Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: State of war between Israel and Lebanon  (Read 32721 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ivar
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 579


View Profile WWW
« Reply #80 on: July 22, 2006, 10:30:24 AM »

Ari,

Yes, there is. Its the International community, led by the UN.
They HAVE to act as a father in this situation, as clearly both Israel and Lebanon are clearly not up to the job to resolve it themselves...much like children.

I am sorry....but that is how I feel too.

You asked for our opinions in your first post.....and you have gotten it.
I know some of these answers donot satsify you...but at least it gives you an indication on how the rest of the world thinks.
An that boils down to this:

We will not simply just by default support the Israel side, (like often before) especially since the aggresive actions which have been executed by the Israel side.
Most countries had to evacuate all their citizins from Lebanon territory (and there are quite a few), so that gives an idea of the graveness of the situation there.

I understand your position and difficultness of it...its something most of us cannot comprehend, as we never been in such a position.....but that should not the be cause to approach the debate in a different manner.

Ivar
Logged
Marten
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,882



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: July 22, 2006, 03:08:02 PM »

I'm going to reply to posts in reverse order here.

Quote from: shad0wfax
All depends on one crucial point: if Lebanon really doesn't have the capacity or the means to control or neutralize Hezbollah, it cannot be taken as responsible for Hezbollah's actions. On the contrary, if Hezbollah's are simply acting under the passivity of Lebanon's government, which could control and stop this, then the lebanese government is acompplice.


I disagree.  Even if Lebanon does not presently have the capacity to neutralize Hezbollah, they are still responsible for Hezbollah's actions.  They assume that responsibility by claiming to be running a country.  As Ari has pointed out, all Lebanon has to do is ask for help if they want to stomp out Hezbollah, and they will have help... so they have no excuse.  Every time Hezbollah acts against Israel from the safety of Lebanon's borders, Lebanon has tacitly accepted this behavior by their inaction.

And earlier...

Quote from: shad0wfax
Let me put an invented (hypothetical) example for all who feel attraction for the "utilitaristic model", based on the idea of effectiveness and results. It's invented but examples like this are usually used in the discussion in the realm of moral philosophy. Suppose someone (your government, for instance) says to you: this is the situation. There are a group of 1,000 persons who are in a situation of severe destitution and in a high risk of dying of hunger/disease or whatever, and the only way (or the most effective way) to avoid this is to kill YOU, a innocent person. You're not responsible for the situation of those 1,000 people, that's right, but if we don't kill you, they will surely dye, and as long as you're only one and they are 1,000 and they are also innocent, it's right to kill you, and you have to agree that we have the right to kill you, and those 1,000 people have the right to claim your death.


The great thing about hypothetical examples is they don't have to have any basis in reality.  If we based the rules of our society entirely upon hypothetical examples, it might be like this:  "What if water flowed uphill?    These farms and villages upstream from the dam would be flooded!  We must avert this potential disaster!"

(Side note:  Actually, water can flow uphill, during earthquakes... though it's uncommon and practically impossible to predict.)

Utilaristic theories are based upon history and proven experience, and not upon made-up impossible conditions.

Furthermore, it seems you're overlooking my previous point that I agree the end alone cannot justify the means.  My point all along is that one's evaluation of potential solutions should first check for effectiveness and second for fairness.  If you get hung up on finding a solution that is completely "fair" but totally ineffectual, you can't seriously consider it to be a solution.  

Quote from: shad0wfax
I think that this the kind of argumentation used by Israeli government. They say, in sum: The only way to stop terrorist strikes to innocent civilan people in Israel is to neutralize Hezbollah. This involves a quite important military operation and the death of hundreds or even thousands of innocent lebanese people is inevitable. But if we do neutralize Hezbollah, lots of thousands or even millions of citizens will have a better life (security, stability and so on). So it's right to kill those innocent people, and the citizens of Israel have the right to claim their death and the victims just cannot protest, because this is very egoistic and they should see that their death is right and good, because it's justified by a higher end.


