The Gaming Den

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1155415687[/unixtime]]PWW, while you quote rockets falling on settlements... Those weren't Israeli territory. Also, you don't answer the question on whether there were Israeli incursions into Lebanon/Palestine at the time, or prior.

'You can't have it both ways'

I'm not trying to state that it was in Israeli territory or whether there were any incursions in Lebanon; I'm not stating that Israel was on some sort of moral high ground. What I was refuting was the statement:

PS - Did the rockets start falling before Israeli forces were romping around the Lebonese contryside? The answer is no.

The above statement is clearly wrong.

you can't argue against a war that you country is actively in and then on the other side of your mouth say that you can't criticise a war that you're not actively in

Actually... Could you find that quote? That sounds like Liberman.

Or maybe once again you're picking and choosing, as the opposition party isn't going to be well represented by the controlling party media (Fox, etc)

Ok, let's review what I said in my quote. What I am saying is that since the Democratic party is willing to criticize the current government's decision the Iraq conflict, then they should be able to criticize Israeli actions.

I'm hoping that there isn't a need to quote the Democrat's criticism of the current government's policies in the Iraq conflict. If so, >HERE< is an article from CNN noting top Democrats doing just that. So, if they're able to do that, where is the Democrat negative reaction to the Israeli conflict. After all, FOX news isn't the only news outlet. Is the supposition that CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC all owned by the Republican party?

And as noted before, it isn't like just those news networks are noting Democrat positions that support Israel. I hope we're not saying that NPR is run by the Republicans.NPR Story

Many congressional leaders -- particularly Democrats -- had criticized the Iraqi leader for failing to condemn the Hezbollah militants currently battling Israeli forces.

Here's a CNN article going into a letter sent by Reid, Schumer, and Durbin to the Iraqi PM asking him about his Isreali remarks.

"Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," the letter said.

Sounds pretty supportive of Israel. But I'll agree that the real test is not what they say but how they vote. A 410-8 approval of a resolution support Israel in the House of Representatives speaks volumes for how Democratic leadership feels on the subject.

PWW, do you understand a false dichotomy?

That's the choice between condemning Isreali aggression and supporting its right to defend itself.

It's a false choice - so that they voted to support Israel's right to defend itself has nothing to do with supporting how it defends itself.

-Crissa

... Well, Crissa. What would you do? I'm now really curious. How do you expect Isreali to defend itself?

Neither full scale invasion nor a “shock and awe” air campaign were even close to the most rational and moral choices for Israel to make in their recent predicament. Negotiations seem to most people to be the reasonable first step in dealing with a conflict of this nature. It’s not as if Israel has no leverage in the region. It’s not as if the missile fire was an imminent threat likely to lead to the destruction of Israel in the near future.

It is quite possible that working with the surrounding nations and the UN could have resulted in troops in Lebanon forcefully disarming Hisbollah and arresting and prosecuting those militants directly responsible for the kidnappings and attacks without nearly as many civilizians killed or displaced. It is even possible that an agreement could have been brokered whereby Hezbollah itself agreed to disarm in exchange for the return of prisoners and/or certain economic concessions. Then, had any final agreement been broken or further action been taken by Hezbollah, perhaps there would have been universal condemnation by the nations of the world of Hezbollah and a multi-national response could have been mustered that involves defensive military action by a multinational force as well as extreme economic sanctions until Lebanon, with international aid, can actually enforce the treaties that were signed.

Unfortunately, Israel generally believes that neither the United Nations, nor the Lebanese government, nor anyone else could have been trusted even a little with assisting in this matter. No doubt convinced by the rhetoric that the United Nations is useless and that the Lebanese government was completely powerless, their actions only work to ensure that these things continue to be the case. They no doubt decided that if they can force a crisis then the Lebanese and the UN and many other forces in the world would have to take the situation more seriously and ultimately take steps to diffuse it. War as a gambit to force other nations to act in a manner that you want them to is not uncommon in history but it has questionable moral underpinnings when we consider the extent of death and destruction that can result from such a heavy handed approach to politics.

