How to solve israels problem (1 Viewer)

[Calm2Chaos]

Um, read the previous posts, we established a difference between actively supporting Hezbollah and being apathetic. We're are currently discussing people who aren't actually storing the ammo or housing the terrorists. Your post makes no sense in relation to the quote of my post.

But if they are all in the same area there is no real way to distinguish between the two. So you fire at what you know and hope for the best. But when your enemy is basing it's ops from civilian sites, your going to have civilian casulties

 

[Iriemon]

The first point made in this is US economic aid to Israel.

I originally said:

I will answer more fully. I think the US should as part of its overall strategy on the "war" on terror consider what factors are causing such widespread anti-American radicalism (like Al-Queda) in the ME, and consider reasonable things it can do to reduce that. If that means "getting along with Al-Queda" to you, then yes.

When asked what those factors were, I did a little research and posted the articles on the web. The letter from Iran's president also outlines their grievances.

I didn't claim that every grievance was legitimate or that there were not arguments that could be made for policies either way. My point was if the US wants to win the war on terror, ultimately it must "consider what factors are causing such widespread anti-American radicalism (like Al-Queda) in the ME, and consider reasonable things it can do to reduce that." Or we can kill all muslims

If you have any other suggestions on how the rise of anti-American hostility and terrorism can be eliminated or reduced, I'm all ears.

It is simply helping to support an ally in an area where they are surrounded by groups that would like nothing better than to destroy them.

Fine. It is also the source of a major grievance with Muslims, because most of them don't like what has happened in Palestine.

If the US gave $3 billion a year to the Palestinians instead of the Israelis, my guess is anti-American hostility in the ME would be substantially reduced.

Then the laughable proposition that Israel "represses" Arabs. Israel is outnumbered and has a small strip of land in the midst of Arab countries. How is Israel "repressing" Arabs?

They sure feel that way.

Then the point that the economic sanctions against Iraq hurt civilians, not Hussein. Tell me, how is it OUR fault that the Iraqi military under Hussein wouldn't allow aid supplies to reach the civilians. It is true that the sanctions didn't hurt Hussein, but that is because he was only concerned about one thing, his own assets. As long as he could live in his mansions and torture, rape and kill whoever he wanted, he didn't care about the populace of his own country.

Whatever Hussein did, you are agreeing that the sanctions hurt the Iraqi populace, not Hussein. That's not a very good argument in support of the sanctions. And it is a grievance of the Muslims.

Little more than a rant. The closest thing to any substance is claiming that it is about injustice: "For half a century, Palestinians have been robbed of life, property and dignity.". While conveniently glossing over the fact that there has never been an historical Palestinian nation. Also glossing over the fact that the Palestinians were offered land by Israel in the past and they turned it down.

They obviously feel displaced.

Basically an article saying that the US is losing the PR war...

Seems self evident to me. Anti-American hostility in the ME seems much stronger to me that it was several years ago.

Israel-Palestinian Issue:

Again, there has never been a "Palestinian" state. Palestine was the name given to Judea by the Romans. It is historically and currently Israel. It talks about the "savage" attacks by Israel, while conveniently forgetting that most of that is retaliation. If you don't like how Israel retaliates, then don't attack them.

So? Are you saying there are no displaced Palestinians?

The War on Afghanistan:

The author is trying to use this as a reason for hatred of the US in the region BEFORE the conflict occured in Afghanistan. Nice attempt at revisionism.

Sure there was anger before, for some of the reasons you discussed. It is much worse now.

The Gulf War:

The only thing about the first Gulf War was the sanctions that occured after the conflict.

For the Second Gulf War, the complaints are carpet-bombing, which we didn't do, and that their own leaders supported the war initially.

IMO Muslims have a legitimate grievance about US policy in Iraq, a pretextual invasion based on "mistakes" and what was supposedly a limited action now being an indefinite occupation that is not accomplishing the basic objective of providing security to the nation, where violence is increasing steadily.

Military Presence in Saudi Arabia:

The US pulled out most our military presence in 2003. Coincidently, the year of two of the biggest terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia.

That was one grievance addressed.

Interference in interior affairs of Islamic countries:

"Bin Laden has asked the United States to “Get out of Saudi Arabia, and leave us alone”. This is the political change he wishes to bring about through the use of terrorism."

It might be the change that HE wants, but I don't think that it is the change that Saudi Arabia wants. If they did, they could tell us to remove our military and diplomatic assets.

I disagree with your implicit suggestion that it is wise policy to militarily support the Saudi regime, one of the more brutal dictatorships in the world.

OBL is not in charge of Saudi Arabia, or any other place.

Agree.

If you want my personal opinion on what the real problem is with the Middle East, it's frustration.

Not frustration about anything that is happening now, or even in the recent past. The real frustration comes from a memory, on the cultural level, that about 1000 years ago, they were the center of scientific and philosophical developement and now the entire region seems to be second-rate at best. They have lost so much and don't understand how or why, or even really when, it happened.

