Because going after Iraq NOW wont cause the middle east to be turned to glass
Going after Korea will cause the Korean peninsual and probably Japan to become largly uninhabitable?
simple math their really.
And alot of nations do have the capcity for nuclear weapons.
Im thinking before this century is out we will most likely see a nuclear war, or exchange, and DEFINATLY some form of hostile detonation, just a matter of time really.
[quote]Originally posted by Tyvar:
[b]Im thinking before this century is out we will most likely see a nuclear war, or exchange, and DEFINATLY some form of hostile detonation, just a matter of time really.[/b][/quote]
You have to admit the Pakistan and India situation is scary. That's not even thinking about missing Soviet weapons. Lord only knows what other things we can't even imagine yet. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[quote]Originally posted by Konrad:
[b]It would be so easy to get the oil by simply lifting the embargo and leting them export all the oil they want to the world.[/b][/quote]
That wouldn't give Bush control of the oil though.
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
we probably wont go to war with either iraq or korea. and as far as we know iraq DOESNT have nukes, we believe that he is developing them. and if he is he isnt admitting to it, like korea is. The truth is this talk of war is talk. Because in the last 5-6 months their has been very little on the war on terror going on, so you pull up this war story.
There are many many reasons for going into iraq, but since so many people dislike bush and think he is the anti christ they will record it in history as him doing it only for oil reasons, which isnt true. you want to believe go right ahead. but the gov wants to do it so he doesnt get nukes or chemical weapons or biological weapons and uses them on us, isreal or anywhere else.
What if he threw a plague into europe?
would you still be screaming oh dont go after him! the americans only want the oil the bastards! how much oil do they need! hey im a little hot turn up the ac? why dont you leave every light on? lets drive to china!
why piss off korea? they are one of the few countrys that can hit us with bombs from their home. Plus unlike Iraq, korea is changing, slowly. they set up a captialist zone to test the waters. they are talking to SK again. They are changing, slowly though.
Iraq isnt changing. If saddam dies his crazy ass son takes over. (this is the kid who just guns down random people for fun)
The US would NEVER use nukes in any war, unless its a complete nuclear war. think of you will but politicians are scared to death of the american people, and their are faaaaaaaar too many of us who would never support nuke strikes to any non nuke nation.
they thought that for sure their would be a nuke war before we reach 2001. well its 2002, wheres my nuke war? its more then likely that there would be a nuke terrorist hit before the turn to 2100. and india and pakistan? well i believe that their going to destroy one another, because they hate each other so much and are unwaivering.
Just because we force a regime change in iraq doesnt mean we get the oil. I would hope that the UN would put up some structure for a regime change. Like what happened in Afghanistan. we went in, remove the goverment and let the UN decide who should be put there. its probably going to happen in Iraq. Imagine a stablizing middle east. its a ways off but not unachieveable.
[quote]Originally posted by Banner:
[b]
GWB senior is having a say in all this. Oil interests.
[/b][/quote]
The thing I dont get is Why did'nt GWB Senior take Care of Saddam in the first place??
I think the U.S. Want to Set up a system of Goverment that will sale then Oil.
He didn'tdo it in the first place because that would SERIOUSLY piss off all his arab allies he pretty much depended on during the Gulf war.
The U.S. having an occupying force (as opposed to a preacekeeping force as in Afghanistan) in the capitol of Iraq would probably only serve to give more fodder to the extremists that already ecisted back then.
That, and then we would be responsible to defend Iraq's new government against a then and still somewhat today aggressive Iran. We didn't want to commit to something like that. In hindsight, it was a mistake.
N Korea having nukes doesn't really bother me, espcailly since they are talking about it.
The US will only go to war vs. Iraq IF, and ONLY IF, they don't allow full, unrestricted inspections. What I think is great is that bush is in a win/win siutation...either Iraq says no and we attack, or they say yes and he wins a diplomatic victory.
Why doesnt anybody bring up the completely obvious?
Wait, nobody realizes war is a horribly complex buisness.
the US government has not even begun to moblize the logistics chain it will need to wage a war in Iraq, and that should tell everybody that no war is imminently planned
Amatures talk tactics, and idiots talk equipment, real war is won by and real generals fight with logistics, and since we havent set up a supply chain for even 75,000 troops, It goes to show we are not planning a "D-Day" type invasion.
I have a feeling if Sadam is done away with its going to be a Coup or something similar
I thought the problem was, Ty, that they [i]had[/i] begun to make preparations for military activities of some kind - the buying of supplies, and the recquisition and purchasing of transports and lease contracts have been noted in the European press... all tied in to the Persain Guf region.
Certainly, it's not conclusive - but the activities seemed to be out of the ordinary for the usual supply routines for the forces already in the locality; sufficiently so to catch the media's eye, even outside of the tabloids.
Bekenn; Israel under siege? Quite possibly so - on a great deal of the land which, historically, culturally, even legally, doesn't belong to them. Oh, I'm not saying the Arabs are the perpetual good guys in the Israeli situation - racial tensions run high on both sides, and both have shown themselves to be the aggressors in the past; you just have to be open minded enough to try and see the situation objectively.
I'd suggest you track down some of the recent work from the noted journalist John Pilger - your view is blinkered, at least in what you've said here. You fail to mention the ethnic cleansing and terrorism involved in the actual formation of Israel - nor the atrocities then, and since - torture of prisoners, abuse of non-Jewish minorities... Push Israel into the sea? I can't think why her Arab neighbours might want to [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
The moral of the story is - the world is a very ****ed up place, and some people could do with a lesson in what it is to be human.
You seem to have misunderstood my post. I wasn't making a case for the legitimacy of Israel's actions, whether against neihboring Arab nations or against resident Palestinians; I was attempting to show how things might look from the point of view of the average Israeli citizen to produce the "siege mentality" Tyvar mentioned. Regardless of what led to them being somewhat "under siege," regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation, the fact still remains that they are under siege; do you dispute that?
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
Yeah, some transports have been contracted, but not enough, and the supplies laid in are coming in still fairly small numbers and lots, and wont be ready for a while.
If there is going to be a war with Iraq its either going to be alot like afghanistan or in two years.
We are NOT going to see Desert Storm part II.. to highlight this, there is a national gaurd artillary battlion here thats part of a core level asset artillery brigade, of its 20 or so some odd tracked vehicles, 10 are deadlined for lack of spares and they have been told not to expect the spares anytime soon. This artillery unit is tasked for CENTCOM! they themselves didnt go to Desert Storm, but their gear did, to agument core level artillery units. The fact that those tracks are not being brought online tells me that there isnt a plan for a major shooting scrape.
Next the two (well three) marine divisions are NOT begining divisional level operations, which one would expect them to do in lead up to a conflict, the fact that they are stationed hither thither and yon goes to show they are not being pulled together or prepped for a major beach assault.
Next we have the 101st and 82nd still with detached units, again if they were being prepped for a major operation their units would be pulled back to them so they could prepare propperly.
There are alot of smaller things going on, but still, I think its more misdirection then anything.
I hope we certainly don't see a Desert Storm II, certainly not with the US acting in conjunction with select allies only and no backing from the international community - whilst a great number of people from the States simply see this as an ungrateful world dragging its feet our concerns regarding US intentions and their implications for future policy, and their more direct outcomes, are well-grounded and should not be dismissed off-hand.
A great deal of the European press is available online, and translations are readily available - the arguments against war are there for those willing to listen; the fight for freedom might not well lie in any armed conflict in the Middle East but within the halls of the UN.