Except that the people in and around Hezbollah cannot be considered innocent; as they permit Hezbollah to act upon Israel from within their borders, they are complacent and thus guilty.  I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this point, so I expect we're also going to continue to disagree on all points that depend upon this one.

Quote from: shad0wfax
The bottom line is that sacrifice of innocent people is NEVER justified, and that's why no war, as long as it always involves the death of innocent people, is morally justified. You can say then that perhaps morality is not the most important thing in the world. But then I'd reply: OK, but then don't pretend to morally JUSTIFY your behauvior and assume that you're immoral.


I agree with this point, but perhaps not in the way you expect.  No war is morally justified.  In World War II, Germany was not morally justified in stomping just about every country around them.  Japan was not morally justified in attacking China, and then later the US.  BUT... fighting back in a war, when you've been attacked... when you are not the one who started the war and are therefore the defender, not the aggressor... that is morally justified.  When Germany began to mow down one nation after another in World War II, you could argue that when those nations fought back, that innocent German civilians were killed. You could also argue that Europe should have negotiated a peaceful settlement with Hitler.  But that wasn't really an option.

I deeply and truly wish that peaceful solutions were always practical and useful, but the truth is that they are not.  I understand that peace advocates will claim that peace "just hasn't been given a chance."  That blissfully ignorant mindset assumes that everyone, deep down inside, really wants peace.  It assumes that everyone thinks alike, and that every person's "ego" has full authority and control over their "id."  But the reality is, that isn't true.  You can't rationalize with a madman, and there are plenty of madmen among us.

It's like when Jack Nicholson turns to the Martian invaders in the wonderful B-movie spoof, "Mars Attacks," and says, "Why can't we all just get along?"  And then after shedding a few tears, the Martians shoot him.  

Peace only works if both sides want it.  Hezbollah does not peace; they want to exterminate Israel.

Quote from: shad0wfax
Sometimes I have the impression that Israel's government really does think seriously that their people are really the chosen one by God, and hence the lifes of other people are just less valuable and imporant than theirs. Maybe all countries think that their people is more important than the rest (and that's why I am cosmopolitan and abhor borders, flags and so on, because I firmly think that all human beings are equal in rights and dignity, and there's only one mankind and one world to share), but this always reminds me the nazist thinking (believing that some race, or some people just is more important or valuable than the other).


On this, I agree.  I think this is indeed part of the problem.  I also think it's part of human nature, and it can't be changed... or at least, it can't be changed without doing something incredibly hypocritical.
Logged
shad0wfax
Guest
« Reply #82 on: July 22, 2006, 07:09:55 PM »

Quote
Even if Lebanon does not presently have the capacity to neutralize Hezbollah, they are still responsible for Hezbollah's actions. They assume that responsibility by claiming to be running a country.


I disagree. Suppose for example that there were an extremist terrorist Israeli group that made terrorist strikes in Lebanon, and, for some reasons, Israeli authorities couldn't neutralize this group. Would this justify the bombing of Israel, killing hundreds of innocent people, because Isarel claims to "rule a country"?

Or suppose that in the US there were an extremist right-winged WASP terrorist group that made terrorist attacks in the territory of Mexico, and Despite all the efforts of the US government, they cannot stop these attacks? Should be justified that Mexico throwed some bombs in the south of the US, killing innocent people? I think not. If Lebanon *really* cannot control Hezbollah, it cannot be taken responsible for that. Of course, it can be responsible for not claiming international help for stopping Hezbollah.

Quote
The great thing about hypothetical examples is they don't have to have any basis in reality. If we based the rules of our society entirely upon hypothetical examples, it might be like this: "What if water flowed uphill? These farms and villages upstream from the dam would be flooded! We must avert this potential disaster!"