So it seems Israeli leadership made the political calculation that they probably couldn’t get everything they wanted in the timeframe they wanted if they went the long slow approach of actually talking to people but that they probably could get most of what they wanted by directly invading. At the very least they would destroy most of the rockets in Lebanon and capture or kill many active members of Hezbollah. At best, they would also get their captured soldiers back, decimate Hezbollah’s ability to make war, turn public opinion against Hezbollah for getting Lebanon into such a mess, and get the United Nations to put a powerful effective anti-Hezbollah force right between them and the threat thus shoring up their borders.

How did it turn out? Well they did come pretty close to getting the things they wanted. Many rockets were destroyed, enemies have been captured or killed, a multinational force is on the move, and at least initially there was some anti-Hezbollah back lash as a result of the war.

But in the long term, the things they failed to achieve together with the unintended consequences of the war have made the invasion seem closer to a disaster than a success. The war has not at all hurt Hezbollah’s reputation in the Arab world; in fact it has improved it greatly. On top of that it has made Iraq and Syria’s political positions stronger in the region. They’ve certainly given the Arab world plenty of reasons to continue to hate them for hundreds of years to come.

On top of that, the international reaction has not been nearly as positive and supportive as Israel might have hoped for. Those nations strong enough and wanted to protect their right to invade any nation that happens have a militant group messing with them across the border tended to side with them readily enough. The United States certainly has no problem with the proposition that if some group in Canada or Mexico or Cuba were to suddenly start lobbing missiles at us across our borders or even out one of our external military bases, or even just threatening to do so, then we can go in there and beat the crap out of them if we can’t trust their own governments to do something about it. But many many other nations are a little more leery of such an idea. To those many nations who are all too aware that they can’t necessarily fully control the actions of every group that arises in their country whether or not they have political power within the nation, this sets a very bad precedent. The idea that any transgressions such a group might make that involve other countries interests might well result in the full scale destruction of their infrastructure and the slaughtering of many hundreds of their people by an invading force is not something most countries are happy to accept. So of course the condemnation of Israel ran very thick in the United Nations as much of the rest of the world is appalled to think that this is the new rule of law.

So we know the war has also alienated Israel in the eyes of many of the world’s nations, not just Arab nations. Theo only nations still in agreement with Israel are likely to be the ones that were already on its side to begin with. That’s going to make negotiations difficult in the future. The entire world becoming even more polarized around the Israel issue can’t be a good thing for anyone but it’s particularly bad for Israel whose very existence depends on there being a critical mass of independent third parties who support it.

And all of this doesn’t even begin to touch on the numerous people who are likely to be driven to a life of terror when they have their homes and livelihoods taken away and their friends and families killed. Ultimately the number of enemy combatants killed might end up being a drop in the bucket compared to then umber of enemy combatants created by this conflict. Nor does it begin to examine how further emboldened Israel's enemies will be now that they are able to see how very "not invincible" Israel actually is given how much trouble a relatively small force wielding rockets can cause the nation. In the end it may well be that the only good thing for Israel to come of this war is that the rocket fire will be halted temporarily. That’s not exactly a success story.

It’s still too soon to tell for sure whether more good and stability will come of this conflict in the long run. With the United Nations now footing the military bill, perhaps the region will ultimately find itself in a more stable peace than it had before. I’m willing to entertain the possibility, though I have severe doubts of this. But even if it does come to pass, I for one would not praise Israel for manipulating this situation into being. Not when actions less prone to cause suffering and death could have been undertaken to result in the same ends.

Even if you accept Israel’s right to invade a foreign nation in order to protect itself, the act of doing so, in retrospect, seems like it was a questionable decision at best. We won’t know for sure until more time has passed and we see clearly what Iran and Syria do with their new found leverage and what happens in Lebanon now that there is an international force in place. It will be interesting also to observe what happens the next time there are elections in Lebanon. How big of a role will anti-Israeli sentiment play in the choosing of political appointee’s?

At this time, I believe things have turned out pretty badly and are likely not to get much better. Could Israel have known the consequences of their actions? Perhaps not. But they need only have looked at other wars to see that these things rarely work out as well as either side would have liked. We can’t turn back time and see what would have happened had Israel behaved differently, but we can certainly say that perhaps next time Israel might at least consider a different approach. If nothing else, if Israel feels they have to do the same thing again, I’d like to see them make sure that their attacks are as minimally destructive to the opposing nation’s infrastructure as possible next time and of course to avoid stupidly attacking UN outposts. Even better they could be forthright and direct about ensuring international aid is available to all refugees and giving international guests early warning so that they can more easily evacuate. Better yet they can ask for assistance from the United Nations first and avoid unilateral actions without consultation with the rest of the world.

