For how long will justice be muted? Iraqi war against Kuwait.

Ha! That's the most factually incorrect statement in this thread. Please research the topic before bothering us with inaccuracies.

It's not that Arabs have a choice about whether or not to serve in the military; they're not allowed. Why is this important?

If you don't serve in the military, you're disqualfied from government jobs.

In Israel, public service constitutes a massive proportion of the total economy. In effect, even Arab-Israelis are disqualified from a substantial amount of economic activity.

To say nothing of discrimination, development, education, etc.

 

Haven,

I don't need to do any research

I WAS IN ISRAEL LAST DECEMBER.. I MET AN ARAB SOLDIER IN THE IDF(he spoke of how he was a minority but was loyal to Israel).. AND YES, THERE ARE ARABS IN THE KNESSET.

PLEASE GIVE ME A LINK OR PROOF TO SHOW ME I WAS HALLUCINATING!

 

There are always 2 sides to an argument, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, but here is the cold HARD truth.

The USA is the biggest, baddest kid on the block, and it is time we started acting like it.

We go OUT OF OUR way to treat smaller nations with an equal footing, and look what it has gotten us.

It is time to throw some of our weight around a bit, get rid of some of the governments that are harboring terrorists and thus causing this unstability in the world.

The USA can be your best friend, just ask KUWAIT, but it can also be your worst enemy, just ask Afghanastan.

I am not worried about how we are viewed in the ME, WHO CARES? We will have time to work all that out later, after we get some stability in that region.

One thing we can NOT allow to happen is to let a few small countries drag the whole world into war.

We sat back twice in the last century, we learn our lessons well.

The USA will prevail, and then we can have some peace.

And Israel is going NO WHERE, deal with it !!!!

DaDakota

 

amen

 

Franchise2001:

The Arabs you referred to are part of a small sect in the mountains, called the "Druz" Arab-Israelis. They do not represent the general population, and are allowed to serve because they're considered particularly loyal. From what I understand, most do not consider them Islamic, although most of the literature is unclear about this. Israel has done a horrible job of assimilationg her Arab population.

DaDakota:

1. The issue isn't of power, but of justice.

2. US hegemony is rapidly fading. In 45 years, China will have surpassed us in GDP. Military technology will probably not be far behind. In any event, the US is going to have to acquaint itself to a multi-polar world very, very soon.

If a Middle-East/China faction were to form, then we'd be in a great, great deal of trouble already.

Power tends to coalesce so as to balance the strongest actor. When that balance becomes unstable, disaster resulted. The great tragedy of Europe was the region's inability to incorporate Germany into the balance of power in such a fashion as was commensurate with her ability to project force. Germany's status was below it's actual capabilities. Two world wars were fault as a result.

The US is currently trying to monopolize "status power" while her own capabilities are actually starting to decline relative (key word there) to the developing world. If we don't find a way to accomodate our own relative decline, disaster will result. As these countries rise, they'll demand status in accordance with the new power dynamics.

If we don't account for this, war will result. Your understanding of the topic is frighteningly nationalistic and ignores fundamental principles of international relations.

 

redacted

 

haven:

You are so unbelievably wrong on this, it is hard to fathom. Since when has justice ever been the deciding factor in any war in history? Any war? This is all about power and our reluctance to use it.

If we use it then this might end. If we don't then the wolves will nip at our heels until we can no longer stand. We need to stand up and tell those regimes that harbor terrorists in no uncertain terms that they will either cooperate with us or we will replace them by any means necessary. This is what it appeared we were going to do until Colin Powell's "coalition" took precedence over national security.

What does justice even have to do with this war? This is about national survival.

It has been fading because we haven't taken a firm stand on anything against anyone since the Cold War. It will continue to fade as long as we build "coalitions" or "partners" instead of taking a leadership position in world affairs. It is fading because no one fears us anymore, and no one fears us anymore because for the past decade we've run to the UN every time the s*it hit the fan.

It does not have to fade, but it will if we continue to abdicate our responsibility of world leadership.