I'm really sorry to say this, but your comment shows that you don't know how theorethical activity works in both scientific and philosophic areas. A 'hypothesis' is a statement about certain fact that, although not necessarily a 'real' one, is a 'possible one' or even a 'necessary one' within the limits of a certain theory (about the empirical reality in the case of science, or about morals, epystemology, metaphysics or other philosophical field in the case of philosophical thinking). If you have a certain theory about physics, for instance, you can logically infere certain hypothesis from it, and then compare them to empirical observations in order to check if the theory is true. That's the way that was followed, for example, to show that Einstein's relativity theory was better than Newton's gravitation theory. The example you say about the water is not a 'hypothesis' at all, given the actual state of scientific knowledge. In the case of moral philosophy, putting it simple,the point is which moral principles are the right or the more acceptable ones, and the only way to check this is, besides logical consistency of the moral normative system, is to see if all implications of a certain principle would be acceptable. Hypothetical examples need not to be real ones, but are possible ones in the limits of the moral theory or moral principle, and if you find out that an implication of this moral theory/principle (like the example I used in relation to the utilitaristic theory) is unacceptable, this means that this principle or theory is unacceptable (using an analogy, it's like seeing that the implications of a scientific theory do not match the empirical evidence).

Quote
My point all along is that one's evaluation of potential solutions should first check for effectiveness and second for fairness. If you get hung up on finding a solution that is completely "fair" but totally ineffectual, you can't seriously consider it to be a solution.


I totally disagree. Justice is the most important virtue of political institutions. See for example Rawls, John (1971): A theory of justice, a central book in order to understand the political theory and philosophy of the last 3 decades. It's also interesting the thought of Kant in the Foundation of the metaphysics of morals and the Critique of practical reason.

Quote
people in and around Hezbollah cannot be considered innocent; as they permit Hezbollah to act upon Israel from within their borders, they are complacent and thus guilty.


This would only be true under the paradigm of collective responsibility, which has been rejected by the liberal thought since the 18th century. The very idea of human dignity excludes collective responsibility and requires individual responsibility.

Quote
No war is morally justified. In World War II, Germany was not morally justified in stomping just about every country around them. Japan was not morally justified in attacking China, and then later the US. BUT... fighting back in a war, when you've been attacked... when you are not the one who started the war and are therefore the defender, not the aggressor... that is morally justified.


In virtually all philosophical works I know about 'just war theory', there are two necessary conditions and jointly sufficient conditions in order to consider a war act as just or fair: a) to be made in self-defence, in order to reject an illegitimate agression (with the exclusion of pre-emptive attacks); b) not to damage innocent people. Whislt it's theoretically possible that a war to be justified, this only could be in a strict army-vs-army confrontation, which excludes virtually all actual wars in which civilian people are damaged.

Quote
It's like when Jack Nicholson turns to the Martian invaders in the wonderful B-movie spoof, "Mars Attacks," and says, "Why can't we all just get along?" And then after shedding a few tears, the Martians shoot him.


hehe... who was talking about hypothetical examples that had no link at all with reality? Wink BTW, as far as I remember, ALL martians were part of an army which took the invasion; there were no "martian civilians" there.

Quote
Peace only works if both sides want it. Hezbollah does not peace; they want to exterminate Israel.


I totally agree. And that's why this conflict cannot be left on those both sides; it's mandatory that some superior authority (the UN) takes the lead in order to stop this madness.

I think I've just said many things about this topic, and I doubt I will write again about this. I just have the strong believe that both sides are acting seriously wrong and the strong wish that some common sense could impose here to stop this madness. But the animal side of the human being seems to be much stronger that its rational side, so I'm not very confident.[/quote]
Logged
Marten
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,882



View Profile
« Reply #83 on: July 23, 2006, 06:42:23 AM »

Quote from: shad0wfax
[If Lebanon *really* cannot control Hezbollah, it cannot be taken responsible for that. Of course, it can be responsible for not claiming international help for stopping Hezbollah.


To my way of thinking, asking for international help is simply a method by which Lebanon can control Hezbollah, so I feel the two responsibilities (controlling Hezbollah, and asking for help) are one and the same; for all practical intents and purposes, any distinguishing characteristics between the two are unimportant semantics.  I can accept that you see them distinctly, although I don't understand why.

I'll also close my position in this discussion at this time, with some more general statements.

