Finally, a true and lasting peace has been reached, based on tolerance and putting aside the past in a genuine effort to live in peace with the best intrests of the populace in mind. Thank God this day has finally come to the Holy Land.
Okay, maybe not.
Any opinions of just how far this clusterfuck will go? Declared sustained open warfare? How much is Iran manipulating events here? that seems to be the big concern on the minds of talking heads on the news.
It occured to me today that there has never been real peace in that region in my lifetime...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
There hasn't been peace in the Middle East in a very long time.
Iran could be helping things along, using it as a cover for their nuke operations.
The talking heads on the news can go screw themselves, as most all they do is sputter what is usually obvious.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
This will only get worse if Israel bombs Syria. Then they'll retaliate, and we could be looking at a full blown war. Right now, however, it looks like it will remain more of the same for the next few days, with Israel bombing targets and killing more civilians (100 or so have died already) and with Hezbollah still shelling Israel.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
How soon do you think the U.S. will somehow be blamed for all this by Arab nations like Iran? This could be the catalyst for more aggression against us.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, Iran will blame "Western Aggression" which amounts to the same diffrence....and of course, most of Israel's best shit is U.S. made so...
Hezbollah really stepped in it this time- kidnapping soldiers (photogenic ones no less!) in a half-assed notion that they could be used as bargaining chips... Dumb.
As to the "over 100 civillians killed already", that's likely accurate, but hardly reflective of Israel's rolling deathtoll to Hezbollah terrorism.
Consider the response if a foreign power started firing rockets into US or British towns and kidnapping it's soldiers- makes Israel seem like the most paitent of nations.
Of course, the response from the Hezbollah/Palestenian side is always "we're at war with Israel" so anything goes...but if that's the case, cam Israel really be condemned for fighting a war to their utmost capibility?
Kofi Annon seems to think so- calling this "a disproportionate response". It seems to hardliners Isralies that responding "proportinately" has not gotten anything accomplished in many years, so... It's off to war they go.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Has there ever been peace in the Middle East? Never, you say? Oh. Well, we'll force it on them soon enough. God bless America, etc. Word!
-MMoM Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Consider the response if a foreign power started firing rockets into US or British towns and kidnapping it's soldiers- makes Israel seem like the most paitent of nations.
Umm, ahhh, WTC, Afghanistan, Iraq.... cough, cough, sigh.....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Perhaps some background reading: In the Party of God. (Written in the now sadly brighter days of 2002.)
quote:Blanford, who has good sources in the Hezbollah leadership, said, "They seem to be convinced that sooner or later there's going to be an Israeli-Arab conflict. In the long term, Israel cannot put up with this threat from Hezbollah." It seems clear that in ordinary times Israel would already have moved against Hezbollah. But these are not ordinary times. Intelligence officials told me that Israel cannot act pre�mptively against Hezbollah while America is trying to shore up Arab support for, or acquiescence in, a campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein. To do otherwise would be to risk angering the Bush Administration, which needs Israel to show restraint. One Israeli Army officer I spoke to put it bluntly: "The day after the American attack, we can move."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Intresting, but not particularly accurate- consider that Israel went with Sharons wildly unpopular pullout from the Gaza Strip and really tried to go the non-military route (the accolades of the international community at the time probably helped in this regard), but now Sharon's gone and the new Israeli leadership has (untill now) been seen as weak.
I really dont see a diplomatic solution to this unless the hostages are returned and then the international community calls for Israel to back down- any UN action against Israel without the hostages' return would be seen as soft on such acts and terrorism in general (and the US wont stand against it's ally under those circumstances).
Besides, if Hezbollah was convinced a conflict was inevitible, why would they foster continued aggression? Why be seen as the aggressors? Was there some shake-up in their leadership as well between the quoted paragraph and today?
quote:Originally posted by Ritten:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Consider the response if a foreign power started firing rockets into US or British towns and kidnapping it's soldiers- makes Israel seem like the most paitent of nations.
The obvious comparison, but look further- to even petty attcaks on a soverign power, like the Falkland Islands skirmish. For a power, capable of overwhelming retaliation, to do nothing (or very limited retaliations) in the face of sustained attacks (as Israel has) is extraordianry.
As example, can you imagine Cuba lobbing rockets into Florida? Calls for "Proportionate Response" would be heartily laughed off.
No one would tolerate the crap Isreal has- but now that it's all hitting the fan, where will it end?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Consider the response if a foreign power started firing rockets into US or British towns and kidnapping it's soldiers..."
Except Hezbollah is a non-representative group of radicals, not a foreign power, which is where your analorgy and parallel to the Falklands conflict run aground.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, kind of? I mean, they do have twenty-three seats in Lebanon's parliament. I don't present this as justification; but they aren't a ghostly, ungrounded presence like al Qaeda, and this seems to me to be an important distinction.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
And while Israel's response has been comprehensive (to put it politely), it would seem their goal is not so much the obliteration of Hezbollah with missiles and bombs (as if that were even an option), but to demonstrate to the Lebanese people what a liability this radical and violent group is to their nation and thereby to leverage change from within. The degree to which this strategy might be considered wise or effective is of course still open to debate.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Considering the strong anti-Syrian sentiments among the population and in the majority coalition of Lebanon's parliament, I think such a "demonstration" is the last thing they need to cultivate change.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So what?
quote:Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, like his general, pointed the finger at Lebanon, not just Hezbollah.