What decline exactly are you talking about? I have heard this argument made by many an ultra-liberal who wanted to eliminate national sovereignty in the US, but I have never really gotten any decent evidence for it from anyone. Specifically, what decline are you talking about?

Is this way of telling him that he should stop being patriotic and should support asking the UN if we can defend ourselves?

I don't think you're nationalistic enough. No offense...

 

Palestinians who were living within the boundries of the original Israel of 1948 (i.e. the one when there was still a Palistine and Jeruslem was a UN 'international' city) are allowed to be members of the Knesset (and, I believe, their descendents as well.) They may be of any religious persuasion. Current Arab members of the knesset are (by party):

United Arab List

• Abd el-Malek Dahamsha
• Taleb a-Sana'a
• Hashem Mahmeed
• Tewfik Khatib
• Muhammad Kena'an

Hadash

• Mohammed Baraka
• Issam Mahoul
• Tamar Gozansky

Arab Movement For Renewal

• Ahmed Tibi

National Democratic Alliance

• Azmi Bishara

Not many, but still a few.

 

Minor clarification...

"Justice" wins wars, "Power" wins battles. In this statement the politics, economics, and human rights problems of the Middle East could be the "War" and the Taliban could be "Battle". OR, the long term prevention of terrorism could be the "War" and the elimination of Al-Quaeda could be the "Battle".

You have your "War" completely wrong. The "War" isn't the nation of Afghanistan.

 

Treeman, DaDakota,
Do you think that you could be overly aggressive? That is a serious question and isn't meant to incite an argument. I want a real answer. If the aggression is disturbing to me... a Republican raised American with a soft spot for the University of Texas Marching Band belting out the Star Spangled Banner... don't you think it would be downright horrifying to the rest of the world? This is the stuff that cold wars are made of. Haven is correct, do you want to incite a world tension and arms race that is worse than the Soviet-US standoff ever was?

 

Doctor Robert:

I am not trying to sound overly aggressive here, I simply believe that it is unrealistic that every problem can be solved peacefully. If we do not threaten some nations (Iraq, Iran, and Syria come to mind) then they will simply ignore us and continue to train and fund terrorists. If we offer to buy them off, they will take our money, make some promises, and then laugh their asses off all the way to the bank.

(BTW, I think that everyone is likely to respond positively except for Iraq.)

You have a choice of the carrot or the stick. Using the carrot does not work with these people. It never has before, so why would it now?

I would like to hear what your suggestion is on how to end state sponsorship of terrorism.

You have the war all wrong, IMHO. The war is against terrorists, and the regimes who support them. Those are the people who are attacking us, and who we are in turn going to attack.

Incidentally, "Power" wins battles, and successful battles win wars. "Justice" is defined by the victors.

Deprogramming the populace in the ME ("winning the hearts & minds" - or at least not flat out losing them) is also part of that war. The vast majority of people there hate us, and it is not so much because of what we have actually done, but because without exception their leaders (both religious and political) have been telling them that we are evil for their entire lives.

Politically speaking, if we cowtow to the sensitivities of Arab/ME regimes by trying not to offend anyone, we are going to lose the war in the long run. We need to threaten those states who will not otherwise cooperate into changing the way they do business: 1) dismantle terrorism support systems, and 2) cease anti-Western propaganda systems. We can tell our "allies" in the region that they can either stop deflecting blame for all of the evils in the world to the US, or they can expect to lose our financial, military, and political support (and then lose power in a popular revolution).

Again, what would you propose?

 

Doc Rob,

I think the US gets unjustly blamed for all the tragedies in the world.

We help starving people in Somalia, and the warlords there drag our soldiers corpses through the streets.

We liberate Kuwait and people like Q8 say "Well thanks...but..."

We spend more money and resources helping out the rest of the world and get almost NO thanks.

Yes, my views are nationalistic, darned tooting.

Here is the biggest issue I see, the world wants us to be the global police force, but only when they can't handle it themselves.

