View on the recent Gaza/Israel stikes

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Griff

Semantics. We killed their people and broke their country. We have some good news don't ruin it with self-deception.

*nods* We helped them tear down one brand of tyranny and then allowed another to rise in its place. In Saddam's Iraq you could die for many things. Political activism, trade unionism, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being Kurdish. Rarely did people die for being un-Islamic. Rarely were women dragged from the streets and beaten for an accidental breach of some extremist sect's own conception of Islamic dress code.

In large sections of Iraq women are living amidst a Taliban-style gender panic. Fury and fear of female licentiousness.

To butcher a Franz Fanon quote: wars of national survival increase the central authority of the father within society.

Defeat in war is the ultimate emasculation. The response is rarely pleasant for the female half of the population.

[TheMercenary]

Look at it this way, at least under Saddam you could play soccer in the olympics for his brother and have no worries.

And let's no forget about thos pesky Kurds.

[TheMercenary]

Hamas attempts to reconcile. I am not sure this is going to help. But it does sound like a similar tactic of getting the Israeli's hit them with a hammer again and gain sympathy from the international press.

Gaza Militants Launch Rockets Into Israel

FEBRUARY 1, 2009, 7:49 A.M. ET

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123348818069836725.html

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

good grief. Do you not watch commentators on news channels?

I consume news as a hobby. Being unemployed, I watch approximately 8 hours per day of daytime cable news alternating between CNN, Fox, and MSNBC; listen to Dennis Miller's 3-hour radio talk show almost every day; and read scores of stories on the net via news aggregators. My opinion is that al Qaeda recruited easily in Iraq because they became the umbrella organization for terrorism there, as our presence infuriated a radical minority in Iraq and attracted 40-50% foreign fighters from other countries. We then kicked their ass nine ways from Sunday, with the assistance of the Iraqi people and especially trbal leaders and clerics. And now they are unable to recruit. al Qaeda is a toothless monster outside and does not seem as able to recruit as they were ten years ago, at least judging from their ability to carry out attacks worldwide.

So when I ask for a cite, I'm not being argumentative; I just believe that you're talking out of your ass, but I'm giving you the opportunity to back up your words and prove me wrong. This is how I for one would like it to work in the Current Events/Politics side of the Cellar.

Well, we took over the prison where Saddam tortured people, and then we commenced to humiliate and torture the people as well. We have turned their country into a battleground for terrorists for the past 6 years. Thousands of people have been displaced because of us, and over 100,000 have died, many of them children.

I respect you for getting the numbers right. Here's a "60 Minutes" exchange in 1996:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

Bold mine. Sanctions preferable? You could make a good case. The world preferred them. Hussein didn't mind; he built palaces with the corrupt oil-for-food money, and when there were people dying, he just dug mass graves for them. Containment was easier and sure was cheaper.

We have bases in Saudi Arabia on sacred ground.

Unless all of Saudi Arabia is sacred, our bases were just on "ground". And BTW we left in 2003.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Griff

Semantics. We killed their people and broke their country. We have some good news don't ruin it with self-deception.

I think there is a HUGE difference. But, I'll let it go since we are celebrating

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

750 trucks per day into Gaza before Hamas was elected. All they have to do is say they want peace and they will become prosperous merely by location. Israel would love to be a partner in peace and prosperity.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is not the official stance of the Israeli government. It is the official stance of Hamas, the current government of the Palestinian People. You can't continue to put radical beliefs and statements by minority extremists on the government as a whole.

I said this many times before but no one listens. Politicians are liars. We acknowledge this in the United States but when an Iranian or Hamas leader lies to get public support, no one can accept it.


Though, I think this is an over simplistic view on the situation. There are many more forces than this.

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035414.html

Another source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665/

Hell I'll just google it for you:
http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search

Now lets look at this from a logical standpoint. Hamas is dependent on the Palestinian population's support. We can greatly assume that both Israelis and Palestinians want peace on their terms. So, if a peace can be reached that the Palestinian population accepts, Hamas will be forced to accept as well. So technically, even if Hamas is lying about the 1967 borders, which could be possible, it won't matter if the vast majority of Palestinians accept a truce because they will kick Hamas out.

This is an over-simplistic view though. The situation is not as simple as "Both sides agree to peace and then it will magically happen".

[TheMercenary]

You have forgotten where Hamas gets its support, Iran. Where do you think all that cash they have been handing out comes from.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Perhaps not.
Peace rules as polls close in Iraq

And that is awesome. It doesn't negate all the massive mistakes we made up until very recently. If we had done things correctly, we could have had the same results years ago, at much less cost, and with much less human sacrifice.

Only time will tell. Also, the United States did not start a war against the country of Iraq.

We did not start a war against the country of Iraq? Really? What would you call it then? We bombed the crap out of Iraq. We took over the country. We brought in contractors from OUR country to do all the work. We hired American workers to work for them. We've had soldiers going into people's homes and searching them. We imposed curfews on the people. We took over a prison where Saddam Hussien tortured people, imprisoned Iraqis and others there, and then proceeded to humiliate and torture them. We have been fighting over there for 6 years. In fact, we decided to fight the war on terrorism there, in Iraq, so we wouldn't have to fight it here, according to Bush anyway. Before we went there, there was no terrorism in Iraq. So how is that not a war against Iraq?

Let me ask you something. If some country, say China, came to the United States and did all of those things, do you think the people of this country would not think that was a war against our country and our people?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

If we had done things correctly, we could have had the same results years ago, at much less cost, and with much less human sacrifice.

Yeh, we could have left it up to the UN too. Oh wait we tried that.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Before we went there, there was no terrorism in Iraq. So how is that not a war against Iraq?

???

Let me ask you something. If some country, say China, came to the United States and did all of those things, do you think the people of this country would not think that was a war against our country and our people?