The raid was "not a terror attack, but an operation of a sovereign state without any reason or provocation," he said. "The Lebanese government, which Hezbollah is part of, is trying to undermine the stability of the region, and the Lebanese government will be responsible for the consequences."
Hezbollah, which enjoys substantial backing from Syria and Iran, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel. The group holds posts in Lebanon's government.
Hezbollah uses Lebanese military equipment and intel to carry out their operations- any foreign power would have to treat them as part of Lebanon. Britan and the US certainly would, if attacked by Hezbollah. Israel's restraint is in not attacking Syria and Iran (despite the known ties) but in only attacking the people most directly responsible.
Sucks to be the adverage Lebanese person, but you get the government you vote for (or is it the government you tolerate to rule over you in this case?). If enough Lebanese people called for the release of the Israeli prisoners, it might just happen. Hezbollah cant afford to alienate everyone...can it?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Right, so now you're just pulling out the canned "they made their own bed, now they all deserve whatever Israel does" response, is that it? Because if you are, there's really not much left to discuss in this thread.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Well, kind of? I mean, they do have twenty-three seats in Lebanon's parliament. I don't present this as justification; but they aren't a ghostly, ungrounded presence like al Qaeda, and this seems to me to be an important distinction."
Well, isn't it a bit like if a bunch of Republicans started firing rockets at Canada, and the Canadians held our government responsible? (Or Democrats, if you prefer, but that seems less likely.)
"...analorgy..."
Best typo ever.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The abyss stared right fucking back into me there, is what.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Ritten brote:
quote:There hasn't been peace in the Middle East in a very long time.
I think there was a period of nice stability when that dude Nebuchadnezzar took the jews into his city. "And for a while, it was good...". I remember things being simpler then, I miss that. Nowadays it's just parking tickets and podcast. I'll bet my prostrate enlarges when I hit 50, say thankya.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
This is what comes of having large militias uncontrollable by the central government. When they start a war with an outside power, either your entire country gets dragged in, or you have a civil war to stop them. Under any circumstances, Israel can't negotiate with an entity that is sworn to destroy it. Their options are to either let these people keep attacking them until one of them gets a nuke from Iran in ten years, or hit them now as hard as they can and try to break them. Nothing is made better by Israel being more patient. I almost hope Iran does get involved, if only so Israel will have an excuse to take out their nuclear capabilities...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Your prostate does not lay prostrate.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Not though all the angels in the skies were to beg my pantspeace. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Lobster sticks to magnet.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Jason, well, it isn't like they've been in boats off of a city and RPGed it, but take the cummulative damage done to Israel, compared to the aircraft strikes and it seem to kind of even out. Although I think that the number of children killed in Israel is a far sight higher.
I do believe Israel is as in the right as they can get, you do not leave you troops in the hands of the enemy.
Hamas can not negotiate with Israel, as it does not exist to them, or are they eating their cake and trying to have it too?
Yes, there have been periods of stablity, but is that really peace? The US and Canada have peace, the Israelis and Arabs have preludes to the next attack.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah...Lebanon's ambassador sparred verbally with the ambassador from Israel yesterday at the U.N., callng for the international community to condemn Israel's "unprovoked attacks". I laughed. Israel's ambassador pointed to him and said (from memory here) "you know in your heart that if you could, you'd be sitting right here next to me, because you know getting rid of Hezbolah will benifit the Lebanese people."
Iran's been suprisingly quiet on the matter- waiting to pounce I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Right, so now you're just pulling out the canned "they made their own bed, now they all deserve whatever Israel does" response, is that it? Because if you are, there's really not much left to discuss in this thread.
Not that I'd put it that way, but kidnapping Israeli troops and sustained rocket attacks is certainly "asking for it"...it's certainly no blank check though, and Israeli forces have shown much restraint in their targets, it seems (if you have an alternate POV, I'd love to hear it).
The debate now is where will it all lead to?
I dont see the US getting involved unless attacked first (very unlikely at this juncture), but I can see France and possibly Russia condemning Israel after a while more.
BTW, anyone catch Bush's assinine press-conference (at the G-8 summit) remark about how he "would like to see Russia follow Iraq's lead in becoming more democratic"? Putin just said "I really dont think Russia needs to become like Iraq" wich drew a roar of laughter. A great comeback- you can hear the translator cracking up as he translates for the auidence.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
That was a nice little dig. (Which may wind up costing us all our lives. Not that I'm worried. (OK, I'm worried))
While we can argue about the proportions of the provocation and response, I think we can agree that both sides have some legitamate complaints to make about the other. Clearly this is very different from the situation in Iraq (clearly defined goals comes to mind), but I do see some parallels to be drawn. At least insofar as the Israeli Defense Force outmatches pretty much anything to which Hezbollah has access (even with phantom Syrian or Iranian backing). But just as we've seen in Iraq, force superiority does equate to success. By crippling Lebanese infrastructure (the by-now famous turning back their clock 20 years statement), Israel does risk bolstering support for Hezbollah by becoming the very monsters Hezbollah has painted them to be. That hasn't worked out so well for the US in Iraq. Granted, I don't think Israel has any illusions of "liberating" the Lebanese people, the winning of hearts and/or minds. Given their history in the region, their expectations of flowery receptions would have to be low.
I just wanted to point out that while I do appreciate the need to respond, their solution to this problem may wind up creating more problems down the road in the form of another generation of Lebanese youths remembering the time Israeli jets screamed overhead and blew the shit out of their power, water and relatives/limbs.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I was watching various news networks just not (not Fox though- I cant stand O'Riely) and the threat assessment for Hezbollah seems to be around 10,000 rockets stockpiled over the past decade.