I don't disagree. They have problems they need to solve. Left to their own devices, they may accomplish that -- forces of moderation were making progress in some areas, including Iran. However, it does the US no good, IMO, to position itself were it can be made an easy scapegoat for those frustrations, such that instead of being directed against their leaders they are directed against the US.

 

[Voidwar]

If the US gave $3 billion a year to the Palestinians instead of the Israelis, my guess is anti-American hostility in the ME would be substantially reduced.

There is no good reason to give in to this passive-agressive blackmail.
We will trade with whomever we like, and its none of their damn business.

IMO Muslims have a legitimate grievance about US policy in Iraq,

Why would all Muslims care about Iraq ?

Further, the assassination attempt was legitimate reason enough on its own to "regime change" his ***.

I disagree with your implicit suggestion that it is wise policy to militarily support the Saudi regime, one of the more brutal dictatorships in the world.

Do you then advocate invasion and regime change ?

Can you understand the advantage it gives the U.S. to have this regime addicted to our foriegn aid ? That an ongoing foreign aid addiction gives us a significant amout of sway over them without invading ?

 

[Iriemon]

There is no good reason to give in to this passive-agressive blackmail.
We will trade with whomever we like, and its none of their damn business.

Of course we can. As I said earlier, you can play loud music in your apartment even though you know it bothers your neighbor. It isn't going to make your neighbor very fond of you. But if you could care less about your neighbor, you can play loud music as much as you like, and its none of his damn business.

My only point is if you want to get along with your neighbor, it makes sense to consider why he's angry with you and see if there are things you can reasonably do about it.

Why would all Muslims care about Iraq ?

From what I gather, most don't, and most including Iran are happy to see Saddam out. But what they seem to care about is that the US invaded based on pretext and is indefinitely occupying the country.

Further, the assassination attempt was legitimate reason enough on its own to "regime change" his ***.

Arguably -- and the same would have justified "regime change" of several US administrations as well.

Do you then advocate invasion and regime change ?

Nope.

Can you understand the advantage it gives the U.S. to have this regime addicted to our foriegn aid ? That an ongoing foreign aid addiction gives us a significant amout of sway over them without invading ?

Sure. Having cheap oil is great. But if we are perceived as supporting a brutal dictatorship, the ramifications is that it incites more anti-American sentiment. Is cheaper oil worth the greater risk of terrorist attacks? You call.

 

[Voidwar]

Of course we can. As I said earlier, you can play loud music in your apartment

I absolutely reject this parallel.

If the palestinians improve their own communities and leave Israel alone, they can ignore the foriegn aid we give israel, whether it be huge or nonexistant.

The music analogy is not a good parallel and I completely reject it.

 

[Iriemon]

I absolutely reject this parallel.

If the palestinians improve their own communities and leave Israel alone, they can ignore the foriegn aid we give israel, whether it be huge or nonexistant.

The music analogy is not a good parallel and I completely reject it.

Reject away. And turn up the volume. Who cares about the neighbor and its none of their damn business.

 

[Voidwar]

Having cheap oil is great. But if we are perceived as supporting a brutal dictatorship, the ramifications is that it incites more anti-American sentiment. Is cheaper oil worth the greater risk of terrorist attacks? You call.

Its not about cheap oil. This is a naive and simplistic view of the situation.

Its about maintainance of economic access and property rights, diplomatic access, resources to influence diplomatic assistance in the greater international context, the ability to influence the government's deployment, use, and restraint w.r.t to its military, tourism access, scientific and academic access, endless other things that aren't about cheap oil. More than one country in OPEC = any one nation's foreign aid package cannot dictate the global crude market.

Further, your ramifications are speculatory.
I assert the anti-american sentiment was already there.

 

[Voidwar]

Reject away. And turn up the volume. Who cares about the neighbor and its none of their damn business.

What neighbor ?

Are you trying to resurrect your broken analogy ?

The palestinians could just leave Israel alone, and then they would have no way of telling whether we were giving Israel foreign aid or not. For this reason, your music analogy is not accurate.

 

[MrFungus420]

And therefore, because "some" civilians did this, all civilians deserve to die.

False comparison.

Nobody has said that all of the civilians deserve to die. A comment like that has been made about those who support Hizballah, but not a blanket statement about civilians.

It seems to me that part of the point that was trying to be made was that those who support Hizballah are no longer truly "civilian" in this sort of conflict, they are participants.

 

[Iriemon]

False comparison.

Nobody has said that all of the civilians deserve to die. A comment like that has been made about those who support Hizballah, but not a blanket statement about civilians.

Yes, that was exactly my point to the argument that because supposedly "some" civilians helped Hezebollah it was OK that they died.

It seems to me that part of the point that was trying to be made was that those who support Hizballah are no longer truly "civilian" in this sort of conflict, they are participants.

The fallacy of the argument is that all civilians who died helped Hezbollah.