[edit: fixed a couple of spelling errors]

clef at [unixtime wrote:1155491827[/unixtime]]Neither full scale invasion nor a “shock and awe” air campaign were even close to the most rational and moral choices for Israel to make in their recent predicament. Negotiations seem to most people to be the reasonable first step in dealing with a conflict of this nature. It’s not as if Israel has no leverage in the region.

With whom, exactly?

It’s not as if the missile fire was an imminent threat likely to lead to the destruction of Israel in the near future.

So... the proportionate resposne to something unlikely to lead to your destruction is?

It is quite possible that working with the surrounding nations and the UN could have resulted in troops in Lebanon forcefully disarming Hisbollah and arresting and prosecuting those militants directly responsible for the kidnappings and attacks without nearly as many civilizians killed or displaced.

It's also "possible" that Ben-Laden is going to wake up tomorrow and decide to accept Judaism and immigrate to Israel. What it's not, however, is likely.

Unfortunately, Israel generally believes that neither the United Nations, nor the Lebanese government, nor anyone else could have been trusted even a little with assisting in this matter. No doubt convinced by the rhetoric that the United Nations is useless and that the Lebanese government was completely powerless, their actions only work to ensure that these things continue to be the case.

...

It's the truth. If and when any of the above felt like being useful... they had years and years to act.

They’ve certainly given the Arab world plenty of reasons to continue to hate them for hundreds of years to come.

Don't be absurd. They had reasons and excuses before this, they'll have reasons and excuses after this, and anyone who claims to see an actual "you get X bloodshed for Y bloodshed" is full of it.

On top of that, the international reaction has not been nearly as positive and supportive as Israel might have hoped for.

The only nations still in agreement with Israel are likely to be the ones that were already on its side to begin with.

My, that's a shocking an innovative conclusion.

Nor does it begin to examine how further emboldened Israel's enemies will be now that they are able to see how very "not invincible" Israel actually is given how much trouble a relatively small force wielding rockets can cause the nation.

Ok, I searched the beginning of your post, feeling certain that you've contradicted yourself with that sentence, but I couldn't find anything direct... ok...

You do realize that "a small rocket-wielding force' has been giving Israel trouble for decades, right? What people have seen is how Israel is capable of reacting to such a force, under certainjcircumstances.

Not when actions less prone to cause suffering and death could have been undertaken to result in the same ends.

Remind me, what could those actions be?

We won’t know for sure until more time has passed and we see clearly what Iran and Syria do with their new found leverage

This is interesting. The local rhetoric speaks the opposite. Care to expalin your position?

Would Israel have lost more or less people had it not left its own borders?

Would Israel have the support of the UN and the Lebonese people had it not blown up apartment buildings?

Would Israel have more or less people feeling hurt and displaced because of it if it had merely sat and withstood the minor insults?

When the enemy is impotent, why allow them to drag you into their fight?

-Crissa

Xander77 at [unixtime wrote:1155494941[/unixtime]]With whom, exactly?

With people ya ... Geez. Lebanon has Jews, Christians, Sunni sects who (before Isreal invaded) supported disarming Hizbollah.

Now they all have been bloodied by Israel and have no reason not to take it out on Israel instead of Hizbollah. The former actually has territory and can have rocks thrown at it.

So... the proportionate resposne to something unlikely to lead to your destruction is?

The missles weren't even a threat. They couldn't even do more than knock a couple random walls and windows out.

In our country, shooting someone because they insulted you will get you prosecuted for attempted murder.

It's also "possible" that Ben-Laden is going to wake up tomorrow and decide to accept Judaism and immigrate to Israel. What it's not, however, is likely.

Okay, did bin-laden fire every one of those rockets?

No, he needs soliders to do that. And soldiers have to want to fight. Unlike your country, he has no population to conscript into the fight.

But if you want to conscript forces for him - well, that's exactly what you did.

Can I call your position and lack of anything besides rhetoric dumb yet?

It's the truth. If and when any of the above felt like being useful... they had years and years to act.

How many Israelis were killed in those years and years?
How many people have Israelis killed?