That means either Israel really does "knock them back 20 years" or they can expect a near endless retribution of rocket attacks.
I dont think any military action is required for the next generation of Lebanese youths to hate Israel- that's pretty ingrained after 50 years. Israel's P.R. is so low among it's neighbors, they just dont give a fuck anymore. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Jason, the soldier has French citizenship, so France may likely be involved. Albeit probably not militarily, but they have already told Hamas to release publicly, what are they doing beind the scenes?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Some days, I just want to glass over the entire region. This would be one of them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Jason, the soldier has French citizenship, so France may likely be involved. Albeit probably not militarily, but they have already told Hamas to release publicly, what are they doing beind the scenes?
Huh. I was unaware of that...but Chirac did not mention it at all in any G8 coverage I saw. Not that Chirac has been any supporter of Isreal in the past- I cant tell how much of his attitude there is to pacify the muslim populace back home and how much is personal leanings. What does France have to bargain with in the region? Do they offer economic/humanitarian supoort to any of the players?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Jason, the soldier has French citizenship, so France may likely be involved. Albeit probably not militarily, but they have already told Hamas to release publicly, what are they doing beind the scenes?
Huh. I was unaware of that...but Chirac did not mention it at all in any G8 coverage I saw. Not that Chirac has been any supporter of Isreal in the past- I cant tell how much of his attitude there is to pacify the muslim populace back home and how much is personal leanings. What does France have to bargain with in the region? Do they offer economic/humanitarian supoort to any of the players?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, for one, France has promised help to Lebanon to restore order, something they can't very well do while Israel keeps blowing shit up, and for two, there are about 20K French citizens living over there whom they wouldn't like to fall victim to Israel's actions of "self-defense", so...
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Not that I'd put it that way, but kidnapping Israeli troops and sustained rocket attacks is certainly "asking for it"...it's certainly no blank check though...
Which they have been given anyway.
quote:...and Israeli forces have shown much restraint in their targets, it seems (if you have an alternate POV, I'd love to hear it).
Yes, so much restraint that of the 200+ people killed so far, a staggering 13 of them weren't civilians. Whatever "justification" Israel had for leveling all of Lebanon to eliminate Hezbollah (which, I might add, they've been trying for twenty years but can never succeed at because, like all countries dealing with terrorists, they think bombs can change the mentality of a people), it's gone now.
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
They won't be able to change the mentality of people being supported and aided constantly by a terrorist group, sorry, a political party like Hezbollah. These nice guys are doing the job that the Lebanese government is failing to perform: give education, housing and food to the poor people in Lebanon. The same strategy the narcs at Cali have done in Colombia.
Can you blame the low-level, uneducated people to support their "saviors"? No, you can't. Look, Hezbollah falls VERY short in my appreciation (being the responsibles of the Israeli mutual bombing here in Buenos Aires exactly 12 years ago, and still without a serious trial followed in our country). But still, the Lebanese people are not to blame. The Israeli incursion takes the same rationale the US is pulling for the attacks in Iraq. And I can't approve that, at all. Or justify it by any means, even if they're right about part of the situation.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I read in Rueter's back as this began.
France could very well offer all of the financial support Hamas needed, with the bonuses that it can get the guy back, possibly even alive, and, show the Muslims, Hey, we aren't like Amerika, and maybe not get bombed in the future. A good card for France to play on keeping the Muslims happy, not so good for world opinion.
France could also put a bunch of 'invited' troops in to Lebanon, drive down to the border, mark a line a foot in to Israel, and say, Do not cross! With the US backing Israel they could do it just out of spite.
Doc, you can change that first sentence of the second paragraph to: Can you blame the high-level, over educated people to support their Bush. No, you can't. Adding all the stupidity of maintaining party lines no matter the social or economic costs.
I think you are wrong about the rationale their Doc, Jason had a point of 20-30 years of attacks, as opposed to two big ones. Also, I can justify either of them, depending on the propaganda I choose to spout.
Cartman, unlike in Iraq, here I would argue the point of what a civialian is. What the press wants to call a civilian and what I would call a civilian are going to be to completely different things. If fanatics didn't use the young so often for their needs I may be more apt to believe the press. If an eight year old girl walked up to an Israeli jeep and it and herself up I would believe the press would make that Israel's fault. I have less confidence in the press than in Bush the Second.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I saw a few intresting things between CNN and BBC tonight- First was an interview with a representative of the lebanese government (a woman no less!) who said very clearly that Hezbollah does not ask anyone when they kidnap people or attack Israel- the government does not endorse them in their attacks, she said....
Next, BBC interviewed a Lebanese military commander that explained that while it's supposed to the regualr military's role to keep Hezbollah in check, 40-60% of the standing army is Shi'a and support Hezbollah's efforts (no matter what) to destroy Israel. It ties their hands- any attempt to have the military oust Hezbollah would be a distaster.
Also, BBC showed a hilarious exchange between Bush and Blair at the G8 when neither realised they were being recorded by an open microphone... Bush:
quote:"See, the Irony of it is, they need to get Syria to tell Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, then it's over"
Blair:
quote:"Yes, my Master..."
Okay, that part I added for additional humor value.
Click on "Open mic catches Bush-Blair on Mideast" to see the video for yourself- it's gonna be a wonderous day watching the White House scramble to contain this diplomatic snafu...I wonder what Syria's official statement will be on it? It's allready being called "the shit heard 'round the world."
