The Middle East spirals out of control!

Originally Posted by the article

As the violence escalated it appeared to polarise reaction, with the US and EU taking markedly different stances. The US president, George Bush, said Israel had the right to defend itself but cautioned against bringing down the Lebanese administration. "The concern here is that any activities by Israel to protect herself will weaken that government ... topple that government, and we have made that clear in our discussions, Mr Bush said during a visit to Germany. "Having said all that, people need to protect themselves."

George Bush has no grounds upon which to criticise any nation who bring down the government of another country. Not without indulging in flagrant hypocrisy. In fact, unless he offers U.S. support to Israel, I think that he would be guilty of hypocrisy.

I'm not saying that I think that the U.S. should support Israel in this matter, but there isn't one rule for America, and one for the rest of the world.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by CryHavoc

What kind of nonsense is this? How can they be "the only profiteers"? How can they be "profiteers" in any way???
They wage the war because they hate Israel's presence, no profit gained, physical or psychological, if you were camping in my backyard and i pick a fight with you how the hell can that fight be profitable to me?

That's only a fair analogy if there's some kind of genuine dispute as to whose backyard it really is.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

There obviously is. Remember, might indeed does make right. Those with the power to do so do and those without the power to do so do what the people in power tell them to do.

No. There really isn't. Just because the American government is capable of justifying its actions to the satisfaction of their own people doesn't mean that they are capable of justifying their actions to the international community.

The fact that America could probably bomb the rest of the world back into the stone age doesn't give them any moral rectitude whatsoever. Might doesn't make right, it simply confers the ability to silence those who say that you're wrong.

I'm not stating that I find America's recent actions reprehensible, nor their stance on the current conflict, but there is an international community to answer to. In truth I find America's recent actions more ill-advised than reprehensible, and of course they are bound to support their long-term ally in this conflict, but when you say that might makes right, I find that an entirely curious statement. If you do endorse that sentiment fully, then whomever decides to rob you at gunpoint is entirely justified.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Right. And if nobody's around to say that you are wrong, then you are right.

Might makes right becuase it forces the acceptance of a certain point of view or policy. The government is always right because we'll get thrown in a Federal penitentiary if we break the law. That doesn't necessarily make laws morally sound, it just means that it's impossible to dissent.

I disagree. Just because I get thrown in prison for breaking the law, that doesn't make the government right, and it doesn't stop me from breaking the law if I feel it is warranted. I'm not sweeping the rest of your points aside, but there's always a moral consideration, even if it's academic given the circumstances.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

While moral considerations are nice and everything, just how far do they go? Some people may stand up and tell the government it's wrong, but they're a minority, and the government will do everything it can (which is a great amount) to weaken and neutralize them. Most people lack the will to stand up in the face of that, and will give up their position to get the pressure off their back. Those that don't give in will be of no concern; everyone else either agrees or is keeping quiet, making the government right by default.

Yeah, the short answer is "not very damn far."

The long answer is that it's better to at least consider whether or not something's wrong, even if there's nothing you can do to change it. Otherwise we'd all end up accepting everything that our government throw at us, no matter how outrageous. The answer to "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" is "Every one of us - if we don't want to live in a world we can't accept."

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RABicle

I'm not going to bother joining this debate though as Brady, Night Pheonix, Robo Jesus, Lord Styphon and the rest of the nationalist crowd is just running the "what's right for Israel is right for America is right for me" line. There's no point in trying to show these guys an ethical or emotional standpoint on the issue because they all left their integrity along with their moral fibre in the bin before entering.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I am disturbed by the amount of support shown for the concept of "might makes right". I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me how it is that armed robbers aren't entirely justified by this philosophy. Oh wait, is it because the Police have a greater might? I get it now. The armed robber is right, his victim is wrong, but the police are MORE right.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Thoompie

Maybe i'm being a bit doomsday, but WWI and WWII became a world war because the US were helping(intercontinental, to be politically correct :-P). So if the US, and maybe Europe wil have to get in between again if things get outta hand, wouldn't that be a third world war?

WWII involved a fairly large chunk of the world before America were drawn into the conflict. I admit that the attack on Pearl Harbor and the resultant American involvement did escalate the scale of the conflict, not to mention that it provided desperately needed additional allied forces, but I think that the Second World War could justifiably have been called a World War even before America had a stake in it.