Bekenn - maybe I did misunderstand your post, but I was drawing from the tone of your recent posting on the subject; I merely replied in the same vein, but in juxtaposition - I thought it would work better to make my point. The point of view of the average Israeli citizen is not the one that I would choose from which to judge the situation, especially given the current political climate and its portrayal in the Israeli media.
I'm sure they do feel under seige, though whether they are or not is still to be seen; you never know, things could change. The Israeli nation has certainly done little to endear itself to its Arab neighbours, of that there is little doubt - you've admitted as much yourself in admitting of the existence of a siege mentality. I'm sure the Palestinian authority equally feels under siege, but how often do you hear of that in the mainstream Israeli press?
The siege mentality seems to be a part of modern Israeli culture, based on an us-against-them stance stemming from the foundation of the Israeli nation - it's a hallmark of modern state formation, especially from such a diverse grouping of people; you need to create an identity, and a popular one, and the best method of bringing people together is to play on adversity - as we see with this example now; though the belief is now outdated, and the adversity it was born out of has ceased to be as it then was. How could the Israeli nation be pushed into the sea, or see itselves in a siege when it has the backing of the only remaining superpower and the strongest (overwhelmingly so) military in the region?
The Israeli situation doesn't fit with the definition of a siege - the better example, more closely matching the traditional understanding of what a siege is would be the Palestinian Authority: your land taken from you by force, military occupation...
The definition worked best just after the formation of the nation of Israel, but I believe it hold little ground in the modern world order - certainly they're surrounded by unfriendly neighbours, but they're merely ambivalent and not outright hostile as they previously had been.
It's a part of culture, a legacy, rather than a valid pretext for any actions in the present.
In that respect I'll dispute your point, Bekenn - but, like I said, things could change.
[quote]Originally posted by Tyvar:
[b]
and since we havent set up a supply chain for even 75,000 troops, It goes to show we are not planning a "D-Day" type invasion.
[/b][/quote]
Except where the US militaries October order for sunscreen bottles, from a business in NZ, in October was 135,000 bottles... where it is usually 24,000 a month
Yes, one increase of a 145,000 4 oz bottles of sunscreen, you do realize 4 oz of sunscreen doesnt go that far in a desert environment right? they are going to need even MORE then that for massed operations, thats enough for about 145,000 personel, period for about a month (at most) and thats for the Airforce personal, the navy personel (alot of them spend time on deck) and the army. Still doesnt add up to a huge force.
The army contingent alone in Desert Storm 1 was over 200,000 men.
I didn't think we were arguing about the scale of the force, but rather that preparations were ongoing which were out of the ordinary for the forces already stationed out in the Persian Gulf region - hence the suggestion that preparations were being made for an intensification of Western military deployments within the region.
[quote][b]The Israeli nation has certainly done little to endear itself to its Arab neighbours, of that there is little doubt - you've admitted as much yourself in admitting of the existence of a siege mentality.[/b][/quote]
Oh, of course; never meant to imply otherwise, which is precisely why I mentioned it.
[quote][b]I'm sure the Palestinian authority equally feels under siege, but how often do you hear of that in the mainstream Israeli press?[/b][/quote]
I don't dispute that, but it falls outside my point, which is this: left alone, if the Arab states around Israel had the military might to do it, they would launch a war with the intent of destroying Israel. They've shown their willingness to do so in the past, particularly when many of them banded together just after the formation of the state of Israel and actually tried to do it -- before Israel had even had the chance to commit its own misdeeds.
This is certainly not to say that I hold the state of Israel blameless in all that has transpired; they've launched plenty of their own first strikes against Arab neighbors, and their treatment of the local Palestinian people has been wanting.
Re: the Palestinians: I'm not fully aware of all the details on that front, but I do know that as a minority population, they have long been plagued with this kind of foul treatment. What makes their current situation worse is that they are living on land that was set aside for them prior to Israel's existence; then, in 1948, the UN just decided to take that land turn it into Israel. The Palestinians were completely screwed out of what they had come to call their own.
So, yeah, their situation stinks; but the tactics chosen by organizations like the PLO (namely, blowing up busses and weddings and so forth -- civilian targets, not military) have removed a lot of sympathy people might otherwise have had for them. So, in my mind, that's where efforts have to start if you want to see stability in the region: get rid of the terrorist organizations that currently claim to speak for the Palestinian people. Only once that's done can we deal with the people directly and try to give them a legitimate voice. [i]Then[/i] we can work on getting Israel to listen to it and treat them fairly.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
But what of the state endorsed terrorism being conducted by the Israeli army? For my mind it's the fact that the actions ae being carried out by a force legitimised by the Israeli government that means that the emphasis for an activity peace process must lie with Israel.
You can't ask the PLO to stop their terrorist (though I doubt they would call themselves as much - I think the old freedom fighter/terrorist quandary applies here; they certainly don't see themselves as terrorists in overall focus) campaign when the Israeli government still refuses to curtail the actions of its own military - they'd never agree to it, and so never have.
In my mind, they're their own worst enemy - both of them; and they're both held in high regard within their own communities, to make matters worse - there's nothing harder to shift than an established formulation!
The problem with calling Israeli forces to account [i]now[/i] is that they have a legitimate threat to deal with, and they really do have to deal with it. As long as that threat exists, they have a legitimate excuse to fall back on. I mean, let's face it; Israeli civilians are being killed. It's the job of the Israeli government to try to keep that from happening, using whatever means they see fit.
On the flip side, Palestinian civilians are [i]also[/i] being killed, in actions designed to bring down Palestinian terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, the Palestinians don't have a legitimate government to look after them; and the fact that the PLO targets civilians doesn't help their case.
Actually, technically, Israel [i]is[/i] their legitimate government, and as such Israel should also be doing what they can to keep Palestinians who aren't involved in these terrorist activities from being killed. But, as long as these terrorist organizations continue to pose a threat to Jewish citizenry, the Israelis have a valid excuse for their actions. Remove that excuse, and the rest should follow.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
I disagree - your talking about Israeli military activities within civilian areas which they are, by UN resolution, in illegal occupation of.
The root of the problem lies with Israel's occupation; it always has, and always will in terms of trying to understand the divide between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Still, it provides no valid excuse as to why a legitimised military machine should orchestrate large scale actions in the midst of civillian areas in a deliberate manner - you don't have a military in the world who kills as many civilians as the Israeli army. How can the actions in the likes of Jenin be truly legitimised by the threat of small scale terrorist action? How can the persistent persecuation of the Palestinians be truly ascribed to the need to remove any terrorist threat that might lurk in their midst?
Generations of Palestinians have grown up alienated and fuelled on hatred by the actions of the Israeli military specifically, and the Israeli administration on the whole - this is why you're seeing people willing to die simply to strike a blow at people they firmly regard as the enemy. Sure, no one could deny that the military has a right to safeguard its own civilian population, but not at the expense of the civilian population of another, as now appears to be the case - and you can't deny this from the constant attrition the Palestinians suffer in their daily lives, as well as the more specific instances of organised action against them in the recent Intifada.
I'm sure the question of Palestinian legitimacy would be solved, but it's a cyclical argument, as we're straight back to the question of Israel's illegal occupation which lies at the heart of the whole problem in the region.
You'll never get a lasting answer until you solve that question, and since the occupation and it's effects upon the Palestinian population is the principal driving force behind organisations like the PLO (and I think, in this instance, you were more thinking of the likes of HAMAS, rather than the PLO - were you not? It would fit with the question of terrorism more) and the anger many feel towards the Israeli state.