Lastly, I saw an interview with Madeleine Albright, wherein she noted that Iran has been the big winner amongst all the strife in the region during the past five years. She went so far as to speculate that Iran probably had a hand in the timing of the kidnappings and how it just happened to keep Iran from being the subject of the G8 summit. They were scarcely brought up, what with all the attention focused on Israel (and how they've been silent on everything lately!). Blew. Me. away. Holy shit, she really laid out quite a few points that currently-serving officials would not go near.
,,,annnd to top it all off, the Taliban (remember those guys?) Siezed two whole towns. Later this month, British forces will take over the bulk of the security in Afghanistan (with an incoming force of 3000 soldiers) and they'll get stuck re-taking the lost territory.
As to Israel's attacks on Lebanon, it's incredible that the deathtoll has been so incredibly low- Israel is choosing strategic targets Hezbollah's HQ, the main airport, etc.). 170 people have been killed in Lebanon, as of tonight, CNN reports... Compare that with the almost un-reported "more than 800 people, mostly militants, have been killed since May", in Afghanistan (according to an Associated Press tally of coalition and Afghan figures) and you'll see how skewed the spotlight is on all this.
quote:like all countries dealing with terrorists, they think bombs can change the mentality of a people), it's gone now.
The goal is not to change any mentality (again, Isreal is not playing the "win the hearts and minds" bit the U.S. is) but to redress the unworkable situation the 2000 pullout left- mainly that Hezbollah could cross the border at will, fire off rocket attacks and kidnap Israeli citizens and stockpile rockets and munitions all the while. It's now thought that Hezbollah may have as many as 14,000 rockets- a staggering figure really- far more than most countries- with some (though only a small percentage) capable of ranging 125 miles, with a payload of thousands of pounds (anywhere in Israel ia a target at that range). Israel's goal seems to be to do something about that bullshit. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Snafu? His comment pushes responsibility away from Israel (our ally) and Lebanon (whose recently reinvigorated democracy, now threatened by war, was allegedly one of the positive outcomes of the Iraq war, one that the administration has been pointing to again and again) and onto Syria. It seems like a simple enough articulation of the President's preferred outcome.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yet...if Israel could break Hezbollah...prahaps the U.N. could (if invited by the Lebanese government) send "peacekeepers" into the country to assist in rebuilding (while keeping most unwanted foreign influence out). It'd have to be an almost all non-U.S. force though to avoid the "Israel's ally!" comparison.
It's not likely, but there might be a chance for the Lebanese government to free themselves from the shadow of Syria dominating their military.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
So, basically we have an Israeli military operation against Lebanon in response to Hezbollah actions. Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria and has been supported/allowed to operate by the Lebanese government for many years.
However, Hezbollah is now so powerful in the south of the Lebanon that the Lebanese government and military has no control. As a result it is unlikely that Israeli pressure on Lebanon will result in a change in Hezbollah's actions or positions.
Isreal, however, feels that it must act to underline it's own military superiority in order not to appear weak. If Isreal does appear weak then the surrounding Arab states may start to look at Isreal as a viable target once more. Given the popularity of the 'the Jews are bad' line amongst the Arab states as a method of distracting attention from domestic difficulties, Isreal has a valid concern.
Then we have the wider concerns. Hezbollah is effectivly an extension of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. We know that Iran has been aiding Shi'a militants in Iraq and clearly has desires of regional domination.
Isreal's actions will not succeed in eliminatimg Hezbollah for the same reasons that all out military offensives have not succeeded in Iraq. The enemy is embedded in the civilian population and is almost impossible to identify or target successfully. Equally, no negotiation will ever satisfy many of those in the Arab and indeed, Muslim world.
Any UN intervention would feature mainly Western troops and while that may go down well in Lebanon (in an 'at least they're not bombing us' kind of way) how long do you think it'd take the rest of the Middle East to portrey it as another Zionist/Crusader occupation? We're talking about a region whose media still report the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact!
We have, in short, a conumdrum...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Sadly there does not seem to be any way this can be settled diplomatically. It's been tried and failed. As much as it sucks, sometimes war is the only way to settle things. Israel won't stop bombarding Lebanon until Hezbollah stops shelling Israel. I don't think either side is going to back down until one or both sides are destroyed.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
This conflict started the moment Ishmael made fun of Isaac and got kicked out of the camp. The only way there will be peace in the region is when either the Arabs or the Israelis are eliminated. Forever.
Muslims are never going to see Israel or the U.S. as anything but infidels and mortal enemies. Islam can not co-exist with any other religion/philosophy/belief that does NOT bow to Allah and Islam. It is FUNDAMENTALLY impossible for a Muslim to adhere to Islam and NOT call all others with differing beliefs infidels and, by their own holy book, worthy only of death.
How can ANYONE possibly believe that you are going to be able to walk in and RATIONALIZE peace to a culture of war that has existed for thousands of years? The economies of the region are disasters. The lack of opportunities breed generations of angry youth. The hate-mongers use this anger to fuel their own agendas by villifying the "enemy" who is OBVIOUSLY responsible for the position these angry youth are in. This shifts the burden of economic & political responsibility from the leadership to the enemy and creates a willing army ready to die to strike a blow at the "oppressor". This game is played on both sides of the border and will continue until the next mass extinction occurs. All the talk and intellectualism on this planet will never be able to overpower the base emotional fanaticism of this region.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Muslims are never going to see Israel or the U.S. as anything but infidels and mortal enemies. Islam can not co-exist with any other religion/philosophy/belief that does NOT bow to Allah and Islam. It is FUNDAMENTALLY impossible for a Muslim to adhere to Islam and NOT call all others with differing beliefs infidels and, by their own holy book, worthy only of death.
