Ah, so if I respond to one point I must respond to them all? That's interesting. I admit I didn't understand that it was required to take a position on every facet of the thread in order to post. It often happens (seemingly) that someone can disagree with a particular statement or position and either not have an opinion on others, or not want to express an opinion on others. If your main concern is the likelihood of the Israeli action working, I have no problem with that. However I see no reason nor justification for your rather pointed and uncalled for barbs as others discuss relevant factors that are not of interest to you. It appears you feel that if it is not important to you then it is not relevant, nor anything but semantics. I submit that's not only inaccurate but a fairly egotistical assumption on your part.
Absent for 2 yrs from DnD and upon my return... a remarkable feeling of deja-vu... I'm not looking for a debate, just wanted to get this off my mind. As an American educated abroad, I just feel that on the whole: 1) Israel/Middle East is where American foreign policy is MOST WRONG. Albeit there is arguably nothing inherently wrong with supporting a zionist state artificially built upon displaced palestinian land, supporting and bankrolling (instead of curbing) that state's continued aggressive tendencies against its neighbors is simply evil. We're supporting evil, and the world knows it, even if Americans refuse to admit it. Lebanon being "set back 20 years" just because its govt is powerless to curb terrorist activities in that country? By that logic, Israel would have an excuse to nuke London... 2) Taiwan/China is where America foreign policy is MOST RIGHT. Albeit there is arguably nothing inherently wrong with China desiring to unify with Taiwan, threating war against an independent democratic society/nation, lobbying missiles to terrorize her people, and denying medical aid during epidemics is simply evil. In this case, America is firmly opposing that evil, when the entire world is lacking the courage to stand up to it. This is America at it's finest. And the world knows it too, even if Chinese people refuse to admit it. My political ideology has always been to find that happy medium where national self-interest and the moral high ground coincide. With respect to Israel, I think we can earn the respect of the world by ostensibly CURBING Israel and putting our foot down firmly against their aggressioin (much like China does with North Korea) and reducing our financial links with the regime in Israel. With this respect will come decreased hatred from Muslims out there hopefully. So we spend less $$$, and improve our international standing, and face less risk of terrorist attacks. Would Israel's security been realistically compromised? Not unless we stop selling them F-15 parts (sell!!! not give away!!!) and not unless we dismantle their 200+ nukes... With respect to Taiwan, I think we should continue to support Taiwan. Taiwan is a convenient tool we can manipulate against China (much as they manipulate human rights) in trade negotiations. Taiwan is a staunch ally and pliable trade partner. Taiwan is like the 2nd largest buyer of US arms exports ($$$$). And strategically, Taiwan is a critical link in our efforts to curb rising Chinese military/economic power. It is no surprise that China is North Korea's biggest trading partner and Iran's 2nd largest. The economic and strategic rationale are certainly there. And by protecting a true democracy against imperialist aggression, we also can claim the moral high ground against pretty much the entire world. Is there any risk to America? Not really. We can always just pull our support when things get out of hand... Meanwhile, we can milk all the economic benefits while flaunting our morality worldwide. Realistically, regardless of our own opinions as individuals on this board, I think whoever has greater political influence in washington will determine american foreign policy. and frankly, the arab lobbies have got a long long way to go before they will have any shot at altering the vast pro-Israel slant in American politics/media/public opinion. arab terrorists bombing WTC don't help either... Until this changes, Israel will have its way in Washington indefinitely. Similarly, over time, China will become so powerful that America will simply have to walk away from Taiwan, just as the pro-independence populace in Taiwan will have to learn to live with future unification as a fact of life. The Chinese lobby in washington is also becoming far more powerful relative to the Taiwanese machine and will only continue to gain in strength. Reality is a b**** sometimes, and both these cases, reality is dictating a foreign policy that leaves America on the losing end long-term.
I had high hope for Ehud Olmert when he was elected the new Israel PM. He was projected more left leaning and dovish than his predecessor Ariel Sharon. I seriously thought he would be a voice of reason and justice to dispel the militaristic, hegemonic Israel myth and bring much needed progress to the Middle East peace process. It looks like I was wrong, for the guy is more blood-thirsty and hawkish than Sharon. So much for my wishful thinking.