It seems to me that some of you have more a more optimistic view of the human race than I, and I hope for everyone's sake that you are right and that I am wrong.  I believe that the "animal side", as shad0wfax puts it, is an inherent and unavoidable part of human nature.  It brings us a lot of grief, yet it is part of why we are such a successful species on this planet.  And when we rely too heavily upon our intellectual side, and we try to explain things rationally and logically, we can forget that most human behavior is not rational or logical at all; a lot of our behavior is driven by instinct, emotions, and habit.  But we're really good at rationalizing our decisions and actions after-the-fact, so we pretend that we're rational thinkers and that we do things for good reasons.  This is an observation I've made from a lot of personal experience, and I've yet to see it disproven, but I am glad when I see others disagree with me on this matter.

I respect each of your opinions, and if you feel that some of my previous statements have been less than respectful, I apologize.

My best wishes go to Ari in this difficult time.
Logged
Ari
Administrator
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,622



View Profile WWW
« Reply #84 on: July 23, 2006, 08:32:09 AM »

Shad0wfax, Ivar:
The both of you claim that there is an international and enforceable law.
While I agree there is an international law, I don't recall ever seeing the UN actually enforcing it's resolutions.
Israel has been filing complaints against Hezbollah and Lebanon for 6 years, complaints which have been received and to which the UN only issued condemnations at best. No sanctions were ever imposed on Lebanon, and no one tried to solve the problem

come to think of it, I don't recall the UN ever taking any action against an aggressive country (other than, perhaps, economic sanctions)
The UN can authorize or mandate actions, but if it weren't for the US, Kuwait would still be occupied by Iraq.

The UN hasn't got the forces or the will to solve a crisis between 2 countries, so no matter how many resolutions and laws they pass, it cannot (or won't) enforce those laws, making them worthless and for all practical reasons - meaningless.

I'm sorry if I sound so cynical about it, but after so many years of depending on the rest of the world to help us, my eyes have been opened.

The international community is a biased community which doesn't treat it's members equally or fair. Therefore I feel the world is in a state of anarchy.


On another note, Ivar: Yes, I did ask for people's opinion, and I have every respect for those opinions. I do have a problem with the fact that one or two here base those opinions on wrong assumptions.
However, I must say that I feel this debate has been very respectable with absolutely no flaming like I've seen on many other boards.

This is percisely the reason why I love this board, and love the people on it.
If I got a little emotional, and hurt someone with my posts, I appologize, but on the whole, I think this has been a productive discussion, even if nobody really got persuaded.
Logged

I feel like I'm diagonally-parked in a parallel universe
Ivar
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 579


View Profile WWW
« Reply #85 on: July 23, 2006, 04:56:27 PM »

Yes, I agree with most you say on this post (see, that can happen too ;-))

Unfortunately the UN hasn't showed much value in recent years.
I honestly believe they gave the US way too much slack, when they decided to invade Iraque (without consent of the other UN nations).

So perhaps this is a great opportunity to start adding some value....which is precisely why it was initiated in the first place.

It is also true that on the enforcement part, they lack strength aswel....but surely they can demand forces from various UN countries, whereby they all go under a "UN flag".
Again...sofar no great results.....but what hasn't been done up to know....doesn't have to be impossible by definition.

My biggest frustration in this war is the position of Lebanon.
It is a country with a population of 2 religions (both Islamic & christian) and has been very prosperous in the past sofar.
Why would they give all that up in this recent pointless war?
I am surprised at the Lebanese government that they (much like the Palestinian government) have not been able to do something about Hezbollah!

And much like with the Palestenian bombings....by hitting civilian targets (which happens on a daily basis now)...you just play into the cards of these extremist organisations....They grow more and more in their power with the local population.

Today on the news I saw Lebanese families in the hospital....they are fed up with the war.....and they don't understand that Israel does not hit Hezbollah instead of them. The opinions of these people is also an important asset....which is being lost very quickly.

Two great cities like Beirut and Tel Aviv maybe destroyed as a result of this war....it seems so waistful.

Anyway....I hope the UN will take action soon and take it seriously.

Ari, I also wish you good luck. How is the situation close to your residence?
Is anything happening close to you? And how are people close to you dealing with it?
Logged
Boogeyman
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


Gotcha!