Actually, the Qu'ran allows for Jews and Christians to be allowed to exist within an Islamic state, albiet as distinctly second class citizens. In the years after the initial Muslim conquest of North Africa, the Middle eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire and Spain, the authorities (inextricable from Islam itself as they were) were remarkable tolerant. In fact it appears that much of the Jewish population in the Byzantine territories welcomed the Muslims as they were viewed as more tolerant than the Byzantine Christian authorities.
However, there are many other sections of the Qu'ran which can be and, with increasing frequency, are interpreted in the good old-fashioned 'kill the infidel' way. And you are entirely correct that the long standing hatreds in the region entirely preclude any kind of permanent, negotiated compromise settlement. The hatreds and the facts, half-truths, lies and distorted interpretations they are based on are far too deep seated, particularly in the Arab world.
Personally, I feel that Isreal, while by no means perfect, is by far the better option.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
So, we are back to the fact that religious zealots, of any type, are asswipes.
It is too bad that this religious intolerance is done by a reasonably small minority, although it is growing. Most people, it seems, would rather just live their lives as comfortably as possible without all the stupidity of my ideology is better than yours. Since Mohammed claims to be Jesus' half-brother, or at least another prophet of the same God, and the Jewish people only really disagree with Christians in what the purpose of Jesus was, it all boils down to being the same God.
Goofed up crap.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
1.) I think everyone clamoring for or fearing Ultimate Old Tyme Religious Apocalypse is overlooking the powerful political forces at play here. Which is to say that the causes are multifaceted (a good thing I think, ultimately, because weird, thorny, complex problems may be harder to completely solve, but they provide lots of opportunities for potential and partial solutions.)
2.) I guess I don't have a two, except: The theological distinctions are rather more involved than that, Ritten, and the similarities only make the distinctions more distinctive, at least from the inside.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Has anyone considered the possibility that the human race is in fact nothing more than Gods little experiment? Something he created out of idle curiousity, that he can influence and change at a whim. Whether that whim will bring good or bad is really up to him.
I bet you he's done it a thousand times. Creating little worlds all over the place with the beginnings of life and watching them grow. Making changes any way he wants. If he is the supreme eternal being then he's probably got a LOT of time on his hands...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Da_bang, yes, but that is another discussion. Anyone that believes that God is all powerful, then refuse to believe that there maybe other (sentient) life elsewhere is a moron. But the bible doesn't say it. So, the religous people will limit God's power saying it isn't so, then say God works in mystrious ways and we don't know the greater plan. Stupidity if you ask me, so don't.
Sol, I agree that they make them out to be more involved, but I disagree that they have to be.
The political problems are, in that area, usually, very related to the religions in the area. Hamas is the gov't of Palestine, and their leanings are for the total destruction of Israel, which they refuse to recognize as being there. ((How do you destroy something that you do not believe exists?)) The political face, as well as the religious leanings, of all parties involved need to change, and to try to put a separation between the two is a folly.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
You simply can NOT rationalize with irrational people on ANY issue.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
This is true, look at the save the babies kill the doctors crowd.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: So, we are back to the fact that religious zealots, of any type, are asswipes.
On Earth as it is in Heaven, Jesus fuck, Amen.
The CHarlie Rose Show tonight was really good. He fired off several pointed questions at Syrian Expatriates Minister, Buthaina Shaaban, who deftly talked around each and gave an inpassioned speach at the end about her people's struggle with Israel. I think she's full of shit, but she definitely believes what she's saying and then she drops the biig suprise of the evening: She says that Syria is in NO WAY providing missiles or rockets to Hezbollah and reports to the contrary are Israeli lies. She also laments the "hundreds of children and pregnant women" Israel has inprisoned.
The hole in that notion, is the hundreds of journalists from around the world, living in Israel, that would give a nut to report such a sensational story.
Still, watch the interview- Charlie Rose is the great american interviewer, despite that hair thing he has going all wrong. Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Well, you've got an op-ed by Lou Dobbs, possibly the biggest sensationalist asshole on CNN and a broken link...
While there are some good points in the Dobbs bit, it's important to note that 2.6 billion in aid to Israel is almost all for Israel's defense and ongoing security efforts. Everyone says "the US and Israel are great friends, but it's more like Israel represents a safe harbor in a region that's usually a shitstorm for the U.S. (yes, even pre-Iraq invasion). Israel also serves a vital strategic jumping-off point and refueling station.
By contrast, Lebanon serves none of these roles, has a weak government pushed around by a terrorist organization that attacks our close ally at will and with not so much as a peep from the "legitimate" government against them (to be fair, such an outcry could have catastrophc results). So why would the U.S. give Lebanon money? 40 million may be chump change in the grand scheme, but it blithely ignores Bush's own vow to "cut off all support to countries that harbor or support terrorists" and how such countries "will be considered the enemy".
I'd like that 40 mil to feed the needy in my own country, thanks....millions still "live below the poverty line" right here.
If the UN would establish a permanant presence in lebanon, keep Hezbollah in line or away from the border and prevent raids into Israel, I'd be all for taking the money not needed for Israel to (try to) defend it's border and give it to Lebanon's poor and needy masses. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"So why would the U.S. give Lebanon money?"