Yes, I probably would since we are a democracy, not really a valid analogy to me.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I consume news as a hobby. Being unemployed, I watch approximately 8 hours per day of daytime cable news alternating between CNN, Fox, and MSNBC; listen to Dennis Miller's 3-hour radio talk show almost every day; and read scores of stories on the net via news aggregators. My opinion is that al Qaeda recruited easily in Iraq because they became the umbrella organization for terrorism there, as our presence infuriated a radical minority in Iraq and attracted 40-50% foreign fighters from other countries. We then kicked their ass nine ways from Sunday, with the assistance of the Iraqi people and especially trbal leaders and clerics. And now they are unable to recruit. al Qaeda is a toothless monster outside and does not seem as able to recruit as they were ten years ago, at least judging from their ability to carry out attacks worldwide.

So when I ask for a cite, I'm not being argumentative; I just believe that you're talking out of your ass, but I'm giving you the opportunity to back up your words and prove me wrong. This is how I for one would like it to work in the Current Events/Politics side of the Cellar.

I'm not talking out of my ass. There has been a lot of debate whether our going into Iraq increased al qaeda's ability to recruit. I am of the opinion that it has. And according to National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2006, it has.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092301130.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat..._effect_1.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/iraq_war_in...st_attacks_600
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...642825,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...8/iraq.alqaida

I respect you for getting the numbers right. Here's a "60 Minutes" exchange in 1996:
Quote: Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

What does that have to do with the war we're fighting now?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

How many Iraqis have been displaced... 4 million
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...am-report.html

Bold mine. Sanctions preferable? You could make a good case. The world preferred them. Hussein didn't mind; he built palaces with the corrupt oil-for-food money, and when there were people dying, he just dug mass graves for them. Containment was easier and sure was cheaper.

So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?

Unless all of Saudi Arabia is sacred, our bases were just on "ground". And BTW we left in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...m_Saudi_Arabia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64th_Ai...itionary_Group

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Yeh, we could have left it up to the UN too. Oh wait we tried that.

Why is it OUR JOB to police the world? What if the world doesn't want us policing it?

Yes, I probably would since we are a democracy, not really a valid analogy to me.

So let me get this straight, you think that the United States has the right to go into any sovreign country that is not a democracy, and take over, so we can spread democracy? That is not very democratic.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I'm not talking out of my ass. There has been a lot of debate whether our going into Iraq increased al qaeda's ability to recruit. I am of the opinion that it has. And according to National Intelligence Estimate that came out in 2006, it has.

Thank you; I believe it now, well cited.

So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?

We should act in our interests, as does every nation on the planet.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why is it OUR JOB to police the world? What if the world doesn't want us policing it?

Because the entire planet knows how America acts -- and is all right with it. That's why. We're in the century-old habit of restoring order and leaving, and it's pretty clear to everyone who looks that this is basic to our political structure. Nobody in charge of a nation gets the creeps when our troops hit the beach nearby, or anywhere, for that matter. And frankly, no objections that matter to the world have been raised, either. The bad actors, yeah, they complain -- but nobody thinks the assholes should have it their way. The people who cheerlead for the assholes and bad actors within states are in America invariably the American Left, and this is considered the behavior of retards by everyone not of the American Left.

So let me get this straight, you think that the United States has the right to go into any sov[e]reign country that is not a democracy, and take over, so we can spread democracy? That is not very democratic.

Reeeally? So tell me: just how are despotic oligarchies (most of the nondemocracies are so ruled) maintained, and democracy doesn't occur? That's right, it's by the oligarchies' naked force. That, sugarpop, is what's not very democratic.

Remove the oligarchy's naked force and thus its ability to impede the development of democratic republican government, and you've got a good thing going, do you not? With the oligarchy eviscerated and neutralized, can they impede a democracy arising? No, they can't, and that's fine. It's amazing how many just plain Cellarites can't wrap their brains around this concept -- they are obsessed with trying to hit me over the head with straw-man arguments. Well, straw-man arguments are just that -- they're fakes. I annoy the hell out of these people when they find I don't do their fakes and aren't impressed by them. They can't grasp that I know better than that sophomoric stuff like Rich's -an addition to a quote box. Stunts like that are not reinforcements to your argument, Rich. How is it you didn't see that, Rich? Is it because you think Left? Looks that way to me!

You have to be a special kind of subadult to stay Left, I find. The Left wants you both immature and dependent. None for me, thanks.

So far, your thinking looks heavily clouded. The Left does that to otherwise good people, and the way into clear light and clear thinking is to research what the American conservative periodicals are saying. Personally, I resent the American Left, and think them foolish. It also amuses me that they prove their foolishness so regularly and abundantly.

[Aliantha]

I think you only got to 9 on the condescending meter there UG. Have another go and see if you can do better. lol

Seriously though, sugarpop has a good point, and unlike yourself, I happen to agree that it's not the US's job to 'police' the world.

It's rather sad that in some conflicts the US has chosen to inject themselves, yet in others they choose not to. I wonder what they criteria is for the US to stand up for democracy and shout/shoot down genocide and so called oligarchies? Would you care to tell me why the US didn't intervene in Rwanda and continues not to depose Mugabe? Surely those genocides are equal to anything Hussein ever committed?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

So we should just take over every country that has dictators? Or where there are human rights violations? Or genocide? Are you saying we should be the world's police? Because let's be clear about what you are saying we should do here. What are you saying we should be, or do? Should we invade Darfur next? What about China?

And are not these all unconscionable offenses? Are these not the great sources of mankind's misery? Do they not stink in the nostrils of God and man? I say they are and they do. It's because I'm a human being. It's because I appreciate governance that is moral, rather than Orwellian.

You?