• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

“Disproportionate Attacks”

Read the intro. We should have:

  • Total voters
    12
A

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kofi Annan, France, most of Europe, and more open anti-Semites like Cindy Sheehan all complained that Israel’s attack on Lebanon was disproportionate to Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel.

This “reasoning” is, at best, dimwitted, and at worst, anti-Semitic because it draws no moral distinction between a free, civilized people defending itself against terrorists who relentlessly target their civilians even when they back down and make huge concessions (not that the left’s appease, retreat, and surrender strategy doesn’t work or anything) and a fanatical group of bloodthirsty zealots bent on racking up a high body count while hiding behind their civilians.

There is such a gaping moral distinction between these two that one could only be an intellectually dishonest anti-Semite or a total idiot to think Israel should even further embolden the terrorists by not taking them out, and instead only kill the same number of Hezbollah that Hezbollah killed of Israelis.

This newest round of pro-terrorist excuse-making emanating from the liberal short bus begs the question:

Should we have only been allowed to kill 19 Al Queda members after 9/11 and be done with it?....Or do you think this might just leave the problem unresolved and declare open season on the democracies?
 
Last edited:
On December 1941, a day that will live in infamy, The Imperial forces of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, sank 2 battleships, damaged several others, destroyed hundreds of aircraft and killed ~1800 US servicemen.

Our "proportional response" was to utterly wipe out the Japanese military, rain conventional and nuclear fire down onto their cities, destory ther industrial base, cut off their imports of fuel and food, and force them thru unmitigated violence into a almost unconditional surrender.

Given that, no one with any intellectual honesty should have any problems with what Israel did.
 
Last edited:
But remember that the US's official stance on using nuclear weapons is open remorse and regret. It may have been necessary at the time (since we didn't have smart bombs and the like) but it was still just as much of a tragedy as pearl harbor was. Because we were the ones who did it doesn't make it any better. Now, as for Ireals response, completely appropriate. If you are dealing with a country that allows terrorist organizations to run a section of the gov't and control sections of the country and do nothing about it and do not ask for the UN's help of ridding that organization from the country, then your only option is open and devistating retaliation that stops not an inch short of open warfare. Hezbollah declared war on Isreal and they represent the Lebennon gov't since they control seats in the gov't. That being said, there is no reason why Isreal didn't have every right to fight back and kick some ***.
 
I can almost see their point. But only almost. The problem is that the international community is trying to draw a line between jus as bellum and jus in bello. It might be argued, from a jus in bello stance, that Israel's response is disproportionate. Many international organizations have already stated that Israel did not take enough care to minimize civilian casualties and disruption to their lives, at least in proportion to their importance of their stated goal. That's all well and good, but jus ad bellum and jus in bello were meant to be intertwined, asked together, and considered together. Considering the thread the an armed Hezbollah proved to Israel (and really, to Lebanon as well), destroying them would outweigh the hardships suffered by the Lebanese people
 
Kelzie said:
Many international organizations have already stated that Israel did not take enough care to minimize civilian casualties and disruption to their lives, at least in proportion to their importance of their stated goal.
Click to expand...
You know, this doesn't really mean much -- have you ever heard of these groups state than a belligerent -did- take "enough care to minimize civilian casualties and disruption to their lives, at least in proportion to their importance of their stated goal."?
 

Actually, Human Rights Watch did state that in the initial invasion of Iraq. The had a few situational critiques, but other than that found that we tried and were mostly successful to avoid civilian casualties. I will agree though, that it doesn't happen often enough to make any sort of difference, because most of these human rights groups aren't being practical. Least that's how I see it.
 
Let's face it, any and all aggressions from Israel are going to be seen as unfair by most of the world, and paticularly in the Arab world. Many still don't feel that the Jews have the right to that land, and that they are the sole cause of much of the violence in that region, and around the world. Never before has a land dispute taken this long to resolve, and one has to point to the hatred of this race, and how that has played out time and again around the world, and through out history. The only way we are ever going to have a true peace, is the day that many begin to realize that this hatred has been unfounded, and that their respective religions have been twisted to this end.