Not really. While the current Israeli bombing strikes are well within the parameters of acceptable and legitimate action during wartime, the nuking of London would not and would violate pretty much every convention in place on the topic. The standards changed fairly significantly after WWII to enable states at war to target civilian facilities but not general area bombing (as opposed to bombing specific targets in a civilian area). Nor is England the base for an organization armed by the thousands who have made incursions into Israel.
I think clouded in this is that China and Taiwan is where the money's at. That has a huge influence. And Taiwan itself can't unanimously decide whether to hate china or embrace them. If they were both poor economically starved country like some countries in the Middle East, yes they got nothing to lose if they recklessly launch missiles at each other. However since they're relatively rich, they trade with each other, even though they b**** and piss each other off, but the politicans get pressured by businessmen to pursue the status quo. Trash talk is cheap, we all know that money is what really talks. I really wish the US would justify it's support of Israel without any bull. If it's unconditional support because there's a strong Jewish/Israeli lobby then say it. All that's happening is that Israel is basically like America in the 50s cockily showing it's military might and not giving a crap who's gonna stop them. And Israel's fatalistic mentality of "this is our survival" is parallel to America's "we have to do this for freedom or the world will fall to evil commies." Like you mentioned, even China has had it with with some of North Korea's shenanigans, and they went to bat for them in the war. America's stance is so weak and half assed it couldn't come from any other adminstration. Usually I'll give Bush his dues like he'll said he'll veto the stell cell thingy and stuck with it and it surprised no one, even though I don't agree with it. But to say "Israel has a right to defend herself" in the face of these types of casualities? And a UN veto on a cease fire resolution? Just be a man and say it, Israel's familiy to us and you never go against the family. No one is buying America's fake neutrality. And to quickly add that I'm somewhat fair, I found it equally BS that Hillary Clinton repeated the same sentiment to a group of NY Jewish/Israeli supporters. There's a vid on CNN.com, and if you check it out, can anyone be more pathetic in their pandering?
You're absolutely right Hayes in what you have pointed out. But I think you're missing the point the others are trying to say, namely that while Hezbollah IS a legitimate target, Lebanon IS NOT. If Israel limited strikes to Hezbollah bases and training camps, that would be fine (though some may argue with you there too). Heck, they've been doing for years anyway and people really never were bothered with it. However, extending those attacks to fuel depots at civilian airports, blockading civilian ports, bombing Beirut apartments, these cannot be justified, no matter if they had been involved in building up Hezbollah. These are NOT Hezbollah infrastructure, these are Lebanese national infrastructure. Hezbollah recruits all over the world. Hezbollah money route thru banks all over the world. Hezbollah has offices and operations all over the world. However this fact does not give Israel a carte blanche to wage war against the entire world. If you cannot extend this logic to the world, then you cannot extend this logic to the nation of Lebanon. If you need another example, I guarantee you that a letter between Hezbollah operatives is somewhere in the US postal system. That does not give Israel the RIGHT to blow up all the US post offices. What the world objects to is not the attacks Israel is making against Hezbollah, but the acts of war which it is performing against the STATE of Lebanon. These are simply illegal. Your posts are highly articulate and well-thought out. Certainly you can see the varying shades of legitimacy in the targets which Israel has chosen in Lebanon?
Not at all. Each of these are legitimate targets with the possible exception of civilian apartments. That would really depend on whether or not those strikes were targeting Hezbollah (safe houses, bunkers, storage etc). If the strikes were just designed to kill civilians then I agree those are illegitimate and most likely illegal. The other strikes at transportation, communication, et al are legitimate even if they are not directly involved with Hezbollah activities (see the Serbian example referenced earlier in one of the articles). If the strikes against Hezbollah directly do not have effect it is considered legitimate to strike at the civilian infrastructure to get the government itself to act against Hezbollah (just as the NATO strikes against Serbian civilian infrastructure were designed to get the people to give up Serbian war criminals and Milosevic - which is exactly what ended up happening). The main thing you cannot do is indiscriminately bomb civilian residential areas with the intent of killing and terrorising the populace. So far I don't see definitive information that such is the case. I can appreciate that some feel Israel is not pursuing a successful strategy. I am not taking a position on that either way. But what they have done so far is not illegal or illegitimate as far as I can tell.
