Israel/Gaza: Calling all UK forum members.

manofmystery wrote: Is there somewhere I can sign up in support of Israel's actions?  Always lovely to see so many people played for saps by the palestinian use of the media.  Those Israeli's are soooo mean, their such bullies, we can send kid after kid strapped with explosives at them but if they try to put an end to it by using force there'll be an uproar.  One side straps their children with explosives and sends them out into crowded squares and when the other side responds with their military that's seen as crossing a line.  Is there any sanity left in this world or will anything be tolerated?  Grow a pair people and learn to mind your own damn business about affairs you know little about, the least educated people on this subject are the ones who follow media coverage, or college professors, like sheep.  Blindly supporting the palestinian side doesn't make you compassionate or progressive it just makes you another blind sheep heading toward their eventual slaughter. The only way this will ever end is through victory because the Arab world will never recognize Israel's right to exist.

Everytime you cast a vote in an election in the US (or UK for that matter), be it for the Democrats or the Republicans, you are pledging support for Israel, and granting the elected government a mandate to write endless blank cheques for the Israeli war machine.

I wouldn't feel too bad for Israel if I were you. They have lost 15 lives so far in this conflict, which of course is terrible, but over 1000 Palestinians have been killed, and much of Gaza doesn't have water, medical supplies or electricity, and the streets are literally awash with blood. Not the blood of those firing the rockets at Israel, but the blood of those who simply want to live their lives in peace.

There is force, and there is FORCE. This level of force will achieve nothing, but a re-grouping of Hamas and a bolsetring of their resolve to destroy Israel.

progmetalhead wrote:   Had the US listened to Maggie and continued to "destroy" the Iraqi threat in the initial conflict after the Iraqi army had been defeated then there would not have been the need for a second conflict. The number of lives saved would have been immeasurable. I don't find this gravely immoral at all, in fact the opposite.

To begin, there was never an "Iraqi threat" against anyone except, perhaps, their own population and, for a time, Iran, both of which elicited no objections from the Western powers--indeed, it was their support of Hussein that led to these threats.  All of this is completely uncontroversial.

It follows that the "need for a second conflict" is somewhat moot.  So let's then discuss the current occupation of Iraq.  What threat was this attempting to thwart or prevent?  Surely it wasn't any threat against the West:  even if Hussein wanted to pose a serious threat to the Western powers he couldn't do anything about it, as he simply didn't have the military capability.  I won't even discuss the ludicrous, and later retracted, claims that Hussein had connections with the 9/11 terrorist attack.  Was he a threat to Israel?  Unlike neighbors Iran and US ally Saudi Arabia, Iraq was a secular state--one ruled by an awful tyrant, but secular nevertheless.  Israel simply wasn't in Hussein's plans.  That leaves us with the Iraqi population itself, and here again there's no controversy about it:  Hussein was indeed a corrupt dictator, but he only rose to that level of power via Western support, both direct and otherwise.  In fact, his control was in steady decline, and within a few years, as most astute analysts concur, the Iraqis themselves would have toppled the government.

Thus, we're left to conclude that the US occupation of Iraq occured and continues only because it benefits certain US interests.  It might be that a partial withdrawl may soon come about, but only, as was the case with the Vietnam war, due to considerations of "cost effectiveness"--the pillaging has slowed, and now business interests are finding the enterprise at bit too expensive for their tastes.  It is extremely unlikely, however, that we'll see Washington withdrawal completely from Iraq, again, for reasons entirely transparent.

WinterLight wrote: progmetalhead wrote:   Had the US listened to Maggie and continued to "destroy" the Iraqi threat in the initial conflict after the Iraqi army had been defeated then there would not have been the need for a second conflict. The number of lives saved would have been immeasurable. I don't find this gravely immoral at all, in fact the opposite. To begin, there was never an "Iraqi threat" against anyone except, perhaps, their own population and, for a time, Iran, both of which elicited no objections from the Western powers--indeed, it was their support of Hussein that led to these threats.  All of this is completely uncontroversial. It follows that the "need for a second conflict" is somewhat moot.  So let's then discuss the current occupation of Iraq.  What threat was this attempting to thwart or prevent?  Surely it wasn't any threat against the West:  even if Hussein wanted to pose a serious threat to the Western powers he couldn't do anything about it, as he simply didn't have the military capability.  I won't even discuss the ludicrous, and later retracted, claims that Hussein had connections with the 9/11 terrorist attack.  Was he a threat to Israel?  Unlike neighbors Iran and US ally Saudi Arabia, Iraq was a secular state--one ruled by an awful tyrant, but secular nevertheless.  Israel simply wasn't in Hussein's plans.  That leaves us with the Iraqi population itself, and here again there's no controversy about it:  Hussein was indeed a corrupt dictator, but he only rose to that level of power via Western support, both direct and otherwise.  In fact, his control was in steady decline, and within a few years, as most astute analysts concur, the Iraqis themselves would have toppled the government. Thus, we're left to conclude that the US occupation of Iraq occured and continues only because it benefits certain US interests.  It might be that a partial withdrawl may soon come about, but only, as was the case with the Vietnam war, due to considerations of "cost effectiveness"--the pillaging has slowed, and now business interests are finding the enterprise at bit too expensive for their tastes.  It is extremely unlikely, however, that we'll see Washington withdrawal completely from Iraq, again, for reasons entirely transparent.