As for being "disproportionate", it was very much so, because most other countries would have flattened entire city blocks, the U.S included.
 
I am absolutely furious with the way Israel has handled this entire situation, but not for the typical reasons. The problem wasn't that they used too much force...it was that they used enough force to cause a lot of civilian casualties, and not enough force to wipe out Hizbollah.

If anything good can come out of Iraq, it should be the lesson that you don't try to half-*** a major war. If Israel was going to use disproportionate force (which I have no problem with), they should've made damn sure that they accomplish their goals.
 
Any sort of true liberal would support the liberal democracy against the barbaric forces whose world view is completely antithetical to liberality. Perhaps instead of falling back on all this knee-jerk bashing of "liberals", people might consider the issue in terms of principles, and which side represents which principles. I do thank aquapub for supporting liberal principles, though.

As far as proprtionality is concerned, my question is to ask what is the truly proportional response to genocidal racists whose very manifesto calls for the extermination of a people? Seems to me that the "proportional" response to such would then involve an equal desire to exterminate. Since Israel obviously did not engage in such action, their response was actually dispropotionate, but disproportionate because it fell so far short of the intent of its opposition rather than exceeding it.
 
It depends. If you are attacked by a nation there is a right to respond, but even there there is a line between efforts that legitimately reduce the nation's military power. In WWII, would the US have been justified in killing every single Japanese person?

The response should be proportional against those who perpetrated it. If a criminal commits a murder in LA, a justifiable response is not to bomb downtown LA. If a group of fighters snatch an Israeli soldier in response to Israel snatching Palestinians, I question whether a justifiable response includes invasion and killing scores of civilians. If in response to that Hezobollah attacked Israel and captured a couple soldiers, Israel had a right to respond against Hezbollah, but I'm not sure how killing hundreds and destroying half of Beruit is a legitimate response. If 19 radical criminals hijack a plane and ram it into buildings in NY, I don't see how invading a country that had nothing to do with it and causing the deaths of scores of thousands is proportional.

Or wise. If your military response causes damage to people who had little to do with the attacks that instigated the response, the effect may be to create greater and more widespread violence and war.

WWI started because one terrorist shot one government official. The response was out of proportion, Austria mobilized and sent its troops against Serbia which caused Russia to mobilize against Austria, and Germany against Russian and Britian and France against Germany. As a result of the unproportional responses, tens of millions died and economies were destroyed.
 

Yep - I agree. Can't make these people happy.
 

Except none of this, including your portion on what you believe to be the current situation in Israel, is what actually happened. There was a well armed militia living on their border who's stated goal was Israel's destruction. Hezbollah hiding behind a soveriegn state means little except that the Lebanon was tacitly condoning their existence (as evidence even further by the fact that Hezbollah was represented in their government). Given this dangerous situation, the fact that Hezbollah felt strong enough to mount an attack and kidnap two Israeli soldiers was not something Israel could afford to ignore.

When terrorists hide behind civilians, it is inevitable that there will be unintentional casualties. But instead of condemning those who use human shields, you berate Israel for doing what it had to.
 
Disproportionate Attacks are the only ways to win a battle
anything else is a suggestion by appeasers
this is where bush fell short in Iraq
 
DeeJayH said:
Disproportionate Attacks are the only ways to win a battle
anything else is a suggestion by appeasers
this is where bush fell short in Iraq
Click to expand...

Truer words have never been spoken.

Fallujah should have been flattened when those 4 contractors were strung up on a bridge, and nothing should have been left standing.

That's the only real beef I have with Bush's handling of the Iraq war... he hasn't prosecuted it with enough disproportionate strength.
 
DeeJayH said:
Disproportionate Attacks are the only ways to win a battle
anything else is a suggestion by appeasers
Click to expand...

I'm sure that was the thinking of the Austo-Hungarian empire when it sent troops against Serbia in 1914.

That was also the thinking for the hawks who were calling for America to make a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. I personally am thankful the "appeasers" won out in those situations.

This is where bush fell short in Iraq
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Last edited:
AcePylut said:
Truer words have never been spoken.