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: July 24, 2006, 03:23:08 AM »

Quote from: Ivar
Ari, I also wish you good luck. How is the situation close to your residence?
Is anything happening close to you? And how are people close to you dealing with it?


I'd like to know that too.
Logged

Viva la revolucion!
DrJ
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 827



View Profile WWW
« Reply #87 on: July 24, 2006, 09:53:58 AM »

I'm away for awhile and look what's happening. 4 pages full of a good healthy discussion. That's what I find so amazing on this forum. It hardly ever turns into a flame war. Everyone is able to listen to the other and try to put their own thoughts into words.

I could go into a lengthy discussion here, but I'm quite on the fence when it comes to this matter. I agree with most of the views pointed out here. Funny part is that it's a combination of most. For certain parts I agree with Shadowfax & Ivar (maybe it's more because of our European background) and other parts I agree with Ari & Marten's view.

Most important thing now is that I hope this conflict will be resolved as soon as possible, hopefully with UN support because I don't think the countries involved are able to be objective enough to solve this on their own.

Main thing right now is that I hope that everything is okay with you Ari. Is there any chance you might be called into service?
Logged
Alistair
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,200



View Profile WWW
« Reply #88 on: July 25, 2006, 01:00:17 AM »

With regards to Ari, I'll say the same as everyone else here- good luck.
Given what we've seen here on the news recently though, that is, Israeli reservisst getting called up, it seems likely though- is that right, Ari?


Most interesting I thought was last night when UN Humanitarian man Jan Egeland, UK Foreign Minister Kim Howells, and even a Conservative British MP (for thsoe who don't know, an Opposition member) all condemned Israel last night. Basically, for killing civilians, for misuing their power ('excessive force' was said often), for 'violating humanitarian and international law' as Egeland said, and so forth.

Regards,
- Alistair
Logged
Ari
Administrator
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,622



View Profile WWW
« Reply #89 on: July 25, 2006, 01:21:19 PM »

I've been a little sick lately, so I haven't had a chance to post.
At the moment, I'm not too close to the Hezbollah's range of missiles, and I've yet to be called into reserve duty as this is still a limited operation.
According to Hezbollah, they still have a few surprises up their sleeves, including SSMs that have a range of over 300km, and which can cover territories half the size of Israel. If and when they decide to use them, that could put my family within the range of their missiles.
And of course, there's always the constant threat of suicide bombings by Hamas and the Muslim Jihad (we've had 2 bombings where I live within the last year and a half, one of which my girlfriend was just a few meters away)

But again, at this point, I'm relatively safe, though as soon as exams are over, I might go up north and see how I can help out with all the damage that has been done by the Hezbollahs bombings.

Alistair, I wonder, did these people you mention say anything about Hezbollah, or did they only condemn Israel?

Also, here's an interesting interview of a Lebanese woman I saw yesterday.
Logged

I feel like I'm diagonally-parked in a parallel universe
Ivar
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 579


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: July 25, 2006, 02:08:03 PM »

Damn...She IS good.

I hope someone will protect her.....as they will be out to assasinate her....especially her being a woman speaking in this manner to the Muslim male dominated community.

She does seem to be out to provoke the Islamic community. I would not deem it wise doing it this way. A less "intensive" tone of voice my yield more results. But there is some truth in what she says, though be it slightly overstated.

It just goes to show that the Lebanese people are in no way the enemy of the Israelians...., but the Hezbollah.
The hezbollah (much like the Hamas organisations) are clever enough to hide among the innocent population and use them as a protection shield.

But as stated before....killing innocent Lebanese people will drive their allegiance more and more to Hezbollah and their fanatism.

If only there was a less agressive way to reach the Hezbollah and take care of them. For lack of better approach, my vote would still be via a UN led approach to disarm both parties.
Logged
Alistair
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,200



View Profile WWW
« Reply #91 on: July 26, 2006, 02:07:05 AM »

Of course they did, Ari- pretty much the story is always this. "Hezbollah are a terrorist organisation that must be stopped, but Israel are using disproportionate, excessive force, killing far too many civilians (the ratio they quoted was 20 Lebanese : 1 Israeli), and in violation of humanitarian law."