progmetalhead wrote: *scratches head* errm from memory didn't they invade a neighbour? Namely Kuwait. While this is true, Iraq does have historical claims to that territory; Britain carved up Iraq earlier in the century and Kuwait was created specifically to "landlock" Iraq.  Moreover, it is important to recognize that though that invasion was criminal, Hussein committed his worst atrocities with support from Washington during his rise to power (recall that Reagan had Hussein removed from the list of terrorists so as to facilitate funding).  Indeed, Washington's invasion of Iraq was not launched on the basis of defending Kuwait but rather it was an act of retaliation against a former ally (Hussein) who had disobeyed (or perhaps, as the record seems to imply, misunderstood) an order.   Didn't another despot do the same thing 50 years earlier? Perhaps we should have let him get on with it as well. An analogy to the rise of Nazism is somewhat irrelevant.  In fact, a closer (though fictitious) analogue to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would be a Mexican invasion of Texas.

Blacksword wrote: manofmystery wrote: Is there somewhere I can sign up in support of Israel's actions?  Always lovely to see so many people played for saps by the palestinian use of the media.  Those Israeli's are soooo mean, their such bullies, we can send kid after kid strapped with explosives at them but if they try to put an end to it by using force there'll be an uproar.  One side straps their children with explosives and sends them out into crowded squares and when the other side responds with their military that's seen as crossing a line.  Is there any sanity left in this world or will anything be tolerated?  Grow a pair people and learn to mind your own damn business about affairs you know little about, the least educated people on this subject are the ones who follow media coverage, or college professors, like sheep.  Blindly supporting the palestinian side doesn't make you compassionate or progressive it just makes you another blind sheep heading toward their eventual slaughter. The only way this will ever end is through victory because the Arab world will never recognize Israel's right to exist. Everytime you cast a vote in an election in the US (or UK for that matter), be it for the Democrats or the Republicans, you are pledging support for Israel, and granting the elected government a mandate to write endless blank cheques for the Israeli war machine. I wouldn't feel too bad for Israel if I were you. They have lost 15 lives so far in this conflict, which of course is terrible, but over 1000 Palestinians have been killed, and much of Gaza doesn't have water, medical supplies or electricity, and the streets are literally awash with blood. Not the blood of those firing the rockets at Israel, but the blood of those who simply want to live their lives in peace. There is force, and there is FORCE. This level of force will achieve nothing, but a re-grouping of Hamas and a bolsetring of their resolve to destroy Israel.