You do not convince people to help you by showing that you are worse than your opponent.

Don't be absurd. They had reasons and excuses before this, they'll have reasons and excuses after this, and anyone who claims to see an actual "you get X bloodshed for Y bloodshed" is full of it.

Another thousand people killed, another hundred thousand people maimed.

What, you think personal experience with Israeli atrocities isn't worse than plain history?

Ok, I searched the beginning of your post, feeling certain that you've contradicted yourself with that sentence, but I couldn't find anything direct... ok...

You do realize that "a small rocket-wielding force' has been giving Israel trouble for decades, right? What people have seen is how Israel is capable of reacting to such a force, under certainjcircumstances.

It doesn't contradict anything, mostly because you didn't care to read the post.

How many people were killed by the rockets? How much damage done?

Other nations will look at that and see that Israel owes more than it is owed.

Remind me, what could those actions be?

Nothing is one of them. You would be no worse off had you done... Nothing.

But you don't believe in restraint, in not killing ten, twenty times the number of random civillians in retaliation...

Haha?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:The missles weren't even a threat. They couldn't even do more than knock a couple random walls and windows out.

In our country, shooting someone because they insulted you will get you prosecuted for attempted murder.

Ok...are you seriously trying to downplay the effect of rockets to...nothing?

Did the rockets do 0 damage and kill 0 people in Israel? Or was there more than no damage and more than no people killed?

Honestly, you're making it sound like Hizbollah was sending mosquitos over the border, instead of devices that destroy concrete and flesh.

Nothing is one of them. You would be no worse off had you done... Nothing.

But you don't believe in restraint, in not killing ten, twenty times the number of random civillians in retaliation...

...Very, very rarely throughout history has a nation ever improved its lot in the world using the strategy of "bending over and taking it."

Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1155517147[/unixtime]]Honestly, you're making it sound like Hizbollah was sending mosquitos over the border, instead of devices that destroy concrete and flesh.

Lightning strikes in the US do more damage than those rockets did.

Those rockets killed less people than died on any one US state's roads in a weekend.

Look, I'm not saying they couldn't kill people. But the majority of them did less damage than your home town takes on July 4th.

Very, very rarely throughout history has a nation ever improved its lot in the world using the strategy of "bending over and taking it."

And you can quote a time when blowing up apartment buildings solved a crime?

In fact, there's no time in history when a nation has been faced with terrorists/guerillas that marching after them over international borders has solved anything.

-Crissa

PS: Nothing I've said was a lie. Including the counting of the rockets.

Early on July 12 Hizbullah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty. In the fighting the Shiite militia killed three soldiers and captured two others, while Hizbullah fired a few mortars at border areas in what the Israeli army described at the time as "diversionary tactics". As a result of the shelling, five Israelis were "lightly injured", with most needing treatment for shock, according to the Haaretz newspaper.

Israel's immediate response was to send a tank into Lebanon...

In contrast to the image of Hizbullah frothing at the mouth to destroy Israel, its leader Hassan Nasrallah held off from serious retaliation. ...

He waited till late on June 13 before turning his guns on Haifa, even though we now know he could have targeted Israel's third largest city from the outset. A small volley of rockets directed at Haifa caused no injuries and looked more like a warning than an escalation.

It was another three days -- days of constant Israeli bombardmeent of Lebanon, destroying the country and injuring countless civilians -- before Nasrallah hit Haifa again, including a shell that killed eight workers in a railway depot.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook07262006.html

You will find this is backed up by larger news sources, of course. But this is a nice timeline article - why Nasrallah has become a folk hero in Muslim lands and why Israel fell into his gambit.

None of the rockets fell on Israeli soil until that fourth day.

...And the rockets stopped (though Israeli campaign did not) at each call for a cease-fire.

You've been suckered.

-Crissa

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1155520655[/unixtime]]

Oberoni at [unixtime wrote:1155517147[/unixtime]]Honestly, you're making it sound like Hizbollah was sending mosquitos over the border, instead of devices that destroy concrete and flesh.

Lightning strikes in the US do more damage than those rockets did.

Those rockets killed less people than died on any one US state's roads in a weekend.

Look, I'm not saying they couldn't kill people. But the majority of them did less damage than your home town takes on July 4th.