To turn Lebanon's weak government into a strong one and thereby take some wind out of Hezbollah's sails, since one of the biggest reasons for its popularity in the south is that it renders services the government (being, you know, weak) can't?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
So does anyone have information on just how much money our country pours into nations that despise us? Then lets divide that by the amount of taxes the average American pays in to see how many citizens it takes to support all these "neighbors".
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
It's not like cutting off aid money would make them any friendlier to the US and giving them aid may (eventually) have some effect. Things are rarely black and white anyway. While the Lebanese government does bear some responsibility for the existance and power of Hezbollah, that groups primary sponsors are Syria and Iran, both countries which are much more powerful than Lebanon.
In any case, the US is the sole superpower now, which give it certain responsibilities beyond its own borders.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Bullshit- the US first became a superpower by not giving away the farm and concentrating on industry in the post-WWII era. Spreading itself too thin led to the demise of that other superpower...and an enourmous deficit coupled with increased spending drove in the nails.
Not something I want to see happen to my country. Republicans dont read much history, I guess.
Besides all this, what does the 40 plus million in Lebanese aid get us? Is there some tally on how the money is used or is it just a gift bribe to get the government to be friendly/ not outwardly hostile to us? I've seen a lot of guys with money and no real friends from that.
quote:To turn Lebanon's weak government into a strong one and thereby take some wind out of Hezbollah's sails, since one of the biggest reasons for its popularity in the south is that it renders services the government (being, you know, weak) can't?
You think throwing money at the problem will make it go away? Only if that money really goes to humanitarian aid and it all has an indellible "A gift from the U.S.A." stamp on it- otherwise it's just a bribe and any good the money does will be taken credit for by local politicians- possibly Hezbollah ones. Also, as noted earlier, a goodly chunk of the Lebanese government already is Hezbollah, so it's tough to support one without supporting the other...now if there were a way to sever Hezbollah's external funding while the international community funded the diffrence, that would undermine Hezbollah's influence.
Where does the rest of the world come in regarding funding to Lebanon?
I wonder if the US (and all countries that give foreign aid) are going about things all wrong: why not take ALL the available money and permanantly fix ONE country's problems at a time, as a kind of "here's a fresh start- dont blow it, cause it's all you get" sorta thing? we can sorta do this allready by forgiving the impossible-to-ever-payback loans crippling Africa
I'd start with the U.S.- spread that cash among the poorest 1% right here at home, then move on to Africa and so on...
Knowing human nature, every country that was not that year's benifeciary would attack the ones that already were...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"the US first became a superpower by not giving away the farm and concentrating on industry in the post-WWII era."
Huh?
One possible use for foreign aid money in Lebanon: Rebuilding Lebanon.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, yeah- it'll be a scramble though- it's just as likely that Syria (who are playng the role odf saint to refugees fleeing Lebanon's ongoing destruction- ironic, or well planned?) could step in with massive financial aid through Hezbollah to mute the whole "Hezbollah get up bombed" aspect of the whole sorry affair.
Hezbollah has announced that "Israel will have to trade prisoners for the hostages taken and that no matter what Israel does in Lebanon, they'll either negotiate with the Israeli hostages ...or their bones."
Sad that even Israel cares more for the plight of the Lebanese people than Hezbollah or their Syrian backers.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Zuh?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Israel's UN ambassador yesterday called a press conference where he basicly said- stop the terrorism and give us back our soldiers and we'll stop and leave. He also pointed out that Israel did not want to be there and is trying to minimize civillian deaths, but Hezbollah is useing the civillians as a shield.
Weither you consider the ambassador's words bullshit or gospel, at least Israel is making statements concerning the civillian loss of life whereas Hezbollah's response has been "so what?".
Of course, as far as blame goes, the Israeli ambassador also pointed out that there was a U.N. resolution for Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah that meant nothing sice no one really thought thay could do it and Lebanon never really tried... I guess that's where the international community would have gotten involved, but was...er...washing their hair that night.
So here we are.
..so dont "Zuh?" me, pallie! Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Hezbollah sees the civilians as either martrys or as infedals, since Lebanon has Christians and Muslims, so why would they care?
As for UN resolutions, how many of those get anywhere where the US isn't pushing them for our own agenda? As Lebenon has no real strategic, or tactical, value we didn't. The point that it would have firmed up control of the east end of the Med seems to have been missed by or government. That, and the deaths of 200+ Marines caused the public to not really care about Lebenon.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That Israel, of all countries, should talk about UN resolutions...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Hezbollah sees the civilians as either martrys or as infedals, since Lebanon has Christians and Muslims, so why would they care?
As for UN resolutions, how many of those get anywhere where the US isn't pushing them for our own agenda? As Lebenon has no real strategic, or tactical, value we didn't. The point that it would have firmed up control of the east end of the Med seems to have been missed by or government. That, and the deaths of 200+ Marines caused the public to not really care about Lebenon.
True, true...it'd be tough to garner enthusaism for that mission after the bombing. Still, the U.S. is not the U.N.- or so I've been told- and not every resolution needs to have the U.S. spearhead it.
Some ex-General was on CNN last night talking about how when Israel left Lebanon, Israel thought it would show they were serious about wanting peace, but Hezbollah (and much of the Arab world) declared it as sign of weakness. Same with the pullout from Gaza- the P.L.O. declared "a great victory" and vowed to "drive Israel into the sea".