manofmystery wrote: Blacksword wrote: manofmystery wrote: Is there somewhere I can sign up in support of Israel's actions?  Always lovely to see so many people played for saps by the palestinian use of the media.  Those Israeli's are soooo mean, their such bullies, we can send kid after kid strapped with explosives at them but if they try to put an end to it by using force there'll be an uproar.  One side straps their children with explosives and sends them out into crowded squares and when the other side responds with their military that's seen as crossing a line.  Is there any sanity left in this world or will anything be tolerated?  Grow a pair people and learn to mind your own damn business about affairs you know little about, the least educated people on this subject are the ones who follow media coverage, or college professors, like sheep.  Blindly supporting the palestinian side doesn't make you compassionate or progressive it just makes you another blind sheep heading toward their eventual slaughter. The only way this will ever end is through victory because the Arab world will never recognize Israel's right to exist. Everytime you cast a vote in an election in the US (or UK for that matter), be it for the Democrats or the Republicans, you are pledging support for Israel, and granting the elected government a mandate to write endless blank cheques for the Israeli war machine. I wouldn't feel too bad for Israel if I were you. They have lost 15 lives so far in this conflict, which of course is terrible, but over 1000 Palestinians have been killed, and much of Gaza doesn't have water, medical supplies or electricity, and the streets are literally awash with blood. Not the blood of those firing the rockets at Israel, but the blood of those who simply want to live their lives in peace. There is force, and there is FORCE. This level of force will achieve nothing, but a re-grouping of Hamas and a bolsetring of their resolve to destroy Israel.   So, what's this, a new news story with a nice round number comes out and you blindly trust it as accurate.  I believe this sheep like behavior was one of the first things I covered.  Happened to find some of these unabashedly one-sided articles that I assume you've read to find your numbers and, what do you know, they are presented in the exact way I said they'd be.  All lean on the word of "Gaza medics" (no need backing up a source like that) and all come with your standard pictures of crumbled buildings and people in slings.  I have to admit the "the streets are literally awash with blood" was a nice touch but I wonder how I missed the picture of rivers of blood that literally awash the street.  Hope they have boats.  Also enjoy your use of the buzz word "war machine", real evidence of some free thinking there.  But to answer point by point: - If the US government wants to aid an ally, that finds themself under constant attack, I would rather they do it by selling them technology than provide monetary aid myself.  I, personally, have a problem with my governments use of taxpayer money for anything outside of defense and infrastructure.  The Israeli "war machine" (as you like to put it) is one of the most advanced and well trained units in the world with or without US funding. - I do feel bad for Israelis as I would for any people facing the constant terrorism that they do.  I understand that classic group think has trained you to look at this as simply two sides but I'm guessing that most Israelis blown up in in public squares are not fully armed war criminals (call me crazy).  I asked you to view this as an average citizen, an individual not involved in government policy, and obviously you chose not to. As a matter of fact you didn't even bother to read my second post on this subject, did you, because you found it a lot easier to attack  my earlier, much less clear and more emotional, post. - You have fallen into the completely illogical view that responding to force with superior force is somehow immoral.  I ask you: if a man runs at you with a knife and you hold in one hand a gun and the other a knife do you take the risk of being stabbed to death just to even out the field?  If you are honest, and have any inclination towards self preservation , you will make the decision that ensures your survival.  Actually, it can be argued that the fact Hamas wears no uniform and uses tactics unspeakable in the western world evens the playing field. - This level of force will achieve something if it is allowed to continue untill they reach the stated goals of Killing Hamas leaders and destroying the tunnels which Hamas uses to smuggle in arms.  Sure, someone can always replace a leader but it will be harder for them to operate without weapons.  Only by destroying the terrorist organizations ability to operate within Gaza will the bombings stop.  One side must win for anything resembling peace to be established and I have a major problem with people siding with those who have the stated goal of "driving the Jews into the sea".  It boggles my mind that so many are able to eat up, with complete trust, every biased media report and every two-faced claim to want peace from palestinian leadership yet when the government of the nation of Israel makes an attempt to end the bombings nobody trusts their intentions.  Israeli citizens are the victimized simply because they aren't muslims yet nobody cries "hate crime" here.  No no, Jews are no minority, not in the middle east.  Face it, there is only one side here that is fighting for their right to exist, the Israelis do not seek to extinguish all life in Gaza, there target is Hamas.  And, by the way, Hamas does seek to extinguish all non-muslim life is Israel (and the rest of the world for the matter). And saying "of course its terrible" that Israel has lost lives in this current conflict doesn't change the fact that you are basically saying that its unfair less of them have died.

Nobody has any problem with Israel attempting to rid the world of Hamas.  However, there is also little doubt that a large number of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's bombings.  The issue being argued is whether or not Israel has crossed the line between fighting terrorists and violating the human rights of civilians. 

I am on neither side.

But in the same breath what about Israelies throughout the conflict (troops included on both sides) who have ben killed and how their families feel.

Furthermore, I am not blind , so whatever wealth of scholarly work may be out there, nothing beats the eyes and the ears, secondly by speaking many languages, I do have a certain immunity to bigotry BECAUSE I am not motivated by one-sided and hence distorted views of historical events. I have travelled in order to VERIFY what others have written or stated , to see if its fact or fiction. Having a multi-cultural background DOES help to hear both or many sides without prejudice , though some unilinguist  sedentary types can also be people of vision and tolerance. I have no nationalist hatreds to vehiculate, I just can't stand opinionated people who have answers to everything (which can be at times okay as longs as there is some modicum of respectful discourse) and who twists, slices and dices according to their whims. In fact, your arguments would be so much more agreable if you would use less accusatory judgement and more gentle humor.

Edited by tszirmay - January 16 2009 at 19:52

Fine example of intellectual / moral superiority. A great philosopher once said that writing properly is a prime indicator of dedication and credibility. Food (liquid , of course) for thought

Edited by tszirmay - January 16 2009 at 20:45