And that, they're not making any friends by the path that they're taking. Though, neither is the USA, and fair enough.

- Alistair
Logged
Alison
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 605


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: July 30, 2006, 10:42:45 PM »

I thought some of you might like to know what it's like behind the scenes in Iraq.  My son is stationed in Kuwait, but he makes constant runs all through Iraq bringing supplies to all of the military there.

My son's current run has taken him all the way to the northern border. He's exhausted, and they dropped tons of stuff off in Bagdhad. The feeling is that something big is about to go down, there. Here's his latest comments from an online session:

4 trucks from our unit have burned in the last week
one from our platoon
I'm in Mosul
waaaayyy northern Iraq
all our guys were ok though
but its just been really bad up here
the night we left baghdad we got stopped by the Iraqi police
when we were stopped this bigass shootout started
then this Polish or Romanian patrol passed us while we were stopped
we caught up to them later
or what was left of them
I guess their convoy got hit by multiple IEDs which destroyed almost all of their vehicles and blew guys all over the road
it was horrible
no you don't understand
body bags all over the road
we stopped at this one camp in Tikrit
we tried to leave the next night and we were only out the gate for 5 minutes when an IED went off and hit one of our trucks
I saw it happen
it was a fifty foot pillar of fire
I've never seen anything like it
the blast ruptured the fuel tanks and the whole truck turned into a flame thrower
it burned to the ground right where it stopped
then we left last night to come up here and another one hit our convoy
no damage that time though
it was a garbage bag in front of a house
just sitting at the end of the driveway
as we passed by on the road
the explosions aren't like you see on the movie
I can't even describe them really
you see the flash and then you hear the boom a few seconds later followed by a shock wave that shakes everything
I've never been more scared in my life
I'm just scared
those guys made it out of the truck but just barely
they had to bail out
they lost everything in the truck
even their weapons burned and melted
you wouldn't believe that a vehicle fire can burn so hot that when it cools you can see where steel pieces of the chassis have melted, ran, and pooled like wax from a candle

the driver was a corporal
hes my friend
he told me they saw it coming
it was two artillery rounds duct taped together to a gas can in a hole                                                                                                                                                        


he said they saw the flash and fire all over the windows and he said within 10 seconds after the boom there was fire coming through the floor and the seats

they all dove out the driver door because flames were coming through the passenger side
he said 5 seconds after they hit the ground the whole truck exploded

it lit up the sky for miles
thats how bright and hot the fire was
we had to leave the truck burning on the road and go back to the camp
we could still see the smoke in the sky from the parking lot on the camp

the first day we were in Tikrit I got a rude awakening in the morning
I was asleep in my bunk in the truck
and about 830 in the morning there was this loud boom and the whole truck shook so hard that **** fell off the dash and console and stuff
it woke me up
since convoys are coming and going all day and night through this lot
I thought somebody rear ended us or something
I got out in my underwear because I was pissed off

and it was mortars hitting the camp
one landed close enough to us that the shock shook the truck


I'm just so tired of this ****

they say theres about to be a big battle in baghdad

some asshole down there replaced zarquawi and rounded up all his followers to start a revolution
hes trying to overthrow the new govt
and we have to go back through there to get to kuwait
Logged
Ari
Administrator
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,622



View Profile WWW
« Reply #93 on: July 31, 2006, 07:57:54 AM »

Alison, this is horrible... simply horrible.  Sad
I really don't know what else to say, I just hope your son stays healthy, it sounds so dangerous.
Logged

I feel like I'm diagonally-parked in a parallel universe
Dianne Lewandowski
Administrator
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


View Profile WWW
« Reply #94 on: July 31, 2006, 10:17:06 PM »

Quote
I am sorry, but I find this view on these "suiciders" a bit too simplistic.
People, no matter where they live on the world, don't just commit suicide for a greater cause, just because they believe they will go to a heaven Paradise.

There is much more to it.


You should have watched "60 Minutes" last night wherein they interviewed a muslim, educated in the U.S., who can't wait for his son to grow up and give his life for the muslim world to conquer Western ideology.

