|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 11:54:59 GMT -5
Okay Phil, whatever. You see the big picture, and yet only seem to find fault with the actions of the Isrealis. I on the ohter hand completely ignore what I choose to. Gotcha. Someday, I hope to grow up to be as brillant and thought provoking as you ... or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 12:03:49 GMT -5
Everyone play nice now.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 12:04:05 GMT -5
And have some toast.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 12:10:58 GMT -5
A question for you, Chrisfan: if war is about winning, do you advocate the killing of civilians to further that "winning" goal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 17, 2006 12:12:25 GMT -5
Regarding the shrapnel, dead families, etc ... (here you go, fresh meat to try to pretend that conservatives are heartless monsters). War is fucking ugly. There is just no other way to describe it. Many would love to romanticize it into a neat clean operation where bad guys are killed, and everyone else lives happily ever after. But it's not like that, and has never been like that. The reasons for a war, or for objecting to a war (well, unless you're just against all war under any circumstances, but that's a different story) cannot be the death of innocents. No matter how you do it, innocents will die, and it's going to remain fucking ugly. The reason for war is when conflicts become so great that no other means of change will work. Destroying the opposition is never desirable per se, but the plain truth is that there are times when there is no other choice. It'd be lovely to live in a world where reason always pervailed ... but we don't. Do you believe that Israel's current actions in Lebanon are going to "change" the situation for the better? Can you explain how? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 12:13:06 GMT -5
A question for you, Chrisfan: if war is about winning, do you advocate the killing of civilians to further that "winning" goal? Advocate? No. Accept as an unfortuante reality? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 12:15:50 GMT -5
Regarding the shrapnel, dead families, etc ... (here you go, fresh meat to try to pretend that conservatives are heartless monsters). War is fucking ugly. There is just no other way to describe it. Many would love to romanticize it into a neat clean operation where bad guys are killed, and everyone else lives happily ever after. But it's not like that, and has never been like that. The reasons for a war, or for objecting to a war (well, unless you're just against all war under any circumstances, but that's a different story) cannot be the death of innocents. No matter how you do it, innocents will die, and it's going to remain fucking ugly. The reason for war is when conflicts become so great that no other means of change will work. Destroying the opposition is never desirable per se, but the plain truth is that there are times when there is no other choice. It'd be lovely to live in a world where reason always pervailed ... but we don't. Do you believe that Israel's current actions in Lebanon are going to "change" the situation for the better? Can you explain how? I understand the motivation - I think it's far too early to determine whether or not it'll work. The motivation is that Lebanon is one of the nations that has been providing support to Hezbollah. Similair to the US waging war against Afghanistan in response to al Qaeda, Israel is setting out to stop nation support of Hezbollah. Lebanon made some promises to Collin Powell when he was Sec of State to kick them out - and did not live up to those promises. So now, Israel is taking action to force them into living up to that promise. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 12:36:34 GMT -5
A question for you, Chrisfan: if war is about winning, do you advocate the killing of civilians to further that "winning" goal? Advocate? No. Accept as an unfortuante reality? Yes. In that case, then, what is the difference between, oh, the September 11 attacks and the Hiroshima bombing? |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 12:40:05 GMT -5
Which is to say, both were against large population centers perpetrated by entities who consider themselves at war and with the hopes of making the attacked re-think their current military strategies.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 12:45:13 GMT -5
Only one took place as part of a war Ken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 17, 2006 12:49:08 GMT -5
I don't think it's too early to determine whether or not this will work. The past 40 years indicate it almost certainly will NOT work. Hezbollah ws virtually created by Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and Hezbollah's legitimacy and support within the Arab world, and within Lebanon, is bolstered whenever Israel's policies become more militant or aggressive. No doubt there are some Lebanese who are frustrated with Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a provocation for the present conflict, but as more and more bombs fall on civilians, Hezbollah looks more and more like a brave resistance force.
Second, the comparison between Lebanon and Afghanistan just doesn't stand. The Taliban indisputably supported and provided safe haven for Al Q'aeda and explicitly for Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, America has embraced and supported Lebanon's current government, under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who visited Washington D.C. a mere 3 months ago. The Lebanese government does not support Hezbollah, and would like to see it disarmed or absorbed into the national military. But what are they supposed to do to dismantle an organization that has the public support of the nation's Shi'a and that virtually controls Southern Lebanon?? The present attacks against Lebanon are premised upon the notion that the Lebanese government bears some responsibility for Hezbollah's actions and can control them; it doesn't and it can't.
Also I'm confused about when Lebanon promised to Colin Powell that it would kick Hezbollah out. Can you be more specific?
M
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 13:06:31 GMT -5
Only one took place as part of a war Ken. I bet Al-Qaeda would disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 17, 2006 13:07:07 GMT -5
And I am sure the people who died in the incidents don't really care about the superficial difference between terrorism and legal warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 13:08:15 GMT -5
Kicking out was too strong of a word selection. In April 2002, Powell travelled to Lebanon and Syria to deal with the issue of Hezbollah. In those meetings, Lebanon agreed that Hezbollah's actions were a problem, and vowed to do everything they could to keep them under control. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 17, 2006 13:11:10 GMT -5
Only one took place as part of a war Ken. I bet Al-Qaeda would disagree. Surely you'd agree that during WW2, it was more than merely the US who viewed ourselves as being at war with Japan. If you don't see the difference there Ken, I truly don't know what to tell you. |
|