Life is not fair, and the strong survive, I see this as a battle between cultures. It would be nice to say we can all sit back and have understanding of each others views, and have mature discourse on the matter, but there are still some wackos out there, and unfortunatly the man on the street in the ME supports them for the most part.

Personally, I would put together a coalition force that job is to eradicate terrorists wherever they are, it would be a multinational force and be under a security council type rule.

I think Tom Clancy had it right with Rainbow 6. Terrorism can not be allowed to exist, and if we have to stop it NOW before it gets any worse, and yes that does include the IRA and any Terrorist organization that targets innocent civilians.

My views my seem a little radical, but I am just sick and tired of the USA pussyfooting around the problem.

We continue to support Israel with BILLIONS in aid, yet they continue to persecute the palestinians. Of course these same palestinians are killing innocent Jewish people in their own country. What is the answer, you cut off aid to Israel and Palestine if they don't reach an agreement like YESTERDAY !!

I don't have all the answers, I just think it is time to be proactive and stop acting like every country is equal..they aren't.

DaDakota

 

Ah, you misinterpret my meaning. Justice does not usually drive world politics. I'm saying that it "should." Key difference. I think some limited progress was actually made in the 20th century. From the early 20th century bipartison peace movements to the creation of the Red Cross... things have changed somewhat. In the Middle Ages, rulers were determined by the might of the sword. Now they're elected and don't hang their rivals. That's progress. That's more just. We're not in a "just" world yet, but it's better.

See? I can be an optimist ... but I'm not naive.

Hmmm... the problem with power is that it's usually resented. Look at history... the biggest "dog" is nearly always banded together against.

Justice has to do with our extremely questionable support of a completely racist, near-fascist Israeli state that oppresses approximately 40% of its population.

Ummm... power and thus hegemony is determined by a nation's capacity to project that power. US relative GDP will continue to decline as other nation's industrialize. Certainly, we'll gain as well, but the law of diminishing returns kicks in after a while. We can build better factories, but China is building infrastructure. It's a matter of lesser growth. Other nations will advance faster.

As stated above, relative decline is absolutely inevitable. The US could gain sensation 5% growth per year and it would still experience relative decline. That's the problem of having a technologically saturated economy; there's less to gain, relatively.


As other nations gain in economic might, they'll gain the ability to project greater force/leverage abroad. Hence, US hegemony will be eliminated, even without the inevitable "balance of power" dynamic. This isn't an ultra-liberal position. This is one of Colin Powell's positions .

It's a way of saying he has an utter lack of comprehension concerning international politics, historical power dynamics, differing standards of economic progress in the developing world vs the developed world, and non-biased interpretation of events.

Nationalism... hmm... it was nice in the 19th century when the city was no longer a viable form of governing. Did a lot of good then. But in the next 150 years it should and probably will go the way of the pteradactyl.

99% of all wackos are created not b orn.

Yes! I agree! Elimate them now!

But then take a long look at why they were created. And take an even longer look at how they could be prevented from emerging again.

 

<b>haven</b>: What does Osama bin Laden mean when he talks about "justice?"

 

(oops)

 

Thank you Ottomaton for the list of Knesset members.

I am by no means an expert on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, but I have been to Israel and in my spare time I do like to read about it.

I was not talking about the druse either, I was talking about palestinians(arab-muslims) in the knesset. Have you ever met a druse before? didnt think so.. I HAD LUNCH WITH ONE(it was pretty good)

I just cant stand it when people get off on telling you that you are soooo wrong and idiotic WITHOUT EVEN BACKING THEMSELVES UP. Just because you have studied with an expert DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE ONE.

So in response to an earlier post: DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST BEFORE TRYING TO CALL SOMEONE INACCURATE.


ok.. im done now and i feel much better!

 

haven:

As long as you realize that we don't live in a just world yet... There's nothing wrong with being an optimist - the world needs more of those. Just be sure and take your pragmatism shots every once in a while, because we live in this world, not that one.

