|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 18, 2006 7:06:54 GMT -5
Well I was asking you how far you'd go, Chrisfan, and you put it out there, I'll give you that much. I'm as taken aback by some of the stuff in your posts as some of the others who've already replied to them in detail, in my case as much for the lack of grounding as the actual content. Proportionality, for example, is "utter BS"? No, proportionality is international law (4th Geneva Convention) and a central tenet of Western moral codes on "just war". When I say to you, as I will, that when Israel attack civilians and civilian infrastructure just to punish the Lebanese government its actions are illegal and immoral, that is one of the main bases of my saying so.
I don't have a lot of time here today to go into this stuff in detail but one other point that strikes me as incredibly shortsighted for a supporter of Israel is your backing for a law of the jungle, "to the victor go the spoils" policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel has a population of about 6 million Jews. There are currently something like 100 million Arabs living within 500 miles of Israel. Right now Israel has every possible military and political advantage in this conflict but its highly unlikely that it will retain all of these advantages in perpetuity. In all likelihood some Arab country somewhere will at some point in the future get rich enough or sufficiently powerful militarily or gain enough rich and powerful friends to alter the strategic balance. Israel's long-term future depends crucially on a comprehensive, equitable peace and, at the very least, grudging acceptance by all its neighbours.
It's not true, BTW, that "there aren't many wars where the victor is pressured not to take the spoils of victory". Aggressive expansionist warfare was made illegal in international law after World War II via the UN Charter. In the majority of cases since then (subject, of course, to big power politics during the Cold War) the international community has curbed or completely rolled back the gains of the victors in military conflicts. Recent examples are the Gulf War, where Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Kuwait, the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, where Serbian forces were removed from Croatia, pushed back in Bosnia and neutralized in Kosovo and East Timor where Indonesia was thwarted in its violent ambitions to hold on to the country after a democratic vote for independence. If 'to the victor go the spoils' was the prevailing paradigm, the situation in all those countries would be very different than it is right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 7:55:38 GMT -5
Better yet, say goodnight to your argument. There is no argument with you. You are so intent on making sure that I am the personification of the strawman you've created of everything any conservative has ever said that you hated that you don't hear what I've actually said. I can't live up to your expectation of being the "every conservative" so there's no sense in wasting anymore time. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 8:02:32 GMT -5
Drum, how is the international law you are citing helping to fix the situation here? The world, pre-UN, pre-"lets avoid all war by sitting down and talking" (yes, vast overgeneralization I concede, but I think you get the point) had wars. They were fought, one side surrendered, and things moved on. Things moved on so much that the two countries who fought in a war often times ended up standing side by side as allies down the road when another war boiled up.
That's not so much the case now - especially in this region. Why? Because the world is more complicated? Or because we don't allow things to get to the point of actual peace being accomplished? Why not attack a country you don't like (Israel) when there's no long standing ramifications of doing so? It sounds insane to say it, and I'll ignore all the ignorant mocking of it from the peanut gallery - but sometimes the fear / refusal to allow a war to happen brings about more conflict than it does peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jul 18, 2006 8:09:10 GMT -5
So what do you think Israel hopes to resolve with this war, Chrisfan? Do you think they are out to definitely eradicate Hezbollah by all means necessary, i.e. a full scale war? And how do you think this conflict will end?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 8:27:22 GMT -5
Maarts, if I knew all that, I'd have a much bigger office in a city more exciting than Cleveland, and I'd be making a lot more money.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jul 18, 2006 8:34:55 GMT -5
Working for Halliburton ??
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jul 18, 2006 8:38:47 GMT -5
Zing?
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 18, 2006 10:06:54 GMT -5
Is it just me... When Israel was first created, I was under the assumption that they were attacked... am I wrong on this? Was the state of Israel created and the Jews decided they were going to blow the fuck out of everyone? Goddamn angry Jews. And Skvor, you talk about holocaust? I haven't recently heard anyone talking about killing all the Palestinians, but I've heard quite a few times "Death to Israel." I think the Iranian Leader Douche guy recently say something about destroying Israel. Weird. Am I wrong on that fact, too? The fact of the matter is that Israel would have been destroyed a long time ago if they didn't defend themselves. I find it to be a ridiculous notion that they shouldn't have defended themselves whether you think they should be there or not. The fact of the matter is that they are, and it's time for some of these radical "destory Israel" peeps to wake up and realize... Israel isn't going anywhere... so let's figure out a way to broker a deal. And yes, I don't think Israel has to make all of the concessions. Not to say I'm some huge Israel supporter. I feel for the Palestinian people, and I want them to have their own state, but for fuck's sake, let's be realistic about it. Shit has happened, and not all of it, or even most of it, is Israel's fault. As a matter of fact, and you can disagree if you want, Israel has been more willing to broker peace than the Palestinians. I also believe there was a deal on the table, agreed on and ready to sign, and Arafat pulled out. And seriously, don't tell me that the Clinton Administration was in it just for oil. Stability would have helped the world, and not just the United States. And I'm sorry, but these states that don't want to join the rest of the world can fuck off. Is it just me or is it blatantly obvious that the countries that aren't joining the rest of the world more likely to have rogue leaders, war, poverty, human rights violations and the such? Hmmm... Let's let these countries just go on the way they choose... and maybe tomorrow we'll get a nice shipment of heroin, hear how people are being stoned to death for some stupid reason or another, see women being held down like they're pieces of shit, or, I know, and this is my favorite... make a man marry a goat. Also, it's so cool for people to be killed for dissenting against their government. Back pedaling bullshit response that I was expecting. If you don't agree with Israel's actions then all of a sudden you're "Death to Israel" and some sort of anti-semite. Fuck you, go back and read the post where I said I believe that Israel should exist, just not in a brutal all or nothing way. Again, also asking this for what the 4th 5th fucking time? Do you think giving back a slight sliver of stolen land is brokering peace? How hard would it be to give them access to resources and their religious sites if you're really about peace. Do that and then if the rocket attacks continue, I'll say that the other side is being way too brutal and ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 10:08:41 GMT -5
How can Matt backpedal on his first post on the subject? He's established no previous ground from which to backpedal. I also don't think he should be taken to task for not answering a question that was not addressed to him, but that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 18, 2006 10:09:09 GMT -5
Better yet, say goodnight to your argument. There is no argument with you. You are so intent on making sure that I am the personification of the strawman you've created of everything any conservative has ever said that you hated that you don't hear what I've actually said. I can't live up to your expectation of being the "every conservative" so there's no sense in wasting anymore time. You've created your own personification. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 18, 2006 10:11:26 GMT -5
How can Matt backpedal on his first post on the subject? He's established no previous ground from which to backpedal. I also don't think he should be taken to task for not answering a question that was not addressed to him, but that's just me. It was a general question. I know you think you're the center of attention on the Current Events boards, but you were not the only person that I was referring to. And yes, had he read where I said Israel should exist, he could have saved some typing time and knee jerk bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 10:12:15 GMT -5
Skvor, your house is made of such thin glass in this case you REALLY shouldn't be the one throwing stones.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jul 18, 2006 10:12:40 GMT -5
Fuck you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 18, 2006 10:41:37 GMT -5
I like houses without walls at all, so that when you throw stones - - you actually hit people.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2006 10:42:58 GMT -5
If you've got a good enough arm, your aim should allow that most of the time.  |
|