The problem with this argument is that it also lends itself to, "Well the amount of people that were killed by Israeli bombing is much less than the amount of people that die from car accidents, smoking, or over-eating; hence it isn't a problem."

After all, you have a better chance of dieing behind the wheel of your car than a Lebanese person is of being killed by an Israeli attack. So, are you afraid to drive?

Yes, minimalization is always a wonderful argument.

As Oberoni noted, Israeli citizens paid with damage to their property and loss of life through the rocket attacks. That's the crummy thing about war: (a) civilians on both sides usually take casualties and (b) whether it is one civilian that dies or 1000, the act is still bad. It doesn't matter if it was from an Israeli howitzer or a Hezbollah missile.

Wedge's got this.

Got what? Significantly more people died in Lebanon due to the bombings than car deaths in the same time in any one state of the US.

I think you got your scale wrong.

-Crissa

PS, over eight hundred Lebonese civillians died due to Israeli attacks in two weeks. Thousands more casualties, and hundreds of thousands were displaced, homes destroyed.

I'm sorry, did you say that was wrong or right?

-Crissa

So Crissa, what is your position?

When Israel (or any nation, really) suffers a 'minor' attack from another country, should they sit back and wait to see if it gets worse?

Should they try to respond on the same scale as the attackers? If so, will this help prevent future attacks? Why?

I find the loss of life in any conflict to be horrible, but I have long ago accepted that mankind is built to wage war on itself. So, given that a nation will literally be destroyed if it embraces a philosophy of total pacifism, I've decided that most nations should follow a philosophy of moderate tribalism.

To be specific, I feel that a nation/people that wishes to survive and prosper needs to be willing to use force whenever it's attacked by another nation. The reactive force need not be roughly equal to the initial force, and should actually probably be much greater.

Furthermore, I'm pretty certain that nations need to occasionally exploit other nations (that is, engage other groups in a way that need not be very beneficial to these other groups) to prosper. Not that this is a morally good thing, but it's apparently a necessary thing (at least, that's what I'm seeing from history).

Obviously, there's things a nation can do to cross the line from moderate to severe tribalism. As I said, it's not a pretty or even a Christian philosophy, but that's the way the world works.

It doesn’t have to be. At least I don’t believe it does though no doubt you will say I am being naïve. Rule of law is the answer for nations just as it was the answer for mankind prior to the advent of civilization. The thing keeping from going to my neighbor killing him and taking his stuff because he looked at me funny the other day is that we have a social system that discourages and prevents that sort of thing. The consequences of an action of that kind on my part are sufficiently negative that I would not risk my capacity to continue to live a free, happy, and fulfilling life in order to gain some material possessions and perhaps feel a little safer because I don’t have that weirdo looking at me with his evil eye every day any longer.

Also, since I live in a society I can feel confident that whatever weird looks I receive I am reasonably confident that the people don’t have murderous intent behind them or even if they do that the social structure affords me some degree of protection from their evil intentions. They, I presume, are at least semi-rational entities able to judge the risks versus rewards of their actions, and in the worst case I can still defend myself and not have fear that the justice system would find me to be to blame. Even better, I can call upon the police and judicial system who would all defend my right to live in peace. Indeed, at the very least, if there are no institutions devoted to the protection of the citizenry immediately available for me to call upon, I can still call upon all my other neighbors many of whom would come to my aid knowing full well that to do otherwise would be to encourage the kinds of behavior that destabilize society and make it harder for them to live peacefully. Overall, I’d say that’s a very good system. Or at least it’s the best we’ve come up with so far.

But international politics don’t work that way right now. A pity. There’s no reason why it couldn’t. There’s no reason why a strict set of consequences for actions that destabilize the international society couldn’t be spelled out and enforced fairly across all nations. When a nation invades another, whether it be the US or Russia or Iraq or Israel or any other country the consequences that nation would face would always be the same. Whenever a nation engages in human rights violations upon its own citizenry, different laws and consequences could be imposed up to and included the removal of that government from power. We could have fair trials whereby nations and individuals within nations can defend themselves against the charges being levied against them and it would require evidence and a verdict before the punishment would be met out.

