posted on April 8, 2002 09:28:17 AM new
twinsoft your absolutely right. As the example you used, IF Mexico started sending in terrorist into Southern CA, I do believe a lot of people would change their tune about this
You mentioned the ultra orthodox Zionist, settling in the disputed areas... a lot of those people (Zionists) paid Palestinians a long time ago, just to settle the matter for a lot of those areas. I guess the Palestinians forgot? yeah.
And it is the worst thing to see young children being killed over this, but its the PLO and those orginzations that do train them from a very young age to fight and believe their cause is the only cause and is right.
posted on April 8, 2002 10:02:59 AM new
I like to think I am a reasonable person. I also think I am humane person.
But at some point in this situation you will have to put rationale and humane behavior aside and go with brute force.
If the PLO wants Israel destoyed and wants to make matyrs, perhaps it is time for the IDF to roll over the West Bank and Gaza and move the Palestinian population that survives into their friends and brother's land in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
The situation grows more dangerous and inane with each passing year.
At some point the West must realize that it is just a matter of time before the Arabs have access to nukes and a means to deliver them.
Instead of worrying about the Israel conflict as being a sideline to the war on terror, it is time we looked at it as part and parcel of the same problem, because that is what it is.
Perhaps it is time the U.S. helped secure Israel first, then begin hammering the whole region.
Sorry to say, but these populations seem to understand bombs and bullets and nothing else.
>>"Instead of annihilating the Palestinians when they had the chance and they were relatively few in number they allowed them to procreate and prosper until they number in the millions. Israel made them, now Israel can just give them a home; or Israel can simply kill all of them. Either way there will be peace in the region."<<
Are you really as sick and twisted as you sound or is that just sarcasm?
Edited to add: That kind of thing was attempted before. Remember the Holocaust? Isn't it ironic that some are saying that the Jews should do the same thing to the Palestinians that the Germans attempted to do to them?
[ edited by outoftheblue on Apr 8, 2002 10:29 AM ]
posted on April 8, 2002 10:29:40 AM new
The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group is called genocide. I'm amazed at the number of people who appear to support this position.
posted on April 8, 2002 10:31:52 AM new
twinsoft, you make some good points. True, if it was up-front, close to home, and personal, we "armchair generals" would demand a response.
But it isn't.
That is, it isn't happening to us.
Except, when we get involved over there.
What you were saying about the Palistinians only being pawns in a much larger Arab game against the Nation of Isreal is quite true. The poor Palistinians are stuck in the middle, with their Arab "friends" screwing them over as much as anyone else is. So, tell me, what is the point of us getting involved in trying to negociate a peace when all of this is just so much smoke and mirrors?
posted on April 8, 2002 10:35:58 AM new
Sorry to point out that if Germany had won the war the Holocaust would be an unpleasant memory of a few dying WWII vets and have no place in the history books.
There have been LOTS of times in history when conflicting populations ended up with one being stripped off the land.
What makes the Holocaust different is that there were lots of Jews in other countries and many fled so when Germany lost they made sure the memory has been kept alive through much effort. Nobody for example has kept the Turks slaughtering the Armenians alive in everyones awareness that way.
Sad truth is the tactic of ethnic cleansing has worked well before the era of easy transportation and improved communications.
Even today I don't think in ten years you will hear much about the killing in Bosnia.
posted on April 8, 2002 11:00:16 AM new
People pretty much stay the same. A very few learn.
If you ask the soldiers of most countries to shoot down their own people like dogs they are almost always going to follow orders.
They spend months disassembling recruits personalities to teach them unquestioning obediance and maybe 20 minutes talking about what constitutes an unlawful order.
Some people just like killing others.
When my Uncle was in the Pacific they would capture Japanese and their officer always told the same guy to take them to the beach (which was a rough 2 hour march away) and be back in 15 minutes. Officers soon find out who in their line of command will take those kinds of orders. There are usually a few who are always volunteering to go out and engage the enemy, when any normal person will avoid the risk.
posted on April 8, 2002 11:03:00 AM new
In time the debate is not going to be whether we have an "enlightened society", it is going to be which society survives.
If the terrorist attacks persist, Israel is doomed. If the wrong weapons get into the right hands, the U.S. is doomed.
