posted
OSC, I just read your essay and thought it was quite good. But I have a question that you didn't address it in. You make it sound like we will likely invade Syria to end their support for terrorism, but do you think there would be enough popular support for such an invasion? After Iraq, I don't see how there could be. In addition, what would the timetable be on such an invasion? Will it happen in a year? Two? The President doesn't seem too worried about popular support, but it seems like a tough sell politically.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syria? As if keeping an army in Iraq and afghanistan wasn't enough now does Bush want to invade/occupise ANOTHER Islamic country and encouraging even MORE terrorism? C'mon now the extremists are losing support since so much time has passed but ANOTHER arabic nation? Nonononnonononononononono.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nononono, I just read the essay myself, invading Syria and Iran even to "rid the world of terrorism" will make a very bad precedent that any nation could one day use to invade a neighbour whether the threat is real or imagined. Think about it, the People's Republic of China could easily use an excuse that Taiwan is harbouring terrorists and political activists to undermind their national security and invade and would using that excuse possibly divide public opinion, essentially paralyzing key members of the opposition since most administrations will not wish to risk losing an election. America by then might not even be able to interfere if their Debt keeps getting bigger, and invading those nations would completely violate Realpolitik which has been the international rules of diplomacy for god knows how long.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Taiwan is not harboring terrorists and political activists, and every nation with a serious intelligence service knows it. Any nation that WANTS a pretext for war can lie. But China wouldn't have to - they already have a complete legal justification for war with Taiwan. Taiwan is a Chinese province that is in rebellion and does not obey the central government. They only reason they haven't already invaded is that the U.S. prevents any such action with a credible capability of destroying the invasion force at sea. So let's leave Taiwan out of this, please. As for a "very bad precedent," since when has China needed a precedent to seize territory they thought was their own? Ask a Tibetan, if you doubt me.
It is possible that Syria will back down even further - it depends on the credibility of the threat to their continuation in power. Right now, Iran and Syria think that by keeping the insurgency in Iraq alive, they are keeping the U.S. too busy to interfere with their terrorist activities. That is why Iran is tolerating the wholesale murder of Shi'ites in Iraq - and, indeed, sponsoring it, however indirectly.
That situation could change at any time - and if Iran withdrew its support for the insurgency, Syria would be hard-pressed to find the courage to continue it alone.
If the U.S. has military successes against the insurgency (which is most likely if the Iraqi people in the Sunni Triangle start turning against the insurgents and cooperating with the Iraqi government), that is another thing that might cause Syria to back down from its sponsorship of the Iraqi insurgency.
Remember that Syria's goal (not Iran's) is merely to be a big deal in the region. A major player. But not at the expense of losing their power entirely. So it is quite possible that as things change in the region, Syria will stop its sponsorship of the Iraqi insurgency in order to continue to be a player in Palestine.
So ... nothing is inevitable. And the U.S. policy is to make every effort to solve the Syria problem through negotiation. Ditto with the Iran problem.
But the problems MUST be solved. Period. So if it doesn't happen via negotiation (which only works if backed by either mutual interest - which they don't think we have - or a credible threat), then it will have to happen via military intervention.
Military intervention in Syria is not, theoretically, too difficult, for these reasons: 1. It would immediately cut off the primary source of supply for the Iraq insurgency; 2. There is no adjacent country from which a SYRIAN insurgency could continue to be supplied. 3. There is no huge wellspring of support for the current Syrian government. Syria is ruled by a clique composed of members of a tiny minority group and most Syrians would be relieved to be rid of them - especially with the promise of Iraq-style elections and the end of their current police state. Remember that they have suffered from Saddam-style "exemplary" terrorism-by-government - a whole village famously wiped out. 4. Syria's terrain is compatible with the capacities of our armed forces.
The most desirable thing is for Syria and Iran to cease harboring and supplying and training terrorists without any further action on our part.
Since that is, under present circumstances, highly unlikely, then it is not irrational to anticipate the need to take action that will convince Iran - the more dangerous and difficult target - that we are relentless.
To figure otherwise is like thinking you could defeat Hitler by invading North Africa and then hoping he'd stop being so bad.
Remember, I didn't pick Iraq as the target after Afghanistan. Syria was always the greater danger to its neighbors; and Syria is far more closely tied to Iran, the greatest danger of all to the world at large. (North Korea is a danger for other, nonideological reasons.)