The victor is usually resented, no matter what. The sole superpower is always resented, because people covet other people's success. The only way around that is failure, and that is not an option in this case.

This is Palestinian proganda at its finest. Ignore the fact of whoi keeps breaking ceasefires. Ignore the fact that Arafat turned down the Barak deal. Ignore the fact that we support the Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians, etc as well (i.e., we're a national gun dealer, and Israel is just a customer). Ignore the fact that even if we withdrew 100% of our support for Israel tomorrow, they'd still be just as capable of defending themselves as they are today (and we woulkd have no influence over them - they would have no external estraints)...

Ignore the fact that the Arabs have been attacking them for 53 years and counting.

You want justice by allowing the Arabs to obliterate Israel, is that it?

Power is determined by a nation's capacity to project its power, and that is what makes the US a superpower. No other nation has the capacity to project both military and economic power that we do. We used to project political power as well, but that is increasingly no longer the case. That is the only area of decline that I see.

(Just to clear things up, though, I have nothing against building a coalition; it can only extend our capabilities. I have a problem with allowing another body to limit our actions in a battle for national survival, that's all. As long as the coalition doesn't get in our way, fine.)

Relative decline is totally irrelevant (and misleading) when the absolute results are considered. A third world country can have a growth raste of 12% for its GDP, but when that growth rate eventually stabilizes at around 3-4% (and it will, eventually) and it's still 20 years behind first world nations technologically, economically, militarily, etc. that relative growth didn't mean a whole lot.

As for China, I wouldn't pencil them in just yet as ther next superpower. Granted, they're the best candidate (behind the EU, why does everyone always forget them?), but they've got some problems to overcome. Most people don't realize that they are really a third world country with some second world elements. They are for the most part an agrarian society, though. Last time I checked (and it's been a couple of years) they had a 17% literacy rate - something they'll have to fix if they want to become a superpower. And they will eventually have to do something about their own east-west divide: the peasants (the vast majority of the population) in the south and west are increasingly resentful of the industrialized east (coastal), and they will have a civil war if that problem is not addressed...

When another nation can project a million man army overseas, this will matter. That is extremely difficult to do, and it is one of the main reasons we are classified as a superpower. China may eventually be able to do this (30-40 years, if they don't have a revolution and fragment before then), but that's a while off.

Lack of comprehension? I don't think that's the case; he (and I) recognize the reality that there are some situations where unilateral action may be necessary, and this may turn out to be one of those times.

As for the bias, of course. There isn't a single person on this planet who isn't biased about something or other, because that's what human beings do - they form opinions and biases. Even you are biased whether you realize it or not. Message boards would be particularly useless were this not the case...

 

After reading those two posts I went to the bottom and read more of the thread that I only skimmed the first time. I don't really have many specific arguments. 90% of the posts are just talking generalities - "we should hit back when attacked" type of stuff. I can only assume by the general tone of the posts that you would like to see this whole affair escalated. Possibly to include Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Israel/Palestine. I guess you wish we were bombing Iraq, maybe other countries as well. You wish that we were taking a more aggressive stance in the Israel/Palestine situation. You also would support nuclear retaliation in the event a biological attack were successfully executed against the US. You think that we should blatantly take control of the coalition and say "we are doing these things now, it would be a serious mistake to publicly criticize or hinder these actions" to handle the escalation.

If these are the things that you would support I completely disagree. I don't believe that the world can handle a renegade bully. I don't disagree with the military actions that have taken place so far. I'll support any military action in the region against terrorism that doesn't strain our relationships with European allies. I'm not so sure public opinion in the ME makes any difference right now, except Saudi Arabia (based on very little knowledge). If the ME turns itself around socially I think things would change in that category. I think that action against Iraq is grossly premature since we have absolutely no idea if they are responsible for the anthrax (I think that you are way too sure about this). I also think we can lock up the nukes and throw away the keys. The only thing they are good for is suicide. I don't care if the US is under massive biological assault, I can't imagine how nuclear weapons are going to "save" us from that. We wouldn't even know who to nuke. What if the attackers were based in Idaho? not Syria. A lot of good nuking potato farms would do us. We would end up killing more Clutchcity.net members than terrorists.