Later on PBS, I saw Thomas Friedman (of the N.Y. Times) takling aout how the key to regional stability is in seperating Iran from Syria and getting (the slightly more resaonable Syria) to call of Hezbollah. He went into detail about how the US and Saudi Arabia would have to play good cop-bad cop and eventually give Syria concessions to make it happen. I normally disagree with Friedman's world-views (particularly on Globalization) but he was making sense last night (or I was really tired).
quote:Originally posted by TSN: That Israel, of all countries, should talk about UN resolutions...
Yeah, but the U.N. cant have it both ways either- it has to uphold it's own resolutions if it expects any of it's members to abide by them.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
They can't, though. If the Security Council tries to reprimand Israel in any way, the US just vetoes it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Agreed, but consider who has called for sanctions and what they have to gain by taking an anti-Israeli stand on the world stage. Everyone in the S.C. vetos anything that is contrary to their own intrests or that of their allies/partners in commerce...unless doing so would point to their own complicity in whatever brought about the notion of sanction in the first place.
I think a big reason no one is seriously talking sanctions against Israel (now-yet)is that (with regards to the Security Council) Israel is not doing anything they would not do themselves under the same (or less) provocation.
The official word seems to be "we'll give Israel a week to "wrap up" it's operations". It's like a brawl were the friends of guy winning say to themselves "get ready to pull him off". It's as much for the victor as it is for the defeated.
As long as Israel does not re-occupy Lebanon, I doubt any sanctions will be called for against Israel. Besides, sanctions would just further isolate Israel and make any diplomatic cease-fire that much harder.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Was there a formal declaration of war? Israel is bombing another country here. And it's not like in Afghanistan where they were basically dropping bombs in the middle of nowhere. Israel is doing exactly what Hezbollah wants it to do. And thier doing a decent job of making Israel seem like the bad guy (At least to the people of Lebanon if what Anderson Cooper says is true).
I see this on tv and I think of all the people who've been displaced, all the destruction this and other conflicts cause, and I think to myself: When will this end?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Hezbollah are a terrorist organisation sheltering in Lebanon. But could the Lebanese government do anything about them, even if they wanted to? Sure there's bound to be an element that welcomes their presence and supports them, but others must regard them as a threat to already-shaky Lebanese stability. Jordan was able to expel the PLO after they tried a takeover, could Lebanon get rid of the Hezbollah? It all depends on how much support the government and the terrorists each have; if the indiscriminate bombing merely fuels anti-Israeli hostility rather than anti-terrorist resentment, then Lebanon can't do anything and innocent people will continue to die.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The inability of the Lebanese government to do anything has been one of the major reasons for the Isreali strikes. The Lebanese army is not strong enough to take on Hezbollah, in addition to which are the difficulties of rooting an organisation such as Hezbollah out from amongst the general populace and the difficulty of using a less than fantastically trained, funded and equipped army in that kind of situation.
Hezbollah has some support from the local population (at least passively). Not to mention that Lebanon doesn't really want to piss off Syria and Iran, Hezbollah's main supporters.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Er...most reports I've seen show that Hezbollah has had and still has a LOT of support from the populace- it's not like Hezbollah are holding the general populace hostage, they're being sheltered in southern Lebanon. The far more moderate Lebanese government is helpless to oust Hezbollah (or even omit them from elected positions in Parliment) because the government has only slightly more pull with the populace and in the southern region, less.
Has there been a war declared? Yes. Many many times: By Hezbollah, and the P.L.O.- just because the methods they use are not what we're used to in warfare, does not change the facts: they declared war, started hostilities, took prisoners, and vowed to continue do do so untill their enemy were all dead. Sounds pretty official to me. Also, consider that Hezbolah has more of an organized army than many countries- these are not just bands of gurrellia fighters. And they're duly elected representitives of Lebanon. Spliting hairs on this is like saying "It's the Republicans that invaded Iraq- not the U.S.A." In for a penny...
If the people of Lebanon really wanted Hezbolah gone, they could force them to disband- they got Syria to leave without anyone's help, and these are their own countrymen after all.
All that being said, the humanitarian crisis is going to get worse before it gets any better. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I said 'at least' passive support. Obviously, the level of support varies. The majority of Shi'a Muslims in the area support Hezbollah to a certain extant and there are many for whom that support no doubt extends to active assisstance. However, the Christian community (about 40 per cent of Lebanese) is substantially less fond of Hezbollah. Sunni Muslim opinion appears to vary; many in the south are of course at least passive supporters due to the services provided by Hezbollah that the government can't. One of the reasons for the relatively high civilian body count is that most Hexbollah facilities are located in civilian buildings and area.
You have to remember as well the reason why Hezbollah are so strong: Syria and Iran. Hezbollah are effectively an extension of the Iranian Revolutionary Gurad. Not as easy to dislodge as the Syrian army, particularly given the facilities and services provided by Hezbollah. It all comes down to what we were saying about aid money above. If people think they are getting a benefit from a particular country or organisation, they are going to support it.
Oh, and you cannot ever say to terrorist groups that they are in a war with you. Ever. The provos always claim that they are soldiers, no different from our lads. Terrorists are terrorists. They are not soldiers. Isreal is saying that this is an action against Hezbollah, not Lebanon (note the lack of operations against the Lebanese armed forces).
[ July 24, 2006, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Wraith ]
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
From the Quran:
5:51 O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.
Pretty much sums up what the hardliners base their practices on.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Quoting a passage whose main charge is a generic "thou shalt have no other god before me, or friends believing in a god that isn't also me" does not make your post any more insightful.
quote:Originally posted by Jason: Bullshit- the US first became a superpower by not giving away the farm and concentrating on industry in the post-WWII era.