What I find amusing is the argument of "dangerous precedent," since the REALLY dangerous precedent is to allow a state sponsor of terrorism to have a free pass or believe they have a free pass. Syria's crimes against humanity include most of the terrorist murders in Israel, and many if not most of the insurgency killings in Iraq. THAT is the dangerous precedent, if they get away with it and are never required even to STOP doing it.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, geuss your right but the international political implications could still be bad, an invasion of Syria would not only have to be quick but a democratically elected government would have to solidify power quickly inorder to ensure that the effects of military intervention in yet ANOTHER country would smooth over.
What would be ideal is to simly sponsor a popular rebellion in Syria and then send in the troops it'ld look good on TV, and it wouldn't be breaking too many rules since plenty of other nations have done it such as the USSR with the Baltic States, or Germany with the Sudentenland.
Its sad that polititians are constantly faced between choices similar to "between a rock and a hard place" either we respect a nation-state's sovereign rights yet they continue to harbour terrorism or we invade them and in the process alienate other nations, break international treatise and strain an already strained economy.
Between a rock and a hard place.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you make a good case for stopping Syrian terrorism by any means neccesary being in the interests of Israel and Iraq. But is an American invasion really in our best interests, assuming lesser methods fail?
We've pretty much had our free passes by invading Afghanistan (in the US' best interest, IMO) and Iraq (not in the US' best interests).
If we keep throwing our weight around by invading more countries, our opposition will only grow.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't It be difficult, given the size of our military, to invade Syria, while still keeping concentrated forces in Iraq and Afganastan, AND maintain homeland security? It would probably even be more difficult given that as we get ourselves deeper into the Middle East, less allies would support us with troops or supplies, given they wouldn't know how far the US will go to put a stop to the terrorists. Or rather they do know how far we would go, and they know that it's going to be relentless occupying so much territory, no matter how much opposition we don't have. It makes me weary thinking about how long we could be in the Middle East.
Edit: And couldn't all our efforts be wasted if this lasts (which it probably will) beyond Bush's term? If fighting continues until the next presidential election, the country is bound to be weary of fighting, and will probably vote for someone who supports pulling out of there. In that case, we wouldn't have even got to the root of the problem, and the Middle Eastern countries would see how if they don't do anything drastic, they could continue their silent oppresions of the people. (but is that what we're really trying to stop at this point? I don't know for myself anymore. And if it is, why should we the US have to deal with it?)
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it will happen. There is not support for another invasion now, and support for further invasions should only decline I think....
I still think that at some point most Americans, including Mr. Card, are going to have to realize that invading countries is only going to serve to increase the terrorist threat. One only needs to look at Afghanistan and Iraq to see that. In Afghanistan we devastated the infrastructure and leadership of Al Qaeda, yet saw only an increase in the long term threat, as cells became more independent and spread. In Iraq we transformed a dictatorship into a terrorist haven and galvanized the Muslim world against us. There is no sign that any of that has led to any long-term solution to the terrorist problem, as illustrated quite clearly by the recent attacks in Britain.
There is little reason to believe invading Syria would result in anything different - we would be, in effect, only adding another country to the unstable terrorist hotbed list... and further spreading out our resources. The attitude of the government of a country is far less important than the attitude of the people within it. Terrorism operates on a localized level - and is supported most fundamentally by people, not governments. We can overthrow governments, but if that only makes the people within to support terrorism even more, it only serves to hurt the war on terror. And unless we are in the genocide business, hoping to wipe out the whole population of nations that resent us, our only real, lasting solution is to change the minds of that population. Even if Karl Rove thinks this method amounts to little more than "therapy", I still think it is the only method of truly fighting the root of terrorism in the long run.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, other countries seeing America spread thin may take the oppurtunity in the near or distanr future to take advantage of such weakness. Though it depends on how much CinCPac has been spread out.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt the USA will invade Syria, despite the importance of this move to world peace. There are too many controversies regarding the invasion to Iraq. The USA's army, as Sid said, is spreading thin. They might not be able to handle Syria and maintain security in other occupations. This is unless there will be a coalition of Arab / Muslim countries whose leaders decide to declare themselves as moderate Islam and fight terror - which is most unlikely to happen. Does moderate Islam even exist nowadays? Anti-western anti-Israeli instigation in Arab countries is higher than ever. Look at Egypt! With TV shows for children teaching about The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and politicians saying that the Mossad stands behind the terror attack in Sharem!