Hayes...you've taken a leap from considering what would be 'generally accepted war practices' to suggesting they are appropriate or legitimate in these circumstances. Lil i am floored from your comments on Israel. I truly am. Do you think Israel should exist at all? Hamas says no. Hezbolla says no. Sort of makes it tough to sit at the negotiating table. In the words of Chris Rock...i don't agree with Israel....but i understand... I think a grand prize and everyones eternal gratitude should be given to whomever can get Hamas to acknowledge a legitimate israeli state, and then sit all those buggers in room to hammer out borders, settlements and agreements. No one leave the room until it's all settled. What's going on now certainly isn't working. Not for anyone.
Hayes, I think many would dispute your claim that Israel has done nothing illegal. I read this article and dug it up. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-20-israel-strategy_x.htm?csp=34 DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Thousands of Israeli bombs have fallen on Lebanese homes, roads, bridges, ports, broadcasting towers and even a lighthouse. Nearly 300 people, mainly civilians, have been killed, Lebanon's prime minister said. Analysts say Israel's targeting of civilian and government infrastructure overshadows its strikes on the offices and rocket launchers of Hezbollah guerrillas, whose capture of two Israeli soldiers triggered the attacks. "This is a classic strategic bombing campaign," said Stephen Biddle, a former head of military studies at the U.S. Army War College now at the Council on Foreign Relations. "What the Israelis are trying to do is pressure others into solving their problem for them, hence the targeting of civilian infrastructure." But the growing list of civilian casualties — despite Israel's use of U.S.-designed precision-guided bombs — could turn Arabs and others against the Jewish state and its key ally, the U.S., and still not fatally wound Hezbollah, said military analysts. Israeli Cabinet ministers have said the bombing aims to punish Lebanon and make the government understand the entire country will suffer if Hezbollah — which operates freely in the south — isn't reined in. But Israeli military spokesman Capt. Jacob Dallal said Wednesday that Israel's bombing targets have direct military significance, since Hezbollah uses roads to transport its rockets and stores them in houses. "A lot of the rockets are stored in people's homes in urban areas, fired from within villages and brought in from the Damascus-Beirut highway," Dallal said. "We are in day eight and the present condition of Hezbollah is unlike it was on day one. There's no comparison, their infrastructure, their weaponry have all been degraded considerably." Classic strategic bombardment campaigns aim to flatten key economic resources and are usually designed to bend the targeted government to the will of its attacker or turn the populace against the government. The United States has been one of the chief proponents of strategic bombardment, launching campaigns in Vietnam, Iraq and Serbia. In World War II it targeted factories, railroads, bridges, ports and, in some cases, residential neighborhoods. James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan who now heads military analysis for the Rand Corp., said choice of targets by Israel was the key and may be misdirected. "The military rationale seems rather thin, since many of the targets have no conceivable relationship to Hezbollah," he said. Hezbollah has little visible presence and few links to Lebanon's military. It is skilled at cloaking its actions from Israeli sensors, while its primitive rockets — which have also killed innocents — are fired from easy-to-hide mobile launchers. Their lack of a guidance system leaves them without a traceable electronic signature, said Mustafa Alani, a military analyst with Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. "The Israelis face their classic problem: They cannot punish Hezbollah, which has no physical structure to destroy," Alani said. Instead, Israel is bombing Hezbollah's Shiite Muslim power base, leveling villages and office and apartment blocks in Shiite neighborhoods in the eastern Bekaa Valley, southern Lebanon and south Beirut. Dallal said the Israeli military bombs civilian buildings or homes if intelligence points to a Hezbollah office or munitions on the site. "If there is a rocket stored in an apartment building and we attack the apartment in the building in which it is stored," he said. "We have the right to attack because of the missile." The Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon said the Israeli campaign most closely resembles the U.S.