Still, you can't ask one side to stop suicide bombing when the other has a rather unsavoury penchant for firing on ambulances, now can you?
The first move should come from Israel - it's the dominant player; it holds all the cards, and has the capabilities to make a peace work. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are pushed against the wall; and violence simply begets more violence.
[quote]Originally posted by Mr_Bungle:
[b]I disagree - your talking about Israeli military activities within civilian areas which they are, by UN resolution, in illegal occupation of.[/b][/quote]
Oh, so I was wrong about Israel's government being the supposedly legitimate authority for the Palestinians; this means, then, that the Palestinian civilians aren't technically cared for by any government. This makes the Israeli military's actions slightly more palatable (which, I should add, is not to say that they're entirely justified; merely a little harder to debunk), as that essentially puts Israel in a state of undeclared war against them. In wars, civilian casualties are usually inevitable. The problem comes when civilians are specifically targeted, which I believe Israel maintains isn't the case.
Thinking from a legal viewpoint here.
[quote][b]The root of the problem lies with Israel's occupation; it always has, and always will in terms of trying to understand the divide between the Palestinians and the Israelis.[/b][/quote]
Except that, as I understand it, the Israeli occupation began as a response to what was happening to them; am I mistaken?
[quote][b]How can the actions in the likes of Jenin be truly legitimised by the threat of small scale terrorist action? How can the persistent persecuation of the Palestinians be truly ascribed to the need to remove any terrorist threat that might lurk in their midst?[/b][/quote]
Hence my previous statements: Israel is not without blame here. They've gone too far in their responses. Remove their need to respond -- that is, remove the genuine threat to Israeli citizens that does exist -- and Israel will no longer have an excuse for all this. If it continues to happen regardless, [i]then[/i] the rest of the world can intervene.
[quote][b]Generations of Palestinians have grown up alienated and fuelled on hatred by the actions of the Israeli military specifically, and the Israeli administration on the whole - this is why you're seeing people willing to die simply to strike a blow at people they firmly regard as the enemy.[/b][/quote]
Okay, we've established that they have a motive. This doesn't give them the moral authority to actually do it, however.
[quote][b]Sure, no one could deny that the military has a right to safeguard its own civilian population, but not at the expense of the civilian population of another, as now appears to be the case[/b][/quote]
Actually, I think a great many people would disagree with you on that point. It's a fairly recent idea that in war civilian casualties are unacceptable. It happens to be a tenet that I tend to agree with, but it certainly hasn't always been the operational paradigm, and at times civilian casualties are simply unavoidable.
Take, for instance, our operations in Afghanistan. Those resulted in a number of civilian deaths, but those deaths were considered acceptable because we were going after an organization responsible for killing our own civilians, and we were doing everything we could to make sure it didn't happen again. Nations have to treat their own civilians as more important than anybody else's; otherwise, they cannot perform their job of protecting their civilian population.
This is not to say, however, that another nation's civilians can be used as a weapon in a first strike, which is part of what separates terrorist organizations from legitimate military forces: they target civilians first. And that is unacceptable.
[quote][b] - and you can't deny this from the constant attrition the Palestinians suffer in their daily lives, as well as the more specific instances of organised action against them in the recent Intifada.[/b][/quote]
Remind me; did the Palestinians attack civilian targets, or military targets?
[quote][b]I'm sure the question of Palestinian legitimacy would be solved, but it's a cyclical argument, as we're straight back to the question of Israel's illegal occupation which lies at the heart of the whole problem in the region.[/b][/quote]
Except that, as I understand it, the occupation started in response to attacks on civilians.
[quote][b]You'll never get a lasting answer until you solve that question,[/b][/quote]
And you'll never solve that question until you get rid of Israel's excuse for being there.
[quote][b]and since the occupation and it's effects upon the Palestinian population is the principal driving force behind organisations like the PLO (and I think, in this instance, you were more thinking of the likes of HAMAS, rather than the PLO - were you not? It would fit with the question of terrorism more) and the anger many feel towards the Israeli state.[/b][/quote]
You're right, HAMAS is more along the lines of what I was thinking of. My mistake.
[quote][b]Still, you can't ask one side to stop suicide bombing when the other has a rather unsavoury penchant for firing on ambulances, now can you?[/b][/quote]
Absolutely. There comes a point where it no longer matters what the motives behind your actions are; the actions are still wrong, and as long as those actions are committed, you do not have the moral high ground.
Let me put this another way:
One man, angered at another for reasons going back generations and continuing even in his lifetime, tried to shoot the other, but missed and instead killed the other man's daughter. Worried that the other man would come after him for vengeance, the first man built up a fort around himself that would be very difficult to penetrate. Angered at this injustice, the other man shot and killed the first man's son; then, he ran and hid, for he knew the first man would again come looking to kill him and protect his own family. When the first man came and was unable to find him, he went mad, shooting the other man's sons and daughters who might be harboring his enemy and seizing their property to keep the other man from using it. Meanwhile, the other, still unable to strike at the first man directly, continued to murder the first man's children, one for each of his own that had died in the conflict. The first man vowed to continue his search until the other could be brought to justice.
Who was justified, and who should be punished?
[quote][b]The first move should come from Israel - it's the dominant player; it holds all the cards, and has the capabilities to make a peace work. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are pushed against the wall; and violence simply begets more violence.[/b][/quote]
While I certainly agree that Israel is in a better position to push for a peaceful resolution, what you have to keep in mind is that they are never going to be willing to pursue that peace until the terrorist activity stops. Which is why I say that that is where a peace has to start: in the removal of those organizations.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
I've been putting off replying to this one, mainly as your last post was a monster and was going to take my some time to sift through and generate a decent reply to me; no point joining in a debate unless you have something to contribute, eh? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I'll respond to your post using the order in which you laid the topics down, to make things easier, and show progression.
Firstly, I don't consider the fact that there's no officialised 'state', [i]per se[/i], make Israeli actions any more palatable - surely the lack of any official defence mechanism for the Palestinians should mean that the aggression being showed, in general, by Israel and it's military is totally unwarranted and should be condemned? You'll agree with me in saying that a great many Israeli actions are completely lacking in justification - and the simple fact is that that when you take overt military action in densely populated civilian areas you are, de facto, targetting civilians; regardless of your previous intentions, or declarations to the opposite.
This is the reason why the recent occupations in the West Bank have been so roundly condemned in the European press - can you imagine the uproar if the British government had used tanks and helicopter gunships in Northern Ireland? The very purpose of such weapons is to be as destructive as possible, and as such do not make effective tools in any counter-terrorism/insurgency campaign. I'm sure that that fact cannot have escaped Israeli military planners, so the question of why they continue to pursue such a destructive policy in handling minority threats in urban areas remains open to speculation.
Next point, on the occupation itself - some clarification of my perspective; I was referring to the occupation in general, not specifically to the recent military incursions in PA areas during the Intifada. The actions of Israeli in the annexation of huge tracts of land cannot, in any way, be justified as a direct response to 'what was being done to them'. I think your comment was more spawned from the confusion in my stance, rather than you being mistaken. From all accounts it seems to have been simply a campaign of expansion.