In a decade, perhaps, the US will invade Syria. Or maybe Iran.
Israel, unfortunately, will remain the only democracy in the middle east for a very, very long time.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one good thing that will come out of the US's invasion of Syria is that I can laugh at Bush for one more reason. Also, it'll provide Michael Moore more income - wait, that's not necessarily good.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syria will have to go down if Israel will ever be safe, since they openly support Hizzbulla and Hamas activities, not that I have any idea why the US should care, except that not too far down they will also hide and aid terrorists who will act against europe and america, not to mention their soon to be nuclear abilites.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
there is no support for an invasion especially if it goes past bush's term. If we want to invade we have to do it quickly and bush must come up with a good reason. we probably won't invade however because there aren't enough troops unless we leave iraq but that would take too long and by then bush would be out
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or like in the Shadow series the arab world remembers that the Israeli's are long lost cousins and accept them with open arms. *shrug*
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: Or like in the Shadow series the arab world remembers that the Israeli's are long lost cousins and accept them with open arms. *shrug*
That one really blew me away, that is behind science fiction and into deep deep fantasy land. For the time frame the Shadows series take place in (300 years from now? who knows) that is totally unreasonable. I can see a future of peace between Israel and the Arab world but the whole "long lost cousins" thing? come on... Besides, why will the countries have such a close tie together? only third of Israel's population is orginaly from arab and north african countries. Unless it refers to the whole Yitzhak (Isaac in english?) and Ishmael thing which is still very odd. I also didn't really get Israel's place on the Shadow world. Is it a part of some Arab leauge or something? Anyway it was nice to read that when the whole world goes to war we are peacful little bunnies who stay out of it all and laugh at those crazy goyim. Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that Israel's position in the Shadow series is totally beyond any boundaries of logic. Being the “yes-men” of the Arab league, which accepts the Israelis with love and emotions of brotherhood? No way. The anti-Semitic anti-Zionist anti-West hatred is rooted deep in the souls of most Arabs. I am not saying that baby Arabs are born hateful, but in most Arab third-world countries the children are brainwashed from the moment they can open their eyes. “The Jews are evil and murderous, Israel must be destroyed, killing innocent people is okay if it’s “in the name of Allah” and under the command of the imams, the west is weak and we shall conquer them.”
Another reason why this situation is impossible is Israel’s ego. Despite its dependence on the US today, Israel has always attempted to moderate the influence of other nations on its national-political affiliation. E.g. when going to war against Egypt in Sinai 1956 with the cooperation of France and the UK, Israel insisted on conducting a totally separate mission and not participating in "Mission Musketeer " (joint France+UK) so Israel will not become a sidekick. We can also see this in the two Golf Wars, where Israel, despite having a strong interest in the defeat of Iraq, did not join the war. I think this status of a tag-along of the Arab league is impossible.
quote: Anyway it was nice to read that when the whole world goes to war we are peacful little bunnies who stay out of it all and laugh at those crazy goyim.
posted
If Syria were supporting the insurgents, then why hasn't the Bush administration begun escalating the pressure for them to stop?
I would assume there would be numerous diplomatic warnings, then an attempt for UN sanctions, then war. But we haven't even entered the first stage of this. Oh, I do remember hearing some warnings. But I see no action being taken to deal with the problem. If this is a major key to solving Iraq, then you'd think they would act.
I'm assuming Bush would have no qualms about attacking. I'm assuming Bush cares more about success in Iraq than he does bad press. So if Syria is such a threat, why no consistent action?
Perhaps because the link is too difficult to prove. I'd like to see references backing up Card's statements about Syria's role in Iraq and the magnitude of the threat.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um. Three hundred years ago, how did Arabs feel about Jews? Never heard of 'em, right? Much more worried about Christians and oppression by the Ottomans. Three hundred years is a long time when it comes to this kind of social attitude.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When the bombs went off in London, you could practically feel the relief on the part of those who hate the war in Iraq.
Wow, and on the first sentence.