Fallujah should have been flattened when those 4 contractors were strung up on a bridge, and nothing should have been left standing.
Click to expand...

Because of the actions of a small crowd, we should have killed hundreds of thousands of people living in Fallujah?

That would have made our goals in Iraq more achievable?

That's the only real beef I have with Bush's handling of the Iraq war... he hasn't prosecuted it with enough disproportionate strength.
Click to expand...

By what, not slaughtering hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent Iraqis?

Or do you mean that the US did not (does not) have enough troops in Iraq to maintain security?
 

I'm not sure that Israel had to level Beruit but maybe it did.

My guess is that those in Palestine and southern Lebanon view Israel's military stregnth as a dangerous situation.
 
I think Isreal went easy on 'em myself. They shoulda just plowed all those Hezbollah soldiers into the mud and took their sympathizers and supporters with them. Then they should have followed through, taken out Syria from the air, met up with us in Iraq and proceeded into Iran for a major arse whuppin'.

BOOM!

"The only way peace will ever be won is to blow 'em all to Kingdom Come."
*********************************************Country Joe
 
In response to Iriemon:

As I said in my post, we should have flattened the town. Those in Fallujah, by accepting the terrorist swine into their midst and not doing a thing about them, makes them the enemy. Flattening Falujahwould make our goals far more achievable. No Iraqi is going to allow terrorist scum in their neighborhood, if they know that terrorist scum in the neighborhood leads to total devastation of said neighborhood.
 

By your definition, virtually all Iraq, in not the Sunni middle, is the enemy. Should we flatten Baghadad as well?

But you have a point, there is a level of sheer brutality that might be successful in maintaining security in Iraq, and I know just the guy for the job. Unfortunately he is on trial at the moment.
 
Iriemon said:
I'm not sure that Israel had to level Beruit but maybe it did.

My guess is that those in Palestine and southern Lebanon view Israel's military stregnth as a dangerous situation.
Click to expand...

And why would that be? Israel doesn't attack unless provoked. That'd be like Canada being worried about the US. Now, if Canada allowed a terrorist group to hide within its borders and fire missiles at the US, I can see why it'd be worried.
 
Kelzie said:
And why would that be? Israel doesn't attack unless provoked. That'd be like Canada being worried about the US. Now, if Canada allowed a terrorist group to hide within its borders and fire missiles at the US, I can see why it'd be worried.
Click to expand...


Its true we don't have any substantial border or land disputes with Canada. And whatever the disputes (we went to war against them a couple hundred years ago) we have managed to figure out how to get along with them.

Ask Mexico how it felt about US power about 100 years ago. Or Cuba or Venezuela today or some of the other Latin American countries we have intervened in over the decades. They might give you a different perception about the benevolence of American power and how they feel about it than the Canadians.
 
Iriemon said:
Its true we don't have any substantial border or land disputes with Canada.

Ask Mexico how it felt about US power about 100 years ago. Or Cuba or Venezuela today or some of the other Latin American countries we have intervened in over the decades.
Click to expand...

Cuba and Venezuala are just making noise. They know we're not going to attack them.

However, this doesn't address my point at all. Israel does not attack unless provoked. The only reason Palestine and Lebanon would have cause for alarm is if they harbored elements which provoke Israel. Seems like a pretty simple solution to me.
 

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip [6/25/06] -- Israeli commandos yesterday carried out the first arrest raid in the Gaza Strip since Israel's withdrawal from the coastal area last year, seizing two Hamas militants in a swift overnight operation.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060624-113207-3292r.htm

Shortly before the Israeli soldier was kidnapped in Gaza, "a team of Israeli commandos had entered the Gaza Strip to “detain” two Palestinians Israel claims are members of Hamas."

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060630_kidnapped_by_israel.php

A group of commandos invading a country and kidnapping two of its citizens comes pretty close to an "attack" to me.
 

:lol: Unless the two citizens it arrests are part of a terrorist group that bombs Israel. From your own source:

Palestinian militants in Gaza have been firing homemade rockets into southern Israel almost daily.
Click to expand...

Like I said, Israel does not attack unless provoked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…