Moving again we return to the questions of civilians - and a distinction over the role of Hamas, and other such groups; they don't simply target civilians - there's a great deal of attrition amongst Israeli soldiers as well, though this constant battle is less noted in the press. The question then is one of legitimacy - which you seem to feel Hamas has none of, through their actions; but it deserves the question throwing back, as to why, then, if the Israeli army is a legitimate force why is pursuing such a wantonly destructive policy? In the aggressive deployment of military forces into distinctly civlians areas in Gaza and the West Bank?
That, I feel, is a crucial point in the argument - that the one force supposedly acting with legitimacy should be the prosecutor of such muderous actions.
The argument wanders back and forth a bit now, but you return to the point of the Israeli's military need to be there - where, in the West Bank? Imagine Bekenn, that someone came and took away most of your land, and pushed you back into the last few stretches of it. Would you feel angry? Would you want to fight back?
I'd imagine the answer would be yes. Imagine then that they push into the last few areas remaining to you - can't you begin to feel that blood boil now?
That's just it - Israel has no need to be there; end of argument. The UN declared their annexation illegal in two resolutions - we're willing to bomb Iraq for parting from UN agreements, but why not Israel? They've pushed a whole people against the wall with the original occupation, and subsequent heavy-handed actions against the PA have only worsened the situation. If they want to combat terrorism then they should look to the source, rather than simply piling the woes on - and that's their illegal, bloody, occupation of 'Palestine'.
We're agreed on most fronts, which is good - but I feel this last point is very important. If you want to remove the authority for something, the best place is to start at the roots. The move for peace should come from Israel - it's military occupation lies at the heart of the problem, and provides the impetus for organisations like Hamas to push their agendas and find popular support where, in more normal circumstances, they would be hard pressed to find people willing to give them the time.
Remove the provocation and I'm sure Hamas would collapse; much more effectively than shelling the block of flats a few of them might live, along with half a hundred unfortunate innocents...
[quote]Originally posted by Mr_Bungle:
[b]Firstly, I don't consider the fact that there's no officialised 'state', [i]per se[/i], make Israeli actions any more palatable[/b][/quote]
Looking at it from my previous assumption -- that being that [i]Israel[/i] is their official state -- I think you'll agree that it [i]does[/i] make Israel's actions more palatable. Not because they're necessarily right or justified, but simply because they're not targeting the same people that they're supposed to be defending.
But this is a minor point; I won't dwell on it.
[quote][b]You'll agree with me in saying that a great many Israeli actions are completely lacking in justification - and the simple fact is that when you take overt military action in densely populated civilian areas you are, de facto, targetting civilians; regardless of your previous intentions, or declarations to the opposite.[/b][/quote]
Another minor point: I do think that their true intentions matter. In war, civilians get killed. This is almost assured. What makes that an atrocity rather than a tragedy is the military intent of the action resulting in civilian deaths. Was the military aiming at that civilian, or was the civilian simply within the blast radius when something more important got blown up? Did the guy pulling the trigger jump with glee when he saw the civilian get ripped to shreds, or did he say a silent prayer of sorrow?
In any case, the fact that a civilian got killed is a Bad Thing(tm); the difference is in whether or not the soldier should be court-martialed.
Furthermore, if you're chasing an enemy who has holed up in a civilian area, such that it's impossible to get to him without going through a few civilians, and the enemy is big enough and important enough of a threat to your own civilians, you have to treat the civilians he's hiding behind as expendable. You do what you can to minimize civilian losses, but you can't always let them stand between you and your goal.
This isn't meant to be a blanket statement that all predicted enemy civilian losses are acceptable; only that there are indeed situations in which they are acceptable. I am, however, making the case that all or nearly all unpredicted and unintended civilian losses are acceptable. You can't fight wars otherwise.
[quote][b]I'm sure that that fact cannot have escaped Israeli military planners, so the question of why they continue to pursue such a destructive policy in handling minority threats in urban areas remains open to speculation.[/b][/quote]
See my above parable (in my previous post) for my take on this; do you understand what I was saying there?
[quote][b]The actions of Israeli in the annexation of huge tracts of land cannot, in any way, be justified as a direct response to 'what was being done to them'. I think your comment was more spawned from the confusion in my stance, rather than you being mistaken. From all accounts it seems to have been simply a campaign of expansion.[/b][/quote]
This is one of the areas where my knowledge is a little fuzzy, since I can't claim to know what the Israelis where thinking when they decided to take that land. I only know a little of their stated reasons.
That said, I do know that they were willing to give most of it back again. Following is a transcript of an interview with Dennis Ross, who was our special envoy to the Middle East during the Clinton administration. It looks like they came very close to actually reaching a deal:
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html[/url]
[quote][b]Moving again we return to the questions of civilians - and a distinction over the role of Hamas, and other such groups; they don't simply target civilians - there's a great deal of attrition amongst Israeli soldiers as well, though this constant battle is less noted in the press.[/b][/quote]
Do you maintain that they are targetting the military solely, or even predominantly?
[quote][b]The question then is one of legitimacy - which you seem to feel Hamas has none of, through their actions; but it deserves the question throwing back, as to why, then, if the Israeli army is a legitimate force why is pursuing such a wantonly destructive policy?[/b][/quote]
The Israeli army is a legitimate force because Israel is a legitimate country, recognized as such by nations across the globe. It's a member of the United Nations, it has treaties with various countries, has waged war on numerous occasions, and has an infrastructure of support for its civilian population. Israel's legitimacy as a state is backed up by history. Its army is legitimate because Israel says it's legitimate. This is not to say that all of its military actions are legitimate, and it's because of the fact that there, are as you have mentioned, several cases of illegitimate actions, that the UN and several European countries have been unhappy with Israel.
"Palestine," on the other hand, has no recognized country, and no coherent military to call its own. Therefore, the legitimacy of any military-like organization operating out of "Palestine" depends upon the legitimacy of its actions. I maintain that the specific targetting of civilians classifies HAMAS, etc -- which have no government claiming these organizations as its own -- as terrorist organizations, regardless of the fact that they sometimes also target military forces. If they solely targetted military, then I'd agree, they're freedom fighters. As it is, no; they're terrorists.
[quote][b]That, I feel, is a crucial point in the argument - that the one force supposedly acting with legitimacy should be the prosecutor of such muderous actions.[/b][/quote]
I'm not defending all of the Israeli military's actions. But I am saying that they may have a legitimate reason for being where they are, that being the protection of their own civilians from the aforementioned terrorist groups.
[quote][b]Imagine Bekenn, that someone came and took away most of your land, and pushed you back into the last few stretches of it. Would you feel angry?[/b][/quote]
Yes.
[quote][b]Would you want to fight back?[/b][/quote]
Absolutely.
[quote][b]Imagine then that they push into the last few areas remaining to you - can't you begin to feel that blood boil now?[/b][/quote]
Of course. And I'd be justified in striking back at those who actually caused me harm. But not in striking at those they protect, and that is the distinction I am making here. The fact that some Israeli soldier bulldozed my house in the West Bank does not give me a good reason to blow myself up in the middle of a coffee shop in Jerusalem, and doing so only lends credence to the guy who bulldozed my house.
[quote][b]That's just it - Israel has no need to be there; end of argument.[/b][/quote]
I think the Israeli government disagrees with you, and if they're right about that being the only way to root out terrorist groups, then I agree with them. Once again, and I want to make this clear, this is not to say that the actions carried out once they got there are right. But their presence in these areas may indeed be warranted, even if their methods aren't.
[quote][b]The UN declared their annexation illegal in two resolutions - we're willing to bomb Iraq for parting from UN agreements, but why not Israel?[/b][/quote]
Because Israel has shown the capacity to be reasonable. As I mentioned above, this situation almost ended two years ago.