If you actually think that people who think that the War in Iraq is a bad idea felt relief at the London bombings, you're a freaking nutjob.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Squick, I feel that the best way to oppose an argument I disagree with is to open with an unsupported ad hominem attack Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that Arabs three hundreds years ago never heard about jews is an odd statement. Jews lived in arab land for 2000 years and appear many times in the Qur'an. Jews were placed in a very conveniant place in the middle of everything, and when they were exiled they travelled everywhere, there are evidance of jews in China many many years before Marco Polo ever came there as well as India, Arabia, Europe and according to LDS even America... But more to the point I don't think there was much hate toward jews (they weren't hated at all and were in the category of Ahal El-Kitab (man of the book) and were considered Ahal El-Dima, which are people no muslim may harm. The only place jews really sufered from antisemetism was Europe where they were being accused of killing baby jesus, using girls blood for Passover Mazhot and what not. The real hate began at 1948, but since then it's roots went deep and it's not anything 300 years of bugger war can fix. I didn't say there can't be peace and even good relations, just not that utopian "we are all brothers" theme.
posted
Dog, it's especially effective when the quote is taken out of context:
quote:When the bombs went off in London, you could practically feel the relief on the part of those who hate the war in Iraq. Of course they regretted the deaths of so many innocents, and of course they were outraged at those who committed the act.
But they also felt vindicated, and some of them said so.
posted
People have said so. There are always those who care more for their ideology than they do for human lives, and greet the loss of the latter when it supports the former with happiness.
If you don't think so, you're a freaking nutjob. (An edgier Mr. Squicky!)
Of course, I do think OSC should've been more specific. I don't really think he feels that all those who vehemently oppose the Iraq War were gleeful about this new round of bombings. It was very careless and needlessly insulting, I think, to make such an implication.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that Arabs three hundreds years ago never heard about jews is an odd statement. Jews lived in arab land from 2000 years and appear many times in the Qur'an.
A small exaggeration for rhetorical effect. Never heard of them as hated enemies to be destroyed at every opportunity even at the cost of one's own life, is what I was getting at.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I feel what was said was awful enough that I don't need to explain how thinking that the people who are against the War in Iraq reacted to the London bombings with "Thank God something like this has finally happened." is sharply divorced from reality. Do you actually think that this is what people are thinking?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell me Dag, what do you think relief means? For me, it means an end or at least temporary lessening in pain or suffering.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, it means vindication. As the author stated.
If you thought it just meant temporary lessening in pain or suffering, why did you feel the need to reword it to "Thank God..."?
Did you just miss the part where he says "they regretted the deaths of so many innocents" and "were outraged at those who committed the act."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't mean vindication. There are plenty of words that mean vindication and I'm relatively sure that OSC knows them. To say that people were relieved is to say that they were suffering from something, in this case apparently a lack of terrorist attacks, that this helped alleviate.
I didn't reword it. That's what it would mean to be relieved. Happiness that the pain is gone or has temporarily abated.
---
edit: I didn't miss the part where he tried to soften saying that people were thankful that these attacks happened. As I've said, OSC knows what he's doing and he chose to say relief to give a specific initial impression. And the idea that people were grateful for the respite that these attacks gave them, which is the literal meaning of the sentance he used, is a terrible one and one that doesn't reflect reality.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Happiness that the pain is gone or has temporarily abated.
Or, just perhaps, that they weren't wrong in their criticism of Bush's policies?
He explains his word choice two sentences later. He specifically states that he's not saying they didn't regret the deaths of the innocent one sentence later.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that they felt vindicated does not remove the connotations of using the word relief in the first sentence of the essay. Relief bears a specific meaning that is not equivilent to vindication.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the relief was that they weren't wrong. It pretty neatly embodies the concept that they were doubting their prior assertions that Bush was making us less safe from terror, but the vindication from this event eased those doubts. The easing of those doubts is the actual relief.
It's highly appropriate for the case OSC is making here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you seriously think that people who think that Bush's policies regarding terrorism and in addition the Iraq war were poor were beset with serious doubts before this happened?
---
Setting it up that way makes it into a case where people would rather there be terrorism and the president be wrong than there not be terrorism and the president be right. If you want to say vindicated, you say vindicated or "they feel they were shown to be right" or any of the other words and phrases that convey this meaning. If you want to say that, despite being upset for the people who died and angry at the people who used the bombs, on some level these people were happy this happened, you use relief. OSC knew what he was doing.
posted
weren't such people only vindicated to know that Bush's policies were wrong and weren't working?
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
oooooooohhhhh... just discovered something... I think Mr Card KNOWS its impossibe to invade Syria in the state of the US Military but also knows that there are no such problems with the Israeli military.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Do you seriously think that people who think that Bush's policies regarding terrorism and in addition the Iraq war were poor were beset with serious doubts before this happened?