We know such a system can work, we’ve seen it work time and again as social orders have risen up to topple chaos. We’ve seen the inklings of this working a few times in the United Nations as well. But this kind of order can’t arise if every nation that has any capacity to lend credence to such an organization continuously chooses to ignore it and do whatever the heck they feel like anyway. This is much akin to if the US military were to suddenly just decide that they can do whatever they want because after all they’re the ones with the biggest guns and so started committing all kinds of crimes upon the populace. If such a thing were to happen we wouldn’t have rule of law any more. We’d have anarchy.

I have no idea how such a system could arise given the political turmoil so much of the world is in right now, but I do know that if it is to have any hope of coming to pass it will require nations like Israel and the United States at least given the pretense of playing along. Whole scale invasions of other sovereign nations set a very bad example. It tells the world that the real rule is that whoever has the most power can do as they please. Which, yes, is fundamentally true, but the point is that the fiction that says otherwise is essential to create the conditions where ordinary people can pursue their own happiness without living in fear.

Instead, though, groups in many nations including Israel and the United States have perpetuated this idea that the United Nations is a worthless pile of dung that should be ignored because it is weak and ineffectual and staffed by cowards and morons. Useless the say. Pointless. Do nothings. Anything possible to degrade the worth of the organization to the world, and why? So they can go about their business without people accusing them of violating international law of course.

What these groups fail to acknowledge is that the strength of the United Nations is largely tied up with their own degree of participation in it. In particular for the United States this is true. When we say the UN is pointless, it’s very much similar to having the Speaker of the House say that the US Congress is pointless. If that’s the case, it’s got to be in large part because we aren’t doing anything to make it no longer be so.

clef at [unixtime wrote:1155536846[/unixtime]]But international politics don’t work that way right now. A pity. There’s no reason why it couldn’t.

But you're willing to hold nations to standards that don't actually exist outside your head. Understood.

Have you considered the evolution human society went through, for thousands of years, before a single nation could arrive at a relatively peaceful democratic, tolerant society? Do you realize how much bloodshed the same evolution would involve on a planetary scale, with nations as people?

Re: the war. My conclusions. Opinions, obviously.

As I pointed out before - when Israel ignores/ignored terrorist attacks, the terrorists (being the rude bastards that they are) don't appreciate the restraint, increase their morale and attack some more. When Israel strikes back, attacks cease for a while. That's a fairly established pattern. Obviously it's not exactly neg/pos - world opinion is influenced by the restraint / casualty reports, etc, etc. But the behavior of the terrorists? Very predictable and established.

So, that's where I part ways from the people who treat the world as if it was the picture in their head. I can understand those who think that the other side will give up if we hit them hard enough - they're just mis-enterpeting available data with wishful thinking. OTOH, the people who believe the terrorists will relent when faced with the "I'm ignoring you" treatment, I just don't get. Every time terrorists don't get hit back. No, every time that people negotiate with them, and grant some of their demands - the terrorists gain prestige, new recruits and the desire/ability to keep on doing nasty naughty terrorist stuff. Every time. No changes. There's absolutely no reason to believe that things will different this time around, except for the burning belief that if we insist on treating the world as though it matches the pictures in our head, it will eventually be forced to comform, damnit!

It won't, you know.

So... generally speaking, I'm all for hitting back when you're attacked. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz were new to the job, and they wanted to make sure all that bad guys new they couldn't mess around with the newbies/ gain political cookie points for ballsiness. I don't have a problem with that.

I do, however, have a problem with the way the war was actually conducted. It looked like a bad satire sketch. The new chief of staff is the former commander of the airforce so he thinks the war can be won with a nothing but airforce strikes. Again, I understand the temptation to use that "omg, like, super-cool" airforce, and avoid casualties amongst our troops, but really - we didn't accomplish anything until we actually sent troops over the border. And, yes, got some of them killed.

Xander77 at [unixtime wrote:1155577994[/unixtime]]

clef at [unixtime wrote:1155536846[/unixtime]]But international politics don’t work that way right now. A pity. There’s no reason why it couldn’t.

But you're willing to hold nations to standards that don't actually exist outside your head.

Why not?

Our (he's not just mine, though he may not be yours) president says the magical leprechaun in the sky guides his every decision.

How is that any different?

Oh, wait, it's different because one is based on things in this world - logic, laws, and rules - and the other is merely faith.

But I won't knock it, because however you get to being kind, generous, and supporting a stable society, it doesn't matter to me how you get there.