-led NATO bombardment of Serbia in 1999, in which a victory was achieved without a land invasion. But the 78-day NATO bombardment of Serbia had clear international legitimacy and was more gradual. Air crews targeted Serbian military and communications sites first, and when that didn't persuade the Serb military to pull out of Kosovo, planes hit civilian and government targets. Targeting was far more discriminatory. Despite tens of thousands of sorties, NATO is thought to have killed 500 civilians in the 2-½ month campaign. By contrast, Israel has killed more than 250 Lebanese in eight days. And the Serbian actions that triggered NATO's airstrikes were far larger than anything launched from Lebanon, Dobbins said. "The Serbian government was responsible for the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo that drove a million people from their homes," Dobbins said, "while the Lebanese government is not responsible for the rocket attacks upon Israel." The government, however, has been unable to fulfill a U.N. directive that Hezbollah be disarmed and that government forces take control of southern Lebanon. Israel has also chosen to hit targets that the United States would probably reject, because of the danger of killing civilians, said Michele Flournoy, a former Pentagon strategist now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. U.S. war planners realize their campaigns lose international and domestic support when innocents are killed, Flournoy said. "Our own population is very discriminating in the use of force. People here have bought into the idea of proportionality and the just war," Flournoy said. For Israel, "it's a balancing act," Flournoy said. "They want to use enough force to get through to the terrorists, while at the same time staying within international norms, so as not to become a pariah." Israel's history, however, has produced a defense posture that views its enemies as fundamental and existential threats to the country's very survival. "The airports and bridges don't belong to Hezbollah," Alani said. "People may understand their (Israeli) reactions for the first few days. But world leaders will soon say 'we don't see any links between your attacks and the threat you face.'" Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. I don't want to bold random parts because people should form their own opinion. But my comment is that if the official reason for Israel to go to war is the two kidnapped soldiers, shouldn't there be rescue missions or dramatic targeting and recoveries? How does bombing a lighthouse figure into this? That's the main reason everyone (except the US) is condemning the degree of it. Maybe stragetic bombing is "legal" under international law, but isn't there, and if not, shouldn't there be a line drawn to the degree? If there's a missile in a building, but you know there's residents a block away in an apartment building, is it justified to bomb so hard that you knock out anything standing? Especially when you have access to sophisticated precision weaponry about to target what you want, and only what you want.
I don't think Israel is intentionally "targeting civilian residential areas with the intent of killing and terrorizing the populace." The end result, however, is killing, wounding, and certainly terrorizing the populace, just as the populace of Israel, to a lesser extent due to the far less sophisticated weapons of Hezbollah, is being subjected to some of the same. The people of Lebanon are going to suffer even more from being trapped in their homes, in villages and towns in areas of particular IDF bombardment, due to fear of road travel. People are going to be unable to buy essential medicines for illnesses, food and supplies for children and families. They are going through incredible hardships. There needs to be a ceasefire. The tacit approval of Israeli actions in Lebanon by the Bush Administration is really unacceptable behavior that should be condemned. Bush fiddles while Lebanon burns. Certainly, Hezbollah should be condemned as well, but this has gone on far too long for any reasonable explanation. Keep D&D Civil.
Israel has told everyone to get out... right now Americans and others are human shields. It'll be katy-bar-the-door time when everyone's gone. Ugly.
Legitimate in the sense that they fall within the accepted guidelines for military operations in wartime. Whether they are appropriate is another question all together. I don't believe I ever said they were appropriate (correct me if I'm wrong). None of this article disputes my claims. In fact I even refer to the same quote comparing the situation to the bombing in Serbia. Strangely enough it does the opposite of your intention - it answers why one might bomb civilian infrastructure. Again, bombing civilian infrastructure is not illegal. Yet it isn't the same. Hezbollah's rockets are indiscriminate. They are not targeted. They are launched and if they hit a church or a daycare or an old folks home, that's that. Israel is striking particular specific targets. One type of strike is accepted under the rules of war and one isn't. Further, one organizations attacks are acceptable (a state defending itself) and one isn't (a terrorist organization going into another country and launching munitions into another country). The explanation is fairly reasonable. Israel was told Hezbollah was going to be disarmed. They weren't. Hezbollah pulled this stunt before and Israel didn't react like this. Now they've done it again. What would you think if you were Israel? That the problem was going to go away? That you could rely on the UN to make sure Hezbollah was disarmed? The reasonable explanation is that Israel is trying to take care of Hezbollah themselves. That might not make the response the solution, but I think its understandable.