If these aren't the things that you would support, please tell me because I assuming an aweful lot.

 

Doctor Robert:

You are assuming an awful lot. Not to sound pushy, but read the entire post before making assumptions...

Escalated? I already addressed this, but... I would tell each of these terrorism sponsors they they can either voluntarily dismantle their terrorism support structures or we will do it ourselves through military action. There could be economic and political incentives for cooperation. As I said, I expect that everyone except for Iraq to cooperate. Saddam is just incorrigible.

Israel/Palestine: I would tell both Sharon and Arafat to reach an agreement now, or we will withdraw from the peace process altogether. Neither side wants that, and they would probably come to an agreement. I simply think that the Palestinian populace would not abide by it, as Arafat has lost control there.

If, for example, a smallpox attack killed 3 million Americans and we found out that the smallpox originated from Iraq then I would nuke Baghdad, yes. More to make an example and let everyone know that thew consequences for killing 3 million Americans are very severe. If Houston was nuked, I would consider a similar response. I would not nuke Baghdad unless there was conclusive evidence that the attack originated from Iraq, though. I would, however, use conventional attacks to neutralize all of their WMD facilities regardless of evidence.

Just what do you think Saddam wants all those biological and chemical weapons for, anyway? And the nukes he's working on?

To use Iraq as an example again... If we were to find out that Iraqi Intelligence was behind both the WTC/Pentagon and the anthrax (and there is evidence that points in this direction), then I would not let the coalition prevent me from removing Saddam and the Baath party (and freeing Iraq in the process). Our Arab "allies" publicly warn against such action, but privately they would love to see Saddam removed. And if we found out that Iraq and Al Qaeda were behind all this... You mean you wouldn't support going after Saddam?

None of our European allies would object. They are for the most part real allies. Our ME "allies", on the other hand... See above.

There is quite a bit of evidence that points to Iraq as the source of the anthrax. I am not just making this up. It's a little suspicious when the former weapons inspectors look at this anthrax and say "Hey! That's exactly the same sh*t we were destroying in Iraq 5 years ago!" And the Iraqis were involved in the first attack on the WTC in 1993 - Youssef was an Iraqi Intelligence agent. Saddam quite possibly just finished what he started 8 years ago.

I would very much love to lock them up and throw away the key, but they're not much of a deterrant if we do, are they? See the Cold War to understand their value as a deterrant... And I pray that we never have to use them.

 

treeman wrote:Deprogramming the populace in the ME ("winning the hearts & minds" - or at least not flat out losing them) is also part of that war. The vast majority of people there hate us, and it is not so much because of what we have actually done, but because without exception their leaders (both religious and political) have been telling them that we are evil for their entire lives

Your wrong here. They hate us primarily because of our foreign policy in the Middel east is based on only two things: 1) access to cheap oil from the region, which is really not that necessary given other sources and the ability to conserve and 2) over support for whatever policy Sharon or the Israelis have at the moment, which is not really in the best overall interest of the United States.

We would all like to believe in what we were raised on: the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, that the US is always the good guy and the only reason why anyone would hate us because the bad guys always hate the good guys.

Until you reject such simplistic notions you of course have no chance with "winning hearts and minds".

Given your faulty assumptions, the only logical choice as you state over and over and over again is basically to kill the bad guys, imprison them or at the least deprogram them. Any complications raised by your approach are due to Colin Powell and others' strange obsession with singing kumbayah at campfires.

Fortuantely, as you'd realize if you watched the main stream media and relied less on your "secret" sources the people in our government with actual experience in military and foreign affairs have largely rejected your armchair viewpoints.

Doctor Robert is right, your approach will eventually win the battle, neutralize bin Laden and some associates, but lose the war by creating more terrorists than you actually kill, imprison and deprogram.