing to turn over the troops. Unfortunately, it seems the military wing of Lebanon is the terrorist wing.

Oh and this is interesting.... Bush got caught on a mic today, seemed he thought it was off saying:

Quote:

---

President: 'They need ... to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit'

---

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/...ape/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gillan



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/...ape/index.html

---

That was awesome. The most interesting part of that was just seeing how Bush and Blair clearly have a very relaxed way they talk to each other when they don't think anyone is listening. It was like being a fly on the wall when they are having a real discussion without a bunch of worthless publicity filters dilluting everything they say.

And wow... how obvious is it that they are both frustrated by how worthless the UN and Kofi Annan are.

I bet if resolving this conflict would help Kofi's son get a job, Kofi would be all over it.

I want to start this with,
I support all our soldiers on the lines.

I do not always support how our leaders utilize these troops.
The Pink Floyd song “ Forward they shout from the rear and the front rank dies”
comes to mind.

The days of everyone wearing Red or Blue and standing in rows in a field are long gone,
these young women and children and other “civilians”
are now walking around with explosives strapped to themselves
I know I would be a bit edgy about anyone
that failed to listen at a blockade.

The political winds ,our own ,
and those of “allies” also play a big part
in how things are handled and has for some time.
(IE the Iran/Contra thing)
sometimes I feel our efforts in the Middle East is a bit like,
when I spray a red ant hill in my back yard
only to find it has popped up in another place a bit later.

It is difficult when there are ,religious zealots on one side,
drug warlords on another, and the political sects all fighting for
what they want.

I have no answers
I am not sure the U.S. needs to be, or should be the big brother
of the world.
Yet Martin Niemoller then comes to mind
*********************************
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller

********************************

War is Hell
And freedom isn't free
But if we are going to war lets do it
right and flex the full force of our muscles
and then leave or not do it at all I say.

Honestly, I think this thread should stay to its original intent. We're discussing Israel's actions, not the US. While I'm an American, I do know that everything in the world does not revolve around America. We've all done the "America sucks/America's awesome!" thread a million times. What do we think about Israel's actions? What do we think about its detractors? What options are there? Mind you, most of the posts have been totally on topic, but I just get the sense that it might get derailed pretty soon.

Anyway, I really would like to know the arguments of the people who think what Israel is doing is wrong just as I'd like to hear from the people who think that what Israel's doing is right. I don't think that they're right or wrong. I just think that they've been backed into a corner, and they've tried several different solutions. However, if you keep trying to play Life when everyone else is playing Dodgeball, you're either going to have to play Dodgeball or keep getting smacked in the head with the ball while you're playing a boardgame. I almost feel like Israel either has to play the same game as the rest of the Middle East, or they'll just keep getting pegged.

At the same time, I know that if my child was an innocent casualty of war, I would be devasted. I couldn't honestly say if I'd blame the people who blew up my child or the people whose aggression caused my child to be blown up. I'd probably just hate the world, and that's a hard way to live.