[quote][b]They've pushed a whole people against the wall with the original occupation, and subsequent heavy-handed actions against the PA have only worsened the situation. If they want to combat terrorism then they should look to the source, rather than simply piling the woes on.[/b][/quote]
And, there, we agree.
[quote][b]The move for peace should come from Israel.[/b][/quote]
Should, perhaps, but won't. Or perhaps I'm wrong on that; if it does, good for Israel. But I'd be willing to bet that Israel won't be willing to move out until somebody stops killing its civilians. And, unfortunately, I'm also willing to bet that HAMAS, etc. won't be willing to stop as long as Israel maintains a presence in the West Bank and Gaza. Hence, one of them has to expire before any good can result. Since Israel's a lot bigger and a whole lot more people depend on Israel's continued existence, I say get rid of the Palestinian terrorists. That way, Israel no longer has a valid excuse for being in the contested areas, and (with pressure from the UN et al) the remaining Palestinians get their state.
[quote][b]Remove the provocation and I'm sure Hamas would collapse; much more effectively than shelling the block of flats a few of them might live, along with half a hundred unfortunate innocents...[/b][/quote]
Aye, I agree completely. The problem I see here is that "removing the provocation" is next to impossible from a practical standpoint. But, then, I could be wrong; reference the link I posted above.
[quote][b]Icq Beks?[/b][/quote]
Sure, but not for debates such as this; I perform rather poorly when forced to debate in real-time. Definitely wouldn't make a good politician.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
Comments
Going after Korea will cause the Korean peninsual and probably Japan to become largly uninhabitable?
simple math their really.
And alot of nations do have the capcity for nuclear weapons.
Im thinking before this century is out we will most likely see a nuclear war, or exchange, and DEFINATLY some form of hostile detonation, just a matter of time really.
[b]Im thinking before this century is out we will most likely see a nuclear war, or exchange, and DEFINATLY some form of hostile detonation, just a matter of time really.[/b][/quote]
You have to admit the Pakistan and India situation is scary. That's not even thinking about missing Soviet weapons. Lord only knows what other things we can't even imagine yet. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
[b]It would be so easy to get the oil by simply lifting the embargo and leting them export all the oil they want to the world.[/b][/quote]
That wouldn't give Bush control of the oil though.
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
There are many many reasons for going into iraq, but since so many people dislike bush and think he is the anti christ they will record it in history as him doing it only for oil reasons, which isnt true. you want to believe go right ahead. but the gov wants to do it so he doesnt get nukes or chemical weapons or biological weapons and uses them on us, isreal or anywhere else.
What if he threw a plague into europe?
would you still be screaming oh dont go after him! the americans only want the oil the bastards! how much oil do they need! hey im a little hot turn up the ac? why dont you leave every light on? lets drive to china!
why piss off korea? they are one of the few countrys that can hit us with bombs from their home. Plus unlike Iraq, korea is changing, slowly. they set up a captialist zone to test the waters. they are talking to SK again. They are changing, slowly though.
Iraq isnt changing. If saddam dies his crazy ass son takes over. (this is the kid who just guns down random people for fun)
The US would NEVER use nukes in any war, unless its a complete nuclear war. think of you will but politicians are scared to death of the american people, and their are faaaaaaaar too many of us who would never support nuke strikes to any non nuke nation.
they thought that for sure their would be a nuke war before we reach 2001. well its 2002, wheres my nuke war? its more then likely that there would be a nuke terrorist hit before the turn to 2100. and india and pakistan? well i believe that their going to destroy one another, because they hate each other so much and are unwaivering.
Just because we force a regime change in iraq doesnt mean we get the oil. I would hope that the UN would put up some structure for a regime change. Like what happened in Afghanistan. we went in, remove the goverment and let the UN decide who should be put there. its probably going to happen in Iraq. Imagine a stablizing middle east. its a ways off but not unachieveable.
[b] That wouldn't give Bush control of the oil though.
[/b][/quote]
Those damn Texan's just LOVE oil don't they! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[b]
GWB senior is having a say in all this. Oil interests.
[/b][/quote]
The thing I dont get is Why did'nt GWB Senior take Care of Saddam in the first place??
I think the U.S. Want to Set up a system of Goverment that will sale then Oil.
Why are wars over Oil, Money or Religion??
------------------
Captain,Simmonds
[url="http://www.vesta-modeling.de.vu"]Homepage[/url]
[email]chad1122@netscape.net[/email]
The U.S. having an occupying force (as opposed to a preacekeeping force as in Afghanistan) in the capitol of Iraq would probably only serve to give more fodder to the extremists that already ecisted back then.
N Korea having nukes doesn't really bother me, espcailly since they are talking about it.
The US will only go to war vs. Iraq IF, and ONLY IF, they don't allow full, unrestricted inspections. What I think is great is that bush is in a win/win siutation...either Iraq says no and we attack, or they say yes and he wins a diplomatic victory.
Wait, nobody realizes war is a horribly complex buisness.
the US government has not even begun to moblize the logistics chain it will need to wage a war in Iraq, and that should tell everybody that no war is imminently planned
Amatures talk tactics, and idiots talk equipment, real war is won by and real generals fight with logistics, and since we havent set up a supply chain for even 75,000 troops, It goes to show we are not planning a "D-Day" type invasion.
I have a feeling if Sadam is done away with its going to be a Coup or something similar
Certainly, it's not conclusive - but the activities seemed to be out of the ordinary for the usual supply routines for the forces already in the locality; sufficiently so to catch the media's eye, even outside of the tabloids.
Bekenn; Israel under siege? Quite possibly so - on a great deal of the land which, historically, culturally, even legally, doesn't belong to them. Oh, I'm not saying the Arabs are the perpetual good guys in the Israeli situation - racial tensions run high on both sides, and both have shown themselves to be the aggressors in the past; you just have to be open minded enough to try and see the situation objectively.
I'd suggest you track down some of the recent work from the noted journalist John Pilger - your view is blinkered, at least in what you've said here. You fail to mention the ethnic cleansing and terrorism involved in the actual formation of Israel - nor the atrocities then, and since - torture of prisoners, abuse of non-Jewish minorities... Push Israel into the sea? I can't think why her Arab neighbours might want to [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]
The moral of the story is - the world is a very ****ed up place, and some people could do with a lesson in what it is to be human.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
If there is going to be a war with Iraq its either going to be alot like afghanistan or in two years.
We are NOT going to see Desert Storm part II.. to highlight this, there is a national gaurd artillary battlion here thats part of a core level asset artillery brigade, of its 20 or so some odd tracked vehicles, 10 are deadlined for lack of spares and they have been told not to expect the spares anytime soon. This artillery unit is tasked for CENTCOM! they themselves didnt go to Desert Storm, but their gear did, to agument core level artillery units. The fact that those tracks are not being brought online tells me that there isnt a plan for a major shooting scrape.
Next the two (well three) marine divisions are NOT begining divisional level operations, which one would expect them to do in lead up to a conflict, the fact that they are stationed hither thither and yon goes to show they are not being pulled together or prepped for a major beach assault.
Next we have the 101st and 82nd still with detached units, again if they were being prepped for a major operation their units would be pulled back to them so they could prepare propperly.
There are alot of smaller things going on, but still, I think its more misdirection then anything.