Yep . . . it has to do with a frame of mind we can't wrap our heads around.  We're in a state of war and it is escalating whether we want it to or not.  In my opinion, in prior decades we managed to contain the crisis with only an occasional development.  When Bush went into Afghanistan, the world was at his side.  When he went into Iraq, the worm turned.  We have a tiger by the tail and it's winning slowly but surely.  The free world is in danger, the U.S. troops are exhausted, and there's no end in sight.
Logged
kreatorb
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: July 31, 2006, 11:04:35 PM »

The "semi anarchy" probably all comes down to the absence of the USSR - they never would have tolerated an invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by the US, no matter what the circumstances.  And the incentive for September 11 wouldn't have been there (which could have easily triggered a nuclear war).  Sure, the current troubles with Lebanon could have still happened.. but the fallout from such small conflicts would have always been limited to a point, whereas now we don't know how bad they could become.

The UN has always been pretty impotent and it was structured that way (as everyone knew the real power was between the US and the USSR).  With no USSR the world badly needs a strong (and just) international body that can't simply be ignored (as all sides have done, mind you).

It's a shame the US hasn't used its sole superpower status to restructure the UN in a fairer way, or to build new institutions (instead of undermining them and acting unilaterally).
Logged
Alistair
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,200



View Profile WWW
« Reply #96 on: August 01, 2006, 05:03:10 AM »

Quote
You should have watched "60 Minutes" last night wherein they interviewed a muslim, educated in the U.S., who can't wait for his son to grow up and give his life for the muslim world to conquer Western ideology.

Yep . . . it has to do with a frame of mind we can't wrap our heads around. We're in a state of war and it is escalating whether we want it to or not. In my opinion, in prior decades we managed to contain the crisis with only an occasional development. When Bush went into Afghanistan, the world was at his side. When he went into Iraq, the worm turned. We have a tiger by the tail and it's winning slowly but surely. The free world is in danger, the U.S. troops are exhausted, and there's no end in sight.

Dianne,

Without wishing to sound patronising or insulting, since you're a smart woman, I get the distinct feeling you don't make much of an effort to 'wrap your head around' the Muslim ideology.

Besides, you seem to be generalising a fair bit. Not every Muslim wants to 'conquer Western ideology' (I presume you mean, blow the USA up.)
Same as not every American is a right-wing yokel with a GWB t-shirt yelling "Whoooo boy, we're doggone gonna win this war!!!" (in fact, there's very few such people). I daresay you'd hate to be labelled as some warloving American or some right-wing police state ideologically bankrupt Yankee. You're obviously not, so for me to say that would be a generalisation.

But, this to me is the problem. We have generalisations forced down our throat every day, such as, "Lebamese are terrorists", "Muslims are  extremists", "Americans are warmongers", "Israelis are arrogant".

To be, none of the above 4 comments are actually accurate. While they may be true for a proportion, and maybe a largely publicised proportion, it's not something you can say about every person definitively.

.. getting back on track, that's where I take offence to both Lewandowski's rationales. Maybe you've just posted a snippet and it's unfair for me to read so much into it, if so, correct me. But it does seem to me that the Americans on this board (to avoid a generalisation, specifically Marten, Tom and Dianne Wink ) make a lot of generalisations about "other races having weird mindsets". While I'd agree that i don't understand the Muslim psyche as well I'd like, it doesn't mean I'm suspicous of the Middle East and forever worried someone will blow up my family. All that kind of fear breeds is more fear, and intolerance, and hatred.

Also, what's all this "free world in danger" crap? What's the free world, and what's the, uh, "non-free" world? Those comments of yours sound so arrogant it really sickens me. Real, "USA is the world power and we get no support from other countries" style. In fact, it sounds like my parents-in-law from Oklahoma, something they'd say. Doesn't mean I don't like them (or you), I love 'em, but I can't for a minute agree with that. If America wants to start a war (and i don't agree the Middle East through terrorism began it, just as I question whether Lebanon 'started' a war), I don't think it's up to the rest of the world to sacrifice their peoples to satisfy the USA's thirst for blood and terrorism annihilation, and oil reserve conquering.