[ edited by REAMOND on Apr 8, 2002 11:27 AM ]
posted on April 8, 2002 11:25:55 AM new
From the book Fighting Back: Winning the War Against Terrorism. Written and edited By: Terrel Arnold, consultant Dept of State; Neil Livingston international bussinessman; Harry Almond, professor of international law; William Farrell, Lt US Airforce; Christine Ketcham, Public Safety Group; William Livingstone, Press Secretary for former Sen Pete Wilson; Harvey J McGeorge II, president Public Safety Group; Guy Roberts, Major US Marines; Beth Salamanca, security advisor McGeorge and Assoc; Robert Sayre, foreign service officer; Victoria Toensing Asst Attorney Dept of Justice; Charles Vance, Vance Intl security.
[b]"The United States may yet perish as a nation of the delusion that it is neces-
sary to be more moral than anyone else. There exists today a void in the
international milieu composed of countries that do not subscribe to the laws
and civilized norms that are the bedrock of the international system-nations
like Libya and Iran, which observe traditionally accepted rules of behavior only when it serves their purposes. Similarly, transnational terrorists and
third-force groups have added a new dimension of instability and peril to the
international scene, sometimes at the behest of patron states and at other
times to achieve their own agendas. To maintain a posture of national innocence and inaction in the face of such threats is to run the risk of catastrophe.
When living in the jungle, it is best to observe the law of the jungle....
...... It is merely to suggest that we do not cease to
be moral beings simply because we engage in nasty, low-intensity forms of
conflict. The various proactive strategies for dealing with terrorism must be
judged in the context of the circumstances in which they are employed, the
limitations placed on the use of force in any of its manifestations, and the
ends that each response is designed to achieve. In the words of Admiral James
D. Watkins, "No response to terrorism ever will be absolutely clean or pure
in its morality to all people. We do not live in a world of perfect absolutes,
so we must do the best we can with the information available to the US.
Those
who allege that the Western democracies run the risk of becoming like the
terrorists they oppose by adopting proactive options to suppress and defeat
them are engaging in a cruel form of deception and falsehood, which only
encourages and emboldens terrorists who want the United States to be paralyzed with indecision and moral vacillation. It is a sad commentary on the
times that it is necessary to reassert our obvious superiority, by any conceiv-
able yardstick, to the terrorists and their sponsors whose only politics are
those of fear and murder and whose only law flows out of the barrel of a
gun. It is time to stop apologizing for taking appropriate measures to protect
societies from enemies bent on destruction.
The demand for probative, or court-sustainable, evidence of a particular
foreign terrorist group's culpability or affirming the complicity of a specific
sponsoring state is an impractical standard and has contributed to the impression on the part of terrorists that the United States is inhibited from responding meaningfully to their outrages. The amount and quality of intelligence
available will always fall something short of optimal, and as Tovar has stated,"There is a very real danger that the pursuit of more and better intelligence
may become an excuse for non-action, which in itself might do more harm
than action based on plausible though incomplete intelligence."26 Thus the
United States should not insist on absolute evidence before employing force
against terrorists; a functional standard of guilt appropriate to the threat will
suffice.
Neither should there be an absolute requirement to obtain public endorsement and support of every contemplated action against international
terrorism. This, too, would have a chilling effect on the ability of the United
States to wage war against terrorists. The president and other elected officials
should do what is required to protect the nation regardless of considerations
relative to the support any action enjoys in the polls. Force, in the abstract
and irrespective of an actual terrorist incident, will never garner a great deal
of public support. Public officials therefore must be prepared to lead public
opinion rather than simply follow it.
In conclusion, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., once observed, "Between two
groups that want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy ex-
cept force." The obvious superiority of the Western liberal democracies over
the forces challenging them gives moral authority and license to their actions.
Terrorists and their sponsors operate on the assumption that the United States
will never use force. It is time to prove them wrong. "[/b]
posted on April 8, 2002 11:25:54 AM new
SSorry to agree withoutof the blue. And what is the advantage of government or religion either one training the people to think for themselves?
Zero tolerance being an example. They don't even trust the administrators and judges to exercise any discretion.
posted on April 8, 2002 12:36:48 PM new
It is amazing to me that so many are so worried about threats from without, when the real and immediate threat is from within.
There are every bit as many terroists in this country as there are in countries in the middle east. The only difference is their terrorism is targeted at other American citizens and often even their own families. Need I elaborate?
posted on April 8, 2002 01:31:16 PM new
snowyegret
yeah, I persoanlly do not care if Jesse Jackson goes, as long as he pays his own way, and not take it for 'traveling expenses' out of the Rainbow Coalition Fund
posted on April 8, 2002 02:15:35 PM new
Bush's demanding, almost nasty tone this afternoon about expecting Israel to do what he says is not very smart. Israelis are not going to be told what to do by any U.S. president let alone when every day is like 9/11. Suggestions maybe, orders NO! I am thinking more and more that what is being said by Bush is for the world to hear, but that it can't possibly be what he(the administration) is really thinking. They know that Israel has an obligation to itself and the world to defend itself and go after the terrorists just as we are doing. The only good terrorist is a dead one!
posted on April 8, 2002 02:30:19 PM new
You've got to be kidding. While I agree Bush's speech was for public consumption, we yank Israel's chain all the time.