A great deal of the European press is available online, and translations are readily available - the arguments against war are there for those willing to listen; the fight for freedom might not well lie in any armed conflict in the Middle East but within the halls of the UN.
Bekenn - maybe I did misunderstand your post, but I was drawing from the tone of your recent posting on the subject; I merely replied in the same vein, but in juxtaposition - I thought it would work better to make my point. The point of view of the average Israeli citizen is not the one that I would choose from which to judge the situation, especially given the current political climate and its portrayal in the Israeli media.
I'm sure they do feel under seige, though whether they are or not is still to be seen; you never know, things could change. The Israeli nation has certainly done little to endear itself to its Arab neighbours, of that there is little doubt - you've admitted as much yourself in admitting of the existence of a siege mentality. I'm sure the Palestinian authority equally feels under siege, but how often do you hear of that in the mainstream Israeli press?
The siege mentality seems to be a part of modern Israeli culture, based on an us-against-them stance stemming from the foundation of the Israeli nation - it's a hallmark of modern state formation, especially from such a diverse grouping of people; you need to create an identity, and a popular one, and the best method of bringing people together is to play on adversity - as we see with this example now; though the belief is now outdated, and the adversity it was born out of has ceased to be as it then was. How could the Israeli nation be pushed into the sea, or see itselves in a siege when it has the backing of the only remaining superpower and the strongest (overwhelmingly so) military in the region?
The Israeli situation doesn't fit with the definition of a siege - the better example, more closely matching the traditional understanding of what a siege is would be the Palestinian Authority: your land taken from you by force, military occupation...
The definition worked best just after the formation of the nation of Israel, but I believe it hold little ground in the modern world order - certainly they're surrounded by unfriendly neighbours, but they're merely ambivalent and not outright hostile as they previously had been.
It's a part of culture, a legacy, rather than a valid pretext for any actions in the present.
In that respect I'll dispute your point, Bekenn - but, like I said, things could change.
[b]
and since we havent set up a supply chain for even 75,000 troops, It goes to show we are not planning a "D-Day" type invasion.
[/b][/quote]
Except where the US militaries October order for sunscreen bottles, from a business in NZ, in October was 135,000 bottles... where it is usually 24,000 a month
The army contingent alone in Desert Storm 1 was over 200,000 men.
Oh, of course; never meant to imply otherwise, which is precisely why I mentioned it.
[quote][b]I'm sure the Palestinian authority equally feels under siege, but how often do you hear of that in the mainstream Israeli press?[/b][/quote]
I don't dispute that, but it falls outside my point, which is this: left alone, if the Arab states around Israel had the military might to do it, they would launch a war with the intent of destroying Israel. They've shown their willingness to do so in the past, particularly when many of them banded together just after the formation of the state of Israel and actually tried to do it -- before Israel had even had the chance to commit its own misdeeds.
This is certainly not to say that I hold the state of Israel blameless in all that has transpired; they've launched plenty of their own first strikes against Arab neighbors, and their treatment of the local Palestinian people has been wanting.
Re: the Palestinians: I'm not fully aware of all the details on that front, but I do know that as a minority population, they have long been plagued with this kind of foul treatment. What makes their current situation worse is that they are living on land that was set aside for them prior to Israel's existence; then, in 1948, the UN just decided to take that land turn it into Israel. The Palestinians were completely screwed out of what they had come to call their own.
So, yeah, their situation stinks; but the tactics chosen by organizations like the PLO (namely, blowing up busses and weddings and so forth -- civilian targets, not military) have removed a lot of sympathy people might otherwise have had for them. So, in my mind, that's where efforts have to start if you want to see stability in the region: get rid of the terrorist organizations that currently claim to speak for the Palestinian people. Only once that's done can we deal with the people directly and try to give them a legitimate voice. [i]Then[/i] we can work on getting Israel to listen to it and treat them fairly.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
You can't ask the PLO to stop their terrorist (though I doubt they would call themselves as much - I think the old freedom fighter/terrorist quandary applies here; they certainly don't see themselves as terrorists in overall focus) campaign when the Israeli government still refuses to curtail the actions of its own military - they'd never agree to it, and so never have.
In my mind, they're their own worst enemy - both of them; and they're both held in high regard within their own communities, to make matters worse - there's nothing harder to shift than an established formulation!
On the flip side, Palestinian civilians are [i]also[/i] being killed, in actions designed to bring down Palestinian terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, the Palestinians don't have a legitimate government to look after them; and the fact that the PLO targets civilians doesn't help their case.
Actually, technically, Israel [i]is[/i] their legitimate government, and as such Israel should also be doing what they can to keep Palestinians who aren't involved in these terrorist activities from being killed. But, as long as these terrorist organizations continue to pose a threat to Jewish citizenry, the Israelis have a valid excuse for their actions. Remove that excuse, and the rest should follow.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
The root of the problem lies with Israel's occupation; it always has, and always will in terms of trying to understand the divide between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Still, it provides no valid excuse as to why a legitimised military machine should orchestrate large scale actions in the midst of civillian areas in a deliberate manner - you don't have a military in the world who kills as many civilians as the Israeli army. How can the actions in the likes of Jenin be truly legitimised by the threat of small scale terrorist action? How can the persistent persecuation of the Palestinians be truly ascribed to the need to remove any terrorist threat that might lurk in their midst?
Generations of Palestinians have grown up alienated and fuelled on hatred by the actions of the Israeli military specifically, and the Israeli administration on the whole - this is why you're seeing people willing to die simply to strike a blow at people they firmly regard as the enemy. Sure, no one could deny that the military has a right to safeguard its own civilian population, but not at the expense of the civilian population of another, as now appears to be the case - and you can't deny this from the constant attrition the Palestinians suffer in their daily lives, as well as the more specific instances of organised action against them in the recent Intifada.
I'm sure the question of Palestinian legitimacy would be solved, but it's a cyclical argument, as we're straight back to the question of Israel's illegal occupation which lies at the heart of the whole problem in the region.
You'll never get a lasting answer until you solve that question, and since the occupation and it's effects upon the Palestinian population is the principal driving force behind organisations like the PLO (and I think, in this instance, you were more thinking of the likes of HAMAS, rather than the PLO - were you not? It would fit with the question of terrorism more) and the anger many feel towards the Israeli state.
Still, you can't ask one side to stop suicide bombing when the other has a rather unsavoury penchant for firing on ambulances, now can you?
The first move should come from Israel - it's the dominant player; it holds all the cards, and has the capabilities to make a peace work. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are pushed against the wall; and violence simply begets more violence.
[b]I disagree - your talking about Israeli military activities within civilian areas which they are, by UN resolution, in illegal occupation of.[/b][/quote]
Oh, so I was wrong about Israel's government being the supposedly legitimate authority for the Palestinians; this means, then, that the Palestinian civilians aren't technically cared for by any government. This makes the Israeli military's actions slightly more palatable (which, I should add, is not to say that they're entirely justified; merely a little harder to debunk), as that essentially puts Israel in a state of undeclared war against them. In wars, civilian casualties are usually inevitable. The problem comes when civilians are specifically targeted, which I believe Israel maintains isn't the case.
Thinking from a legal viewpoint here.
[quote][b]The root of the problem lies with Israel's occupation; it always has, and always will in terms of trying to understand the divide between the Palestinians and the Israelis.[/b][/quote]
Except that, as I understand it, the Israeli occupation began as a response to what was happening to them; am I mistaken?