Regards,
- Alistair
Logged
shad0wfax
Guest
« Reply #97 on: August 01, 2006, 06:59:36 AM »

There's much more than "we're making the jihad to defeat the enemies of Islam and to win Paradise". Usually, if you read the documents and watch the videos that terrorist make when doing a strike, the message is, more or less: "you've destroyed our countries, our families and our homes, so we're taking our revenge, and, by the way, we'll also win paradise, defeat the 'western monster' and the so-on crap". Of course, this doesn't justify their attitude at all, but the point is that usually no one thinks about killing himself if life on earth is good enough, no matter how good it should be the "promised eternal life" after death.

I remember that two days ago, after the coward attack of the israeli army against a building in southern Lebanon that killed over 50 people, mostly women and children, a man whose wife and five children were murdered in this attack said that he never liked Hezbollah before, but after the attack his life has becomed so empty that his only thought is joining Hezbollah and try to kill as many israelis as possible. I always try to be rational, but if my wife and my daughter were killed and my home destroyed, I don't know if my reaction would be different, because in that kind of situations is damn tough to be rational. This kind of irrational violence never generates spontaneously, and the irresponsive attitude of western countries (especially the US) has contributed a lot to create this climate.

I've never liked the expression 'free world' or 'free country'. As I firmly believe that the most important are persons and not countries, I think that only persons (individuals) can be free. I wouldn't say for example that the underdog in a rich country are free, in the full sense. After all, the level of welfare is the most relevant aspect when deciding whether or not taking radical decisions. Usually, if your life is good enough, you won't take risky or self-destroying decisions. Contrary to the US (or America in general), here in Europe we have an important amount of muslim immigration coming from northern Africa (Morocco and Algery, usually). We're talking about millions, not small groups. Of course, there are a few that are radicals and don't think about anything else than the jihad, but the great majority doesn't want to have a 'religion war' at all, simply because they live in Europe much better than in their own countries.
Logged
Ari
Administrator
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,622



View Profile WWW
« Reply #98 on: August 01, 2006, 12:50:50 PM »

Shad0wfax: I am quite appalled at your words.
Coward attack? Murder?
I guess it doesn't matter that Israel warns the local population before we attack (dropping printed messages telling civilians to get out), and by doing so sacrificing the element of surprise we have against Hezbollah.
I guess it doesn't matter that we're not trying to harm civilians and only do so by mistake because Hezbollah is opperating from within populated areas.
I guess it doesn't matter that Hezbollah have repeatedly fired Katusha rockets from the area.
I guess it doesn't matter that we appologised for those deaths.

Finally, I guess it doesn't even matter that the Hezbollah does none of these things to prevent civilians from being killed and doesn't hide the fact that it wants to kill Israeli civilians.

In your eyes we are murderes - tried and convicted.

I really hope you never know what it is like to live in constant fear and threat and know that nomatter what you do, you'll always be blamed.  :roll:
Logged

I feel like I'm diagonally-parked in a parallel universe
Tom
Administrator
Senior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,618



View Profile WWW
« Reply #99 on: August 01, 2006, 04:18:06 PM »

Quote from: Ivar
Damn...She IS good.  I hope someone will protect her.....as they will be out to assasinate her....especially her being a woman speaking in this manner to the Muslim male dominated community.

She does seem to be out to provoke the Islamic community. I would not deem it wise doing it this way. A less "intensive" tone of voice my yield more results. But there is some truth in what she says, though be it slightly overstated.

If only there was a less agressive way to reach the Hezbollah and take care of them. For lack of better approach, my vote would still be via a UN led approach to disarm both parties.


I agree...She IS GOOD!  Excellent video!  A very intelligent summation.  Thanks for the link.

Israel's VERY blantant pre-warning to civilians of their strikes has demonstrated clear humanitary objectives in these attacks.  An enemy that cowars behind their own civilian populace is despicable and not worthy of consideration.  By the by, how many children have U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq?  Nobody wants to kill innocents, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a war where that isn't the case.  What nation can claim that during war, only enemy soldiers were harmed?
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: