The Middle East spirals out of control!

Quote:

there isn't one rule for America, and one for the rest of the world.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

America works to topple elected government of third-world country

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

America expects world's resources to fall into her lap

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

Guantanamo Bay declared morally reprehensible, illegal

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

America supports apartheid government of Middle Eastern nation'

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog + Israel is merely defending herself! Racially!'

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

Bush needs to finally come up with a definite stance on the subject. He's urging Israel to stop bombing Lebanon back to the middle ages while at the same time justifying their actions in 'defending' their country (on foreign soil).

I'm also irritated that kidnapping a few people now serves as a legitimate reason to wage war on a sovereign country. Israel might think otherwise, but most Lebanese people don't even support Hezbollah and yet, they are the ones suffering for their actions while the Hezbollah is happily firing their Katjusha rockets towards Israel with a comprehensible reason. It's such a tragedy.

How ya doing, buddy?

Well, when a major part of the Lebanese government is PART of Hezbollah, who actively try to exteriminate Israel, then you can't say that there isn't a problem. They are terrorists, and thus, the Lebanese government should also be held accountable. They haven't done a thing about Hezbollah. Their president complained that nobody is making Israel stop. Yeah ok.

Also, this isn't the first time Israeli soldiers have been kidnapped. In the past, they would kidnap soldiers, and then exchange them for some prisoners. Quite frankly, this was a very bad policy Israel had. It gave the terrorists a sort of leverage, and let them think it's just FINE to go and kidnap soldiers anytime (even GOING INTO Israel to do it). It's NOT ok, and now they're feeling the pressure because Israel didn't cave into their demands this time.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Rock

Bush needs to finally come up with a definite stance on the subject. He's urging Israel to stop bombing Lebanon back to the middle ages while at the same time justifying their actions in 'defending' their country (on foreign soil).

Bush has taken a definitive stance. He blames Hezbollah, as well as Syria (??)

Source

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

America works to topple elected government of third-world country

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

America expects world's resources to fall into her lap

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

Guantanamo Bay declared morally reprehensible, illegal

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog'

America supports apartheid government of Middle Eastern nation'

'Everyone just hates the Big Dog + Israel is merely defending herself! Racially!'

Exactly.

FELIPE NO

Just my 2 cents on the matter, but in all honesty, I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised. Palestine has been constantly pissing Israel off, not a good idea. It's like a little kid on an airplane poking you repeatedly, and you don't do anything back because you know they are almost helpless. Plus you would get a huge backlash from everyone else on the plane....well, now it's finally tipped over, and I have to say, Palestine got what they were asking for.

Now don't get me wrong - I would certainly prefer for Israel to not have done all this, and them to sit down and talk things out like civilized people, but I can't say I blame Israel for taking the action it did.

How ya doing, buddy?

I have a question for comparison to this situation:

If, hypothetically, a state milita were to attack another soveriegn nation, should that be considered an act of war?
It seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, the militant branches of Hezbolla are similar to an independent militia.

All the people I have asked this question to so far have unanimously answered "no." :/

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by packrat

It seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, the militant branches of Hezbolla are similar to an independent militia.

No, they are not. Mainly because the Hezbollah nowadays isn't just a military organization anymore (it was actually founded to repell the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982), but a political one with strong (inofficial) ties to the Lebanese government in Beirut.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rock

No, they are not. Mainly because the Hezbollah nowadays isn't just a military organization anymore (it was actually founded to repell the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982), but a political one with strong (inofficial) ties to the Lebanese government in Beirut.

So they hold 23 seats in Lebanese Parliament unofficially?

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

Originally Posted by Rock

No, they are not. Mainly because the Hezbollah nowadays isn't just a military organization anymore (it was actually founded to repell the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982), but a political one with strong (inofficial) ties to the Lebanese government in Beirut.

Well, just for the sake of argument, say the hypothetical militia is one which flies the Republican banner, and in has had support from and associations in the past with Republican politicians.

Of course this is not a direct 1:1 comparison, but I'm just throwing out related questions that come to mind.

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

Originally Posted by Stealth

So they hold 23 seats in Lebanese Parliament unofficially?

You could argue that their influence goes well beyond these 23 seats. Unofficially. ;-)

Still, I doubt that the Lebanese government is to be directly blamed for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The majority of seats in the Lebanese Parliament is still held by moderate Christians opposing the Hezbollah, btw.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Rock

You could argue that their influence goes well beyond these 23 seats. Unofficially. ;-)

Still, I doubt that the Lebanese government is to be directly blamed for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. The majority of seats in the Lebanese Parliament is still held by moderate Christians opposing the Hezbollah, btw.

Not at all what you claimed in your previous post. And yes, the government isn't completely responsible, yet they are responsible for not doing anything to stop a terrorist organization from operating openly within their country. Now all they've done is piss of Israel, while the Lebanese President tries to ward off criticism by saying but why does no one bother Israel?!

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

I have a question for comparison to this situation:

If, hypothetically, a state milita were to attack another soveriegn nation, should that be considered an act of war?
It seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, the militant branches of Hezbolla are similar to an independent militia.

All the people I have asked this question to so far have unanimously answered "no." :/

So if the California National Guard were to start attacking Mexico the US government would not be at fault? Our state Militia can just come in and invade and the rest of the US would not be held accountable?

That is what you are saying.

One thing that everyone needs to keep in perspective that the Lebanese government is not saying - SORRY ABOUT HEZBOLLAH. WE WANT TO STOP THEM BUT WE CAN'T. CAN WE PLEASE GET ASSISTENCE IN CRACKING DOWN ON THEM?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by TonyDaTigger

So if the California National Guard were to start attacking Mexico the US government would not be at fault? Our state Militia can just come in and invade and the rest of the US would not be held accountable?

That is what you are saying.

Well, I'm not saying anything. I'm just asking mostly.
However, I do like to be the counterpoint to many conversations, just for the sake of well-roundedness.

Anyways, although the US government might be held responsible in a way for its citizen's actions, does it necessarily follow that what they did is an act of war on behalf of the entire US government?

EDIT:
By the way, I think the California National Guard is a branch of the US Military.
I am talking about a militia, like the Michigan Militia for example, which is an assemblage of military-minded citizens who are separate from the US government.

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

i am from isreal and is a great place we try to live in this horror
ok

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by sgt_flippy

i am from isreal and is a great place we try to live in this horror
ok

So what's your stance on the attacks on Lebanon? The civilians there sure have to live in horror just as well.
ok

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by packrat

EDIT:
By the way, I think the California National Guard is a branch of the US Military.
I am talking about a militia, like the Michigan Militia for example, which is an assemblage of military-minded citizens who are separate from the US government.

The California National Guard is a STATE Militia. Not under federal control.

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

Originally Posted by packrat

I have a question for comparison to this situation:

If, hypothetically, a state milita were to attack another soveriegn nation, should that be considered an act of war?
It seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, the militant branches of Hezbolla are similar to an independent militia.

All the people I have asked this question to so far have unanimously answered "no." :/

The United States has private Militias that operate in our country. I'm sure if one of those Militia's decided to up and attack Mexico or any other nation of that matter the United States Government would deal with that problem quite swiftly for that matter. The case with hezbulah is that the Lebonese government isn't doing anything to curb or control Hezbulah.. So someone else has to deal with them in this story it's Isreal.

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

This conflict could show wheter iran is serious about its threats to annihilate Israel or just full of shit. What better opprtunity could the Iranians want to show Muslim solidarity and help their Hezbollah puppets that to strike Israel now. If they don't act it will show them to be weak in the eyes of other Islamic nations, if they do act, it could widen the war to huge proportions. It has already been stated that the Israeli korvette that was hit wasn't hit by a drone, but by a more sophisticated Iranian supplied missile. Some sources say it was a Silkworm anit ship missile. The Isreali SAAR 5 korvette has a very good anit missile system and its hard to believe it was struck by a primitve slow flying drone aircraft. If Iran is supplying Hezbollah with Silkworm missiles this escalates things quite a bit.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

Morality really has nothing to do with it. For instance, let's use something silly, like the zombie apocalypse. If people die from a zombie bite, then they will return as a zombie. Is it wrong, then, to shoot them in the head before they turn? It eliminates the risk to the group, but the concept of killing another human being despite the knowlege that they will become a zombie might offend somebody's moral sensibilities, despite the fact that it's a necessary action.

The Lebanese can't be faulted for their impotence, but this is what happens when you let terrorists develop a stronger military than your own, and your immediate neighbor would sooner recognize their sovereignty than yours.

Is it tragic that innocent Lebanese are dying because Hezbollah crossed the line? Absolutely, but Hezbollah's decades of terror have also been a severe tragedy. If Israel is taking this opportunity to end the global threat that Hezbollah represents, then by all means we should be supporting their actions.

The buck stops, though, if Israel attacks Syria.

FELIPE NO

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.

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

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The Lebanese can't be faulted for their impotence, but this is what happens when you let terrorists develop a stronger military than your own, and your immediate neighbor would sooner recognize their sovereignty than yours.

That's perfectly correct, but let's not forget the fact that the Hezbollah is a home-made threat created by Israel. If it wasn't for the occupation of Lebanon in 1982, Hezbollah would probably never have gained the support and influence it has today. If anything, the deliberate invasion of Lebanon serves as the ultimate reason for Hezbollah's existence and will even help it in gaining momentum.

There's nowhere I can't reach.