Israel & Lebanon

[FearlessFreep]

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

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

Im confused here Micheal.

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

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

*shrug*

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

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

 

[mrhnau]

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

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

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

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

Walk softly but carry a big stick.

 

[michaeledward]

Allow me to clarify hehehe

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

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

Walk softly but carry a big stick.

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

 

[mrhnau]

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

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

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

 

[mrhnau]

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

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

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

 

[Cryozombie]

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

Peace is not.

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

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

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

 

[Brother John]

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

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

3:Watching these events unfold has been terribly sad.

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

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

#3: I agree...

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admit no such thing.

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

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

 

[Brother John]

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

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

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

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

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


Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

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

2:I am not advocating 'getting involved in a war'. I am advocating that the American Government, in the strongest terms possible, demand a cessation of hostilities.

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

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

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

#3: I agree...

Your Brother
John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

Your Brother
John

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm wondering why you mention Kerry and Clinton?

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

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




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

 

[Don Roley]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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

 

[Don Roley]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

(fingers firmly rammed into ears)

"lalalalalala"

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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

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

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

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