Yes certainly. I'm sure the at most a dozen missiles launched at Taiwan can somehow be described as "hundreds." Or perhaps you meant the shelling of Kinmen back in the 50's and 60's. In any case, what do you think of the visit of Lien Chan, or did you fail to pick that up in the news? I'm not sure where you get your source of information, but obviously, research isn't one of your strong points. The offensive weapon deal was completely separate from the Three Gorges Dam incident. The Pentagon and certain members of your congress has been loobying to sell offensive weapons for the last couple of decades. It isn't even worth my time to bring it up. What is interesting however, is that somehow "deterrent" is associated with the killing of over 150 million innocent civilians. Quite American I would think. Even when the CCP sabre-rattled, they were clearly pointing out the distinction that they aren't targetting civilians on Taiwan. The difference between this case compared to the past is there actually is a plan concocted, indirectly involving the US, to target civilians. So much for the war on terrorism. Nor do I care where the name Asian Al-Qaeda came from. I'm not trying to be creative here. And it matters because? So the Confederacy and Union were all buddy buddy and mutually decided to join each other? I do find that statement hilarious. Certainly not a problem. If it really does come to war and the mainland retakes Taiwan, we'll just wait some 300 years and use this "mutual consensus" line. Somehow I have a feeling that Americans would still be clinging to the "China invaded Taiwan, an independent democratic country" line regardless. I also fail to see how you have a point. Texas DOES trade with the rest of the United States. Hell, some states have land/trade disputes with other states too. The bigger question is, why the hell Chen Shuibian is so objected to the so called Three Links despite the fact that it would actually benefit Taiwan. But I do find it funny how one-sided you can be. Certainly, have Chen modify history and brainwash the people by telling them they are not Chinese. Then have them vote on whether they are Chinese. I'm sure there is a sick joke in there somewhere.
You see Deckard. Does your reply actually have anything to do do with the topic of Lebanon or the de-tracked thread of Taiwan? Hmmmm, I'm guessing no. You've just broken your own secret rule of not derailing a thread by taking your usual swing and miss at me. More expectedly though, is how your post is yet another classic example of pointless drivel. Certainly, if you actually have something useful to say, please do feel free to insert a rebuttal somewhere. I do find it funny how you seem to suggest that I'll be the one to be tossed out of here. I have neither responded to you initially nor provoked you. And my my, why is it that I find it so difficult to have you tossed out of here when I've had plenty of time to do so? Is it because yours truly isn't squealer like you and your little buddy Cohen? Perhaps the fact that you follow me around like a stray dog gives evidence that your ignore list isn't working hmmmm? Anyhoooo, do feel free to add me to that list. I've heard everything you have to say. Your antics were mildly amusing for a while but now they are plain annoying. As for being rude, and a bore, my dear Deckard, look in a mirror lately? The more interesting question though is, why open your mouth when you have nothing to say?
You see Deckard, if you hadn't initally thought of flame-baiting me. I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to you. Funny how that goes huh? And yes, please keep not posting anything remotely related to the topic on hand.
What do you mean, they've told everyone to get out? Publically, to the international community? Or did you mean quietly, but the word is out. Surely not to the Lebanese? Huge numbers of them appear to be making an attempt to get out of their own country, and escape the war, but it remains their country... the remains of it is still their country, I should say. Crazy. Keep D&D Civil.
The Syrians are saying that upwards of 150,000 Lebanese refugees are already in Syria seeking shelter from the bombings, and they're expecting a few tens if not hundreds of thousands more to cross the border into Syria.
You should start with the poll indicating how many of Americans sympathize with the Israelis in this conflict before you start worrying about how the Jewish lobby impacts policy.