[quote][b]How can the actions in the likes of Jenin be truly legitimised by the threat of small scale terrorist action? How can the persistent persecuation of the Palestinians be truly ascribed to the need to remove any terrorist threat that might lurk in their midst?[/b][/quote]
Hence my previous statements: Israel is not without blame here. They've gone too far in their responses. Remove their need to respond -- that is, remove the genuine threat to Israeli citizens that does exist -- and Israel will no longer have an excuse for all this. If it continues to happen regardless, [i]then[/i] the rest of the world can intervene.
[quote][b]Generations of Palestinians have grown up alienated and fuelled on hatred by the actions of the Israeli military specifically, and the Israeli administration on the whole - this is why you're seeing people willing to die simply to strike a blow at people they firmly regard as the enemy.[/b][/quote]
Okay, we've established that they have a motive. This doesn't give them the moral authority to actually do it, however.
[quote][b]Sure, no one could deny that the military has a right to safeguard its own civilian population, but not at the expense of the civilian population of another, as now appears to be the case[/b][/quote]
Actually, I think a great many people would disagree with you on that point. It's a fairly recent idea that in war civilian casualties are unacceptable. It happens to be a tenet that I tend to agree with, but it certainly hasn't always been the operational paradigm, and at times civilian casualties are simply unavoidable.
Take, for instance, our operations in Afghanistan. Those resulted in a number of civilian deaths, but those deaths were considered acceptable because we were going after an organization responsible for killing our own civilians, and we were doing everything we could to make sure it didn't happen again. Nations have to treat their own civilians as more important than anybody else's; otherwise, they cannot perform their job of protecting their civilian population.
This is not to say, however, that another nation's civilians can be used as a weapon in a first strike, which is part of what separates terrorist organizations from legitimate military forces: they target civilians first. And that is unacceptable.
[quote][b] - and you can't deny this from the constant attrition the Palestinians suffer in their daily lives, as well as the more specific instances of organised action against them in the recent Intifada.[/b][/quote]
Remind me; did the Palestinians attack civilian targets, or military targets?
[quote][b]I'm sure the question of Palestinian legitimacy would be solved, but it's a cyclical argument, as we're straight back to the question of Israel's illegal occupation which lies at the heart of the whole problem in the region.[/b][/quote]
Except that, as I understand it, the occupation started in response to attacks on civilians.
[quote][b]You'll never get a lasting answer until you solve that question,[/b][/quote]
And you'll never solve that question until you get rid of Israel's excuse for being there.
[quote][b]and since the occupation and it's effects upon the Palestinian population is the principal driving force behind organisations like the PLO (and I think, in this instance, you were more thinking of the likes of HAMAS, rather than the PLO - were you not? It would fit with the question of terrorism more) and the anger many feel towards the Israeli state.[/b][/quote]
You're right, HAMAS is more along the lines of what I was thinking of. My mistake.
[quote][b]Still, you can't ask one side to stop suicide bombing when the other has a rather unsavoury penchant for firing on ambulances, now can you?[/b][/quote]
Absolutely. There comes a point where it no longer matters what the motives behind your actions are; the actions are still wrong, and as long as those actions are committed, you do not have the moral high ground.
Let me put this another way:
One man, angered at another for reasons going back generations and continuing even in his lifetime, tried to shoot the other, but missed and instead killed the other man's daughter. Worried that the other man would come after him for vengeance, the first man built up a fort around himself that would be very difficult to penetrate. Angered at this injustice, the other man shot and killed the first man's son; then, he ran and hid, for he knew the first man would again come looking to kill him and protect his own family. When the first man came and was unable to find him, he went mad, shooting the other man's sons and daughters who might be harboring his enemy and seizing their property to keep the other man from using it. Meanwhile, the other, still unable to strike at the first man directly, continued to murder the first man's children, one for each of his own that had died in the conflict. The first man vowed to continue his search until the other could be brought to justice.
Who was justified, and who should be punished?
[quote][b]The first move should come from Israel - it's the dominant player; it holds all the cards, and has the capabilities to make a peace work. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are pushed against the wall; and violence simply begets more violence.[/b][/quote]
While I certainly agree that Israel is in a better position to push for a peaceful resolution, what you have to keep in mind is that they are never going to be willing to pursue that peace until the terrorist activity stops. Which is why I say that that is where a peace has to start: in the removal of those organizations.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
I'll respond to your post using the order in which you laid the topics down, to make things easier, and show progression.
Firstly, I don't consider the fact that there's no officialised 'state', [i]per se[/i], make Israeli actions any more palatable - surely the lack of any official defence mechanism for the Palestinians should mean that the aggression being showed, in general, by Israel and it's military is totally unwarranted and should be condemned? You'll agree with me in saying that a great many Israeli actions are completely lacking in justification - and the simple fact is that that when you take overt military action in densely populated civilian areas you are, de facto, targetting civilians; regardless of your previous intentions, or declarations to the opposite.
This is the reason why the recent occupations in the West Bank have been so roundly condemned in the European press - can you imagine the uproar if the British government had used tanks and helicopter gunships in Northern Ireland? The very purpose of such weapons is to be as destructive as possible, and as such do not make effective tools in any counter-terrorism/insurgency campaign. I'm sure that that fact cannot have escaped Israeli military planners, so the question of why they continue to pursue such a destructive policy in handling minority threats in urban areas remains open to speculation.
Next point, on the occupation itself - some clarification of my perspective; I was referring to the occupation in general, not specifically to the recent military incursions in PA areas during the Intifada. The actions of Israeli in the annexation of huge tracts of land cannot, in any way, be justified as a direct response to 'what was being done to them'. I think your comment was more spawned from the confusion in my stance, rather than you being mistaken. From all accounts it seems to have been simply a campaign of expansion.
Moving again we return to the questions of civilians - and a distinction over the role of Hamas, and other such groups; they don't simply target civilians - there's a great deal of attrition amongst Israeli soldiers as well, though this constant battle is less noted in the press. The question then is one of legitimacy - which you seem to feel Hamas has none of, through their actions; but it deserves the question throwing back, as to why, then, if the Israeli army is a legitimate force why is pursuing such a wantonly destructive policy? In the aggressive deployment of military forces into distinctly civlians areas in Gaza and the West Bank?
That, I feel, is a crucial point in the argument - that the one force supposedly acting with legitimacy should be the prosecutor of such muderous actions.
The argument wanders back and forth a bit now, but you return to the point of the Israeli's military need to be there - where, in the West Bank? Imagine Bekenn, that someone came and took away most of your land, and pushed you back into the last few stretches of it. Would you feel angry? Would you want to fight back?
I'd imagine the answer would be yes. Imagine then that they push into the last few areas remaining to you - can't you begin to feel that blood boil now?
That's just it - Israel has no need to be there; end of argument. The UN declared their annexation illegal in two resolutions - we're willing to bomb Iraq for parting from UN agreements, but why not Israel? They've pushed a whole people against the wall with the original occupation, and subsequent heavy-handed actions against the PA have only worsened the situation. If they want to combat terrorism then they should look to the source, rather than simply piling the woes on - and that's their illegal, bloody, occupation of 'Palestine'.
We're agreed on most fronts, which is good - but I feel this last point is very important. If you want to remove the authority for something, the best place is to start at the roots. The move for peace should come from Israel - it's military occupation lies at the heart of the problem, and provides the impetus for organisations like Hamas to push their agendas and find popular support where, in more normal circumstances, they would be hard pressed to find people willing to give them the time.