That's one of many reasons why it's irrelevent how I personally feel on any particular subject.

-Crissa

PS, how do you get, logically, from:
[*]...the people who believe the terrorists will relent when faced with the "I'm ignoring you" treatment...
[*]No, every time that people negotiate with them, and grant some of their demands - the terrorists gain prestige...

Because ignoring them would rather be not negotiating or granting demands.

You count every rocket that lands...

...But where's the count of every shell and missile fired by the IDF?

-Crissa

I'm sorry - I kinda lost the point in all this. Where is the part that explains why people from Lebanon (we assume) are justified to invade Israel, kidnap it's citizens, and launch missiles at its civilians then hide out in densely populated civilian areas back in Lebanon? And then to say that Israel should just turn the other cheek... ummm...

Why aren't we talking about the wars in the South Pacific or in Sri Lanka or the Pakistan/India conflict or Tibet's brutal occupation or Russia's Georgia or Somalia or a half dozen other current wars or violent conflicts around the world occuring in any place where all people do not praise Allah?

Crissa, I'm still curious about your response to these questions o' mine:

me wrote:When Israel (or any nation, really) suffers a 'minor' attack from another country, should they sit back and wait to see if it gets worse?

Should they try to respond on the same scale as the attackers? If so, will this help prevent future attacks? Why?

Krowout at [unixtime wrote:1155603416[/unixtime]]I'm sorry - I kinda lost the point in all this. Where is the part that explains why people from Lebanon (we assume) are justified to invade Israel, kidnap it's citizens, and launch missiles at its civilians then hide out in densely populated civilian areas back in Lebanon? And then to say that Israel should just turn the other cheek... ummm...

Letsee...

Invade - as a response to repeated airstrikes, occupation of Palestine, who knows what...

Kidnap it is citizens... First, your grammar is terrible, second, these were soldiers, captured. Sorry, but you can't kidnap soldiers who have and are using arms against your countrymen.

Launch missiles? These are unguided rockets. Basically, they're artillery.

Lastly, none of these rockets were fired at Israeli 'citizens' until after a point at which guided and unguided munitions were slamming into southern Lebanon and actually killing people.

So, do you have anything connected to reality to communicate?

-Crissa

Why aren't we talking about the wars in the South Pacific or in Sri Lanka or the Pakistan/India conflict or Tibet's brutal occupation or Russia's Georgia or Somalia or a half dozen other current wars or violent conflicts around the world occuring in any place where all people do not praise Allah?

Because in all those areas 800 people didn't die in the last two weeks.

If you want to say, 'look, there's a war!' try the Sudan, where probably more than that died due to war in the last two weeks. And guess what? ...They praise Allah and Jehovah in that country, too.

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1155615370[/unixtime]]
Invade - as a response to repeated airstrikes, occupation of Palestine, who knows what...

Kidnap it is citizens... First, your grammar is terrible, second, these were soldiers, captured. Sorry, but you can't kidnap soldiers who have and are using arms against your countrymen.

-Crissa

You're hating on Krowout for a typo? seriously?

Crissa wrote:Isreal

You've typed that over and over.

In this thread.

You know...the one about Israel.

I wasn't going to say anything (partially because someone else already did, partially because what's the point?), but you really and truly shouldn't bust on someone for their mistake when yours is orders of magnitude worse.

Still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions, so I have an idea what your basic viewpoint is.

Recent Events explain a lot of this thread to me.

Nice to see the pro senseless killing lobby hasn't really gotten past the whole, Kids throw rocks at Dick Cheney and he shoots their neighbour in the face with a shot gun metaphor. At least not without giving it a thumbs up for the right thing to do.

It looks like a continued case of "Lalala can't hear you".

But let me just try something.

wrote:When Israel (or any nation, really) suffers a 'minor' attack from another country, should they sit back and wait to see if it gets worse?

Yes.

wrote:Should they try to respond on the same scale as the attackers?

No, thats still toothless eyeless people land, of course bombing a whole nation into the stone age is a touch worse than even that.

wrote:If so, will this help prevent future attacks?

I said no and I mean no. You do not respond on the same scale. You respond in accordance to law and justice, niether of which actually involve blowing random shit up on any scale at all as a matter of fact.

wrote:Why?

Eyeless toothless people baby, eyeless toothless people.