The conflict already encompassed most of Europe, and parts of Asia, North Africa, and it should be noted that America had a financial stake in the war for some time before they had any military assets at stake, due the Lend-Lease Act.

Certainly it should be said that American involvment was instrumental, and increased the overall scale of warfare, but I don't know if I'd support the notion that it wasn't a "World War" until they became directly involved. I also feel compelled to note that while the US did indeed help, and greatly so, that was not their primary purpose. They were simply retaliating against an attack on their own troops, and defending their own interests against an agressor. The fact that they got drawn into the war as a whole was something of an unintentional byproduct from the American viewpoint.

I don't feel qualified to comment on the First World War, but I will close by saying that despite this objection, it seems eminently likely to me that the Middle East will be the theater of operations for the next conflict that history will term a "World War".

I find it hard to imagine that there will be the same degree of co-operation and mutual support in a future "World War" as there has been in the past, though.

Originally Posted by NaklsonofNakkl

I hope that we can get this whole Iraq so we are out of the Middle East ASAP, the longer we stay the longer i feel we are just getting into more and more trouble and less and less gain for victory. So help our nation for it

Define "victory", as it pertains to Iraq, please. Whatever the reasons for entering into that conflict, and I'm not about to discuss their validity, the US military hav found themselves a no-win situation. Even if we accept as a basis for discussion that the position taken by the US administration was entirely justified, and that starting this war was an entirely justified thing to to, there's no way to win, and that is in no way the fault of the troops, the commanders, or anyone else.

It wasn't a war that could be won from the start.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by BlueEdge

Honestly it's all about perspective. Like what people said before, "Your freedom fighters are our terrorists." Maybe I haven't heard both sides of the arguement, but I can't see the reason why Palestine or Hezobolah can't recognize Isreal as a nation. Yes, it was made from land given by the British Government, but at that time, it was their land to give. Really, please, someone tell me why Israel shouldn't exist.

The problem with that is that someone will always question the legitimacy of that claim. I suppose you could say that it belonged to the British by right of conquest, but I'm not sure if I believe that really makes it OK to drive people away from their homes.

The Israelis have a claim to that land that dates back to biblical times, but it has been the subject of constant dispute that makes it hard to say who has the superior claim. Obviously the State of Israel has the superior claim, de jure, but is that the only aspect which you're willing to look at?

I don't support the Palestinian objectives, but I do feel that it is worth at least trying to consider the causes of this present conflict on a deeper level than just saying that the British had every right to do what they did.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Onyx

It's more than "big." Most of this country is a part of that lobby in some way...and it usually involves Holocaust Remembrance. But god, that's a whole different topic altogether.

Since you're the one who responded to that quote, I figure I might as well ask you. This question isn't loaded in any way, and I don't have anything up my sleeve, so to speak. I just want to know.

What exactly does the Zionist movement want, these days? I was under the impression that the primary objective of said movement had already been achieved... about 50 years ago.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by CryHavoc

The goals have yet to be fulfilled. At least as far as Zionists are concerned.

Like I said, I don't get it. I think I get a slightly clearer picture now, but until your post, I had no idea there was anything more to it than getting back into the "Promised Land", which I understood to be Israel. Hence, I thought it had been done. Sorry for the stupid meme that I just edited out. This isn't the place.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

So are you suggesting we should watch Fox News instead? Keep in mind that CNN is one of the rather liberal networks in the U.S. and I've found their reporting to be neutral, fair and honest.

In turn, you should bear in mind that to some, "liberal" is a dirty word in America. A significant percentage of the population are convinced that it means that you're an unpatriotic communist who hates America, was glad about 9/11 and supports terrorism. Even those who take a more moderate right-wing stance may still believe that the "liberal media" are unreliable at best, and dishonest at worst.

I've been told in the past, by an American who seemed to be otherwise quite intelligent that "liberalism is a mental illness". There's something quite utterly obscene about the degree of hatred that each side of the American political spectrum has for their counterpart. It's all the more disturbing when you consider that both American parties represent only a small subset of the total political spectrum. They have come together in recent years, on many issues. How modern American politics would react to a genuine extremist, I have no idea. They would either declare him the new messiah, or burn him at the stake. Very possibly both.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.