Unless you think they allowed the Egyptian army free passage (WITH their weapons) back to Egypt and didn't take Damascus in the last biggie because they're "nice guys".
posted on April 8, 2002 02:37:19 PM new
stusi, what really bothers me is that he keeps saying "I" expect you (fill in whatever). It's like I'm the father and you will do as I say. Or, there isn't any other part of our government only him, and you will "obey me". I don't know, that just rubs me the wrong way.
posted on April 8, 2002 02:50:44 PM new
chococake- exactly! It makes one wonder more than ever how much of what he says is his own words or just inappropriate sound bites scripted for him.
DeSquirrel- The tone of this particular statement was unlike anything I have ever heard a President say about any country other than an enemy. BTW- Your reference to Damascus was almost as relevant as the mumbo-jumbo article you quoted earlier.
I don't know what the heck you're talking about but in the Yom Kippur war we flat out told Israel not to annihilate the Egyptian army in the Sinai and not to continue on to Damascus when the Syrians collapsed.
Oh, and I would really be interested in which of Podhoretz's opinions were "mumbo jumbo".
posted on April 8, 2002 05:44:18 PM new
Thank you plsmith for that link
Well, looks like he could afford the trip over there with his salary, just a round trip ticket, someone over there should be able to put him up for a week or so for free, I'd think....
posted on April 8, 2002 06:46:24 PM new
DeSquirrel- The Damascus comment was not relevant in that I was talking about the TONE of Dubya's "directive" NOT the content! We have obviously "asked" Israel and other "allies" to do or not do certain things on many occasions. They are even talking about the tone on the news. I am sorry if you did not get the idea that this tone is usually reserved for our enemies. Perhaps you did not see the sound bite. Podhoretz' comments are "mumbo-jumbo" in the sense that they are somewhat interesting but the style of writing is very convoluted as others here have pointed out as well. My comment to you should not be taken personally.
posted on April 8, 2002 07:41:08 PM new
>>Thank you for looking at those articles. I was going to give you one more right now, but I won't, seeing as how your good nature is showing through. It was just a link to a book review on the guy who was the GOP's Golden Boy in writing books that bashed Clinton and now, has written a book, confessing how they (the Republican Party) outright lied about Clinton in order to smear him. Interesting reading.<<
I'm about to list that one, so if he searches hard. Reminds me of Haynes's "Sleepwalking thru the '80's" or somesuch.
posted on April 8, 2002 07:48:55 PM new
>>If the PLO wants Israel destoyed and wants to make matyrs, perhaps it is time for the IDF to roll over the West Bank and Gaza and move the Palestinian population that survives into their friends and brother's land in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.<<
They don't want them.
And I think Bush & Sharon cut a deal (okay take out the Hamas etc. (e.g. the Head's arms & legs) then ENOUGH!) and if there was a speech today it was smoke and mirrors.
By public consumption, I was also referring to "mock" anger for the rest of the world, not the US or Israel. It's the old game of allowing the "mderate" Arabs to "save face". I doubt the administration has the slightest recrimination for the Israelis.
The long-winded comments were sent to me and I posted them because I found his "correction" of "politically correct" terms to be quite accurate and in agreement with the opinions of everyone here who read them.
posted on April 8, 2002 10:27:36 PM new... what is the point of us getting involved in trying to negociate a peace when all of this is just so much smoke and mirrors?
I don't know and I don't think political intervention by America will help. Israelis see Bush straddling the fence re: terrorism and his admonitions mean little since Bush can in no way back it up. Bush is looking out for America's interests, that is all. Arabs have no respect for Bush or America either.
Reamond, the book you quoted above is right on the mark. A military response by Israel was inevitable. I personally feel they didn't go far enough, but time will tell whether the action was sufficient. In these days it should be obvious that the Arab nations are gearing up for an all-out assault on the West. If Israel were destroyed, it would not be the end of violence, but the beginning.
In all the discussion, one important point has been overlooked. The Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Israel is an important part of Jewish culture. "Next year in Jerusalem" has been the prayer of Jews for thousands of years. The Bible promises this land to us. Whether you agree with that or not, it is a fact of Jewish culture. To western Christians, this is (just) a battle for land.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