Have we prahaps forgotten about the Marshall plan?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"And thier doing a decent job of making Israel seem like the bad guy..."
Israel are the bad guys. So are Hezbollah. This is a bad guy vs. bad guy situation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman:
quote:Originally posted by Jason: Bullshit- the US first became a superpower by not giving away the farm and concentrating on industry in the post-WWII era.
Have we prahaps forgotten about the Marshall plan?
No, but that had the objective of allowing the countries devastated by WWII to recover on somewhat equal footing (thus making Soviet takeover of a very weak country less likely). It was also a plan set forth back when the U.S. was not only the sole country not ravaged by war, but the sole nuclear power as well. We could afford altruism in spades.
Somehow this grand notion of assisting our allies and potential allies became an ongoing charity to whatever country is unwilling or unable to fend for their populace or who's leaders have crippled the countries through poor judgement of unwise military posturing. Current U.S. foreign aid policy is like the Marshall Plan without the "plan" part.
I would not seriously say cuttng off all foreign aid is a good idea, only that many many Americans live in desperate conditions (see New Orleans ongoing plight) while the government pisses away millions on aid to people that would as soon burn our flag as aid us against our enemies. When America is truly the paradise it should be, then we'll have both the rescources and true democracy of the people we always preach that other countries should emulate. Besides, with a nigh-insurmountable national deficit, it's either re-examine who we're giving money to or strip all government programs (thus making Americans suffer for charitues no one voted for).
Back to topic, The Charlie Rose Show once again was fantastic- by tomorrow you should be able to watch the interview with DENNIS ROSS, Former U.S. Envoy to the Middle East. The smartest guy I've seen interviewed on this whole issue. He makes a great case for Lebanon's potential to contain Hezbollah mid-country with their Syrian and Iran aid cut off and with the Lebanese army patroling the Israeli border (giving them real legitimacy and making Israel less airstrike-happy) and how to get Saudi Arabi involved in the peace process -and why their intrests are in Hezbollah losing thios conflict. Ross explains that (in the even Israel leaves Lebanon and an enboldened Hezbollah grows even stronger Iran would use Hezbollah as a club to further their worlview for the Middle-east. A worldview that certainly is at odds with moderates like Saudi Arabia.
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"And thier doing a decent job of making Israel seem like the bad guy..."
Israel are the bad guys. So are Hezbollah. This is a bad guy vs. bad guy situation.
Dont make me break out the Bruce Springsteen albums...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Somehow this grand notion of assisting our allies and potential allies became an ongoing charity to whatever country is unwilling or unable to fend for their populace or who's leaders have crippled the countries through poor judgement of unwise military posturing. Current U.S. foreign aid policy is like the Marshall Plan without the "plan" part.
In part yes. but it all stems from the great power politics of the Cold War. The Soviets were more than willing to pump money and arms into thrid world countries. The US had to respond. And deeper than that, paying people off is and always has been a vital part of maintaining power and at least a semblance of control. From the federated tribal system of the Romans to the Rajas of British India, this is the way it's always been done and the way it always will be done. No, it isn't perfect, but what is?
The middle east does present a particular problem, with the entrenched hatred of the US, partly due to US actions, partly due to an ideological opposition and partly due to several decades of propaganda. But money always makes things go easier.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: From the Quran:
5:51 O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.
Pretty much sums up what the hardliners base their practices on.
Searching the Internet, I found one translation saying that there is the word "certain" where you put "the" between "take" and "Jews."
There is also: 5:57 O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.
It doesn't say anything about not befriending people who don't ridicule your religion. We can learn from this that quoting from religious books does not make us understand this crisis any better.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Or, at least, quoting from translations of religious books without knowing how accurate they are.
"I would not seriously say cuttng off all foreign aid is a good idea, only that many many Americans live in desperate conditions (see New Orleans ongoing plight) while the government pisses away millions on aid to people that would as soon burn our flag as aid us against our enemies."
There are many other areas of governmental spending that ought to be diverted to domestic humanitarian aid before diverting foreign humanitarian aid.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Big Oil Aid, paying farmers not to farm, and a huge slew of pork barrel projects that would fill this site database with crap.
Plus grants need to be watched better, an NPO in the NE asked for $19,000.00 for a project, and got $30,000.00 for it. At $11,000.00 per state you could pay someone to work 26 hours a week for a year here in IL. This would vary by state and area, I think San Fransisco has the highest minimum wage in the nation, so it would be far fewer hours, but the states using Federal minimum wage could work more hours. After taxes this would at least pay rent in most areas of the nation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: There are many other areas of governmental spending that ought to be diverted to domestic humanitarian aid before diverting foreign humanitarian aid.
Certainly correct, but I'd still have severed all aid to any group or country that burned our flag or said we deserved the 9/11 attacks.
No humanitarian aid shit either- the leaders can pay for the masses' food with their war chest.
Anyhow, I've been working myself to death this week (55 hours and I still work another 8 on sunday!) and have not had too much time to keep up with the current crisis, but I did hear Bush parrotting Israel's call for an international military presence to keep Hezbollah away from the border (and undoubtedly to prevent Iran and Syria from resupplying them as well). Sounds like the idea is taking off too- several countries have pledged support of the plan.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Certainly correct, but I'd still have severed all aid to any group or country that burned our flag or said we deserved the 9/11 attacks."
So, for example, the United States?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, and we have sent all of our money overseas.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Lousy Americans!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
You forgot ugly.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)