 

[MrFungus420]

I didn't claim that every grievance was legitimate or that there were not arguments that could be made for policies either way. My point was if the US wants to win the war on terror, ultimately it must "consider what factors are causing such widespread anti-American radicalism (like Al-Queda) in the ME, and consider reasonable things it can do to reduce that." Or we can kill all muslims

My point is that if it isn't legitimate, then the "grievance" is false.

To partially use your comparison with apartment living, if I can hear people walking around in the apartment above me, that is not something to complain about. It would not be considered a legitmate grievance.

Fine. It is also the source of a major grievance with Muslims, because most of them don't like what has happened in Palestine.

You mean like the Palestinians refusing the land offer that was made by Israel so that they could have their own country?

If the US gave $3 billion a year to the Palestinians instead of the Israelis, my guess is anti-American hostility in the ME would be substantially reduced.

And if we gave it to Hizballah, al-Queda or other Islamic terrorist group, it would also substantially reduce anti-American hostility.

Even better. If we really want to reduce, or even eliminate, anti-American hostility in the Muslim world, we could just declare war on Israel, destroy the entire nation and give the land to the Palestinians. On second thought, that wouldn't work. We'd then be the bad guys because all that we gave them was bombed out rubble. Ok, new plan: declare war on Israel, destroy the nation, rebuild everything and then give it to the Palestinians.

Whatever Hussein did, you are agreeing that the sanctions hurt the Iraqi populace, not Hussein. That's not a very good argument in support of the sanctions. And it is a grievance of the Muslims.

The main reason that the sanctions primarily hurt the Iraqi populace was that the aid that was sent was being intercepted by the Iraqi military and not given to the civilians.

They obviously feel displaced.

So? The Palestinians NEVER had a country. The Palestinians REJECTED an offer by Israel of land so that they COULD have their own country.

If they feel displaced, it is their own fault.

So? Are you saying there are no displaced Palestinians?

Yes. How can someone be displaced from their homeland when they have NEVER had a homeland?

I disagree with your implicit suggestion that it is wise policy to militarily support the Saudi regime, one of the more brutal dictatorships in the world.

I made no judgements about the Saudi regime. What I was trying to say was that just because Osama bin Laden want the US out of Saudi Arabia, doesn't really mean a d*mn thing. He does not represent Saudi Arabia, he is not a representative for the people of Saudi Arabia.

 

[Iriemon]

My point is that if it isn't legitimate, then the "grievance" is false.

Depends on your goal. If you want to get along with your neighbors, you have to consider their grievances even if you don't think they are legitimate.

To partially use your comparison with apartment living, if I can hear people walking around in the apartment above me, that is not something to complain about. It would not be considered a legitmate grievance.

Someone else might.

You mean like the Palestinians refusing the land offer that was made by Israel so that they could have their own country?

Don't know.

And if we gave it to Hizballah, al-Queda or other Islamic terrorist group, it would also substantially reduce anti-American hostility.

I don't know. Probably not al-Queda, maybe Hezbollah.

Even better. If we really want to reduce, or even eliminate, anti-American hostility in the Muslim world, we could just declare war on Israel, destroy the entire nation and give the land to the Palestinians. On second thought, that wouldn't work. We'd then be the bad guys because all that we gave them was bombed out rubble. Ok, new plan: declare war on Israel, destroy the nation, rebuild everything and then give it to the Palestinians.

That would probably substantially reduce anti-American feelings.

The main reason that the sanctions primarily hurt the Iraqi populace was that the aid that was sent was being intercepted by the Iraqi military and not given to the civilians.

So?

So? The Palestinians NEVER had a country. The Palestinians REJECTED an offer by Israel of land so that they COULD have their own country.

If they feel displaced, it is their own fault.

They apparently disagree with you. My guess is they would say if the Jews had not decided to settle in Palestine they wouldn't feel displaced.

Yes. How can someone be displaced from their homeland when they have NEVER had a homeland?

Who was living there before the Jews starting moving there?

I made no judgements about the Saudi regime. What I was trying to say was that just because Osama bin Laden want the US out of Saudi Arabia, doesn't really mean a d*mn thing. He does not represent Saudi Arabia, he is not a representative for the people of Saudi Arabia.

I certainly did not suggest our foreign policy should be based on what bin Laden wants, but that it should consider what Muslims are upset about. If most were upset about US troops in Saudi Arabia, then that is a factor that should be considered.

 

[mpg]

You're right. It does depend on your goal. After Pearl harbor, The US's goal wasn't to get along with Japan. Our goal was to defeat Japan. When someone attacks you, says that their main purpose is to destroy you, and refuses to negotiate, your goal shouldn't be to get along with them. Your goal should be to stay alive.

 

[Iriemon]

You're right. It does depend on your goal. After Pearl harbor, The US's goal wasn't to get along with Japan. Our goal was to defeat Japan. When someone attacks you, says that their main purpose is to destroy you, and refuses to negotiate, your goal shouldn't be to get along with them. Your goal should be to stay alive.

Fair enough, I agree there are times a nation has to go to war. And there are times when it doesn't.