Remove the provocation and I'm sure Hamas would collapse; much more effectively than shelling the block of flats a few of them might live, along with half a hundred unfortunate innocents...
Icq Beks?
[b]Firstly, I don't consider the fact that there's no officialised 'state', [i]per se[/i], make Israeli actions any more palatable[/b][/quote]
Looking at it from my previous assumption -- that being that [i]Israel[/i] is their official state -- I think you'll agree that it [i]does[/i] make Israel's actions more palatable. Not because they're necessarily right or justified, but simply because they're not targeting the same people that they're supposed to be defending.
But this is a minor point; I won't dwell on it.
[quote][b]You'll agree with me in saying that a great many Israeli actions are completely lacking in justification - and the simple fact is that when you take overt military action in densely populated civilian areas you are, de facto, targetting civilians; regardless of your previous intentions, or declarations to the opposite.[/b][/quote]
Another minor point: I do think that their true intentions matter. In war, civilians get killed. This is almost assured. What makes that an atrocity rather than a tragedy is the military intent of the action resulting in civilian deaths. Was the military aiming at that civilian, or was the civilian simply within the blast radius when something more important got blown up? Did the guy pulling the trigger jump with glee when he saw the civilian get ripped to shreds, or did he say a silent prayer of sorrow?
In any case, the fact that a civilian got killed is a Bad Thing(tm); the difference is in whether or not the soldier should be court-martialed.
Furthermore, if you're chasing an enemy who has holed up in a civilian area, such that it's impossible to get to him without going through a few civilians, and the enemy is big enough and important enough of a threat to your own civilians, you have to treat the civilians he's hiding behind as expendable. You do what you can to minimize civilian losses, but you can't always let them stand between you and your goal.
This isn't meant to be a blanket statement that all predicted enemy civilian losses are acceptable; only that there are indeed situations in which they are acceptable. I am, however, making the case that all or nearly all unpredicted and unintended civilian losses are acceptable. You can't fight wars otherwise.
[quote][b]I'm sure that that fact cannot have escaped Israeli military planners, so the question of why they continue to pursue such a destructive policy in handling minority threats in urban areas remains open to speculation.[/b][/quote]
See my above parable (in my previous post) for my take on this; do you understand what I was saying there?
[quote][b]The actions of Israeli in the annexation of huge tracts of land cannot, in any way, be justified as a direct response to 'what was being done to them'. I think your comment was more spawned from the confusion in my stance, rather than you being mistaken. From all accounts it seems to have been simply a campaign of expansion.[/b][/quote]
This is one of the areas where my knowledge is a little fuzzy, since I can't claim to know what the Israelis where thinking when they decided to take that land. I only know a little of their stated reasons.
That said, I do know that they were willing to give most of it back again. Following is a transcript of an interview with Dennis Ross, who was our special envoy to the Middle East during the Clinton administration. It looks like they came very close to actually reaching a deal:
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html[/url]
[quote][b]Moving again we return to the questions of civilians - and a distinction over the role of Hamas, and other such groups; they don't simply target civilians - there's a great deal of attrition amongst Israeli soldiers as well, though this constant battle is less noted in the press.[/b][/quote]
Do you maintain that they are targetting the military solely, or even predominantly?
[quote][b]The question then is one of legitimacy - which you seem to feel Hamas has none of, through their actions; but it deserves the question throwing back, as to why, then, if the Israeli army is a legitimate force why is pursuing such a wantonly destructive policy?[/b][/quote]
The Israeli army is a legitimate force because Israel is a legitimate country, recognized as such by nations across the globe. It's a member of the United Nations, it has treaties with various countries, has waged war on numerous occasions, and has an infrastructure of support for its civilian population. Israel's legitimacy as a state is backed up by history. Its army is legitimate because Israel says it's legitimate. This is not to say that all of its military actions are legitimate, and it's because of the fact that there, are as you have mentioned, several cases of illegitimate actions, that the UN and several European countries have been unhappy with Israel.
"Palestine," on the other hand, has no recognized country, and no coherent military to call its own. Therefore, the legitimacy of any military-like organization operating out of "Palestine" depends upon the legitimacy of its actions. I maintain that the specific targetting of civilians classifies HAMAS, etc -- which have no government claiming these organizations as its own -- as terrorist organizations, regardless of the fact that they sometimes also target military forces. If they solely targetted military, then I'd agree, they're freedom fighters. As it is, no; they're terrorists.
[quote][b]That, I feel, is a crucial point in the argument - that the one force supposedly acting with legitimacy should be the prosecutor of such muderous actions.[/b][/quote]
I'm not defending all of the Israeli military's actions. But I am saying that they may have a legitimate reason for being where they are, that being the protection of their own civilians from the aforementioned terrorist groups.
[quote][b]Imagine Bekenn, that someone came and took away most of your land, and pushed you back into the last few stretches of it. Would you feel angry?[/b][/quote]
Yes.
[quote][b]Would you want to fight back?[/b][/quote]
Absolutely.
[quote][b]Imagine then that they push into the last few areas remaining to you - can't you begin to feel that blood boil now?[/b][/quote]
Of course. And I'd be justified in striking back at those who actually caused me harm. But not in striking at those they protect, and that is the distinction I am making here. The fact that some Israeli soldier bulldozed my house in the West Bank does not give me a good reason to blow myself up in the middle of a coffee shop in Jerusalem, and doing so only lends credence to the guy who bulldozed my house.
[quote][b]That's just it - Israel has no need to be there; end of argument.[/b][/quote]
I think the Israeli government disagrees with you, and if they're right about that being the only way to root out terrorist groups, then I agree with them. Once again, and I want to make this clear, this is not to say that the actions carried out once they got there are right. But their presence in these areas may indeed be warranted, even if their methods aren't.
[quote][b]The UN declared their annexation illegal in two resolutions - we're willing to bomb Iraq for parting from UN agreements, but why not Israel?[/b][/quote]
Because Israel has shown the capacity to be reasonable. As I mentioned above, this situation almost ended two years ago.
[quote][b]They've pushed a whole people against the wall with the original occupation, and subsequent heavy-handed actions against the PA have only worsened the situation. If they want to combat terrorism then they should look to the source, rather than simply piling the woes on.[/b][/quote]
And, there, we agree.
[quote][b]The move for peace should come from Israel.[/b][/quote]
Should, perhaps, but won't. Or perhaps I'm wrong on that; if it does, good for Israel. But I'd be willing to bet that Israel won't be willing to move out until somebody stops killing its civilians. And, unfortunately, I'm also willing to bet that HAMAS, etc. won't be willing to stop as long as Israel maintains a presence in the West Bank and Gaza. Hence, one of them has to expire before any good can result. Since Israel's a lot bigger and a whole lot more people depend on Israel's continued existence, I say get rid of the Palestinian terrorists. That way, Israel no longer has a valid excuse for being in the contested areas, and (with pressure from the UN et al) the remaining Palestinians get their state.
[quote][b]Remove the provocation and I'm sure Hamas would collapse; much more effectively than shelling the block of flats a few of them might live, along with half a hundred unfortunate innocents...[/b][/quote]
Aye, I agree completely. The problem I see here is that "removing the provocation" is next to impossible from a practical standpoint. But, then, I could be wrong; reference the link I posted above.
[quote][b]Icq Beks?[/b][/quote]
Sure, but not for debates such as this; I perform rather poorly when forced to debate in real-time. Definitely wouldn't make a good politician.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
Wow... didn't know I had so much to say! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/eek.gif[/img]
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]