---
Setting it up that way makes it into a case where people would rather there be terrorism and the president be wrong than there not be terrorism and the president be right. If you want to say vindicated, you say vindicated or "they feel they were shown to be right" or any of the other words and phrases that convey this meaning. If you want to say that, despite being upset for the people who died and angry at the people who used the bombs, on some level these people were happy this happened, you use relief. OSC knew what he was doing.
I think you might be jumping to conclusions a bit here.
1. You keep saying that OSC knew what he was doing. Well, he surely knew what he meant to say, but that doesn't mean he correctly identified the way people were feeling.
2. OSC undoubtedly used words that he felt conveyed what his message was. Words and meanings can easily be misinterpreted. I wouldn't base your entire argument on your interpretation of one word.
3. You're being too broad with your generalization of what people are relieved about. There are many possibilities, one NOT being that anyone was happy about the deaths, which OSC clearly states. If there are people that had doubts about Bush's policies, they might be relieved at the opportunity for that to be acknowledged so that more lives can be saved in the future.
These deaths are tragic, but we can't change the fact that it happened. If we can learn from this tragedy, then I personally will be relieved if it means that a future tragedy can be averted. It's all about perspective.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you seriously think that people who think that Bush's policies regarding terrorism and in addition the Iraq war were poor were beset with serious doubts before this happened?
No, not serious. Some.
quote:Setting it up that way makes it into a case where people would rather there be terrorism and the president be wrong than there not be terrorism and the president be right. If you want to say vindicated, you say vindicated or "they feel they were shown to be right" or any of the other words and phrases that convey this meaning. If you want to say that, despite being upset for the people who died and angry at the people who used the bombs, on some level these people were happy this happened, you use relief. OSC knew what he was doing.
Psychic Squicky is at it again.
We're not discussing whether it was the best phrasing. We're discussing whether or not the sentence, taken in context, justifies your statement that OSC is a "freaking nutjob."
And it doesn't. You know it. Even if it's correct, the statement isn't justified here. The fact that you had to quote the sentence out of context for effect (more than a little like what you accuse OSC of doing) is only further evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think Mr Card KNOWS its impossibe to invade Syria in the state of the US Military but also knows that there are no such problems with the Israeli military.
Sid, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The Israeli military is very, very, small, and it would be weeny-teeny-tiny if it weren’t for the reserve forces and debit enlistment. The Israeli army is busy over its head dealing with the rapid terrorism in Israel, and now also with the disengagement plan – thousands of Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip will have to be evacuated. The trouble is not only the problems the Palestinians might cause, but also the actions of Israeli radical rightists who object the plan and use violence against Israeli armed forces (military and the police). The Israeli army has never been less apt to invade Syria.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Military branches: Definition Field Listing Israel Defense Forces (IDF): Ground Corps, Navy, Air and Space Force (includes Air Defense Forces); historically there have been no separate Israeli military services Military manpower - military age and obligation: Definition Field Listing 17 years of age for compulsory (Jews, Druzes) and voluntary (Christians, Muslims, Circassians) military service; both sexes are eligible for military service; conscript service obligation - 36 months for men, 21 months for women (2004) Military manpower - availability:
Definition Field Listing males age 17-49: 1,492,125 females age 17-49: 1,443,916 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: Definition Field Listing males age 17-49: 1,255,902 females age 17-49: 1,212,394 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: Definition Field Listing males: 53,760 females: 51,293 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: Definition Field Listing Rank Order $9.11 billion (FY03)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: Definition Field Listing Rank Order 8.7% (FY02)
Doesn't give solid figures on its actual army size but it can in a pinch recruit nessasary reserves for the armed forces, also the Israeli's I think rewrite the book on desert warfare and could probly kick the crap out of any Middle East Power in desicive engagement, proven time and again and this time USA and other nations won't step in to restrain Israel should things get out of hand if America is indeed serious in ended terrorism. Also, there won't be any heat from it earlier simply not doing anything is usually more diplomatically expediant then invading a country.
As for whether I know what I'm talking about I'm just saying something that I've found from reading a certain Essay by OSC where he hinted that America could through diplomatic channels tell Syria that they'll not restrain Israel should they choose to end the terrorist threat to their own nation. Mr Card didn't say much but he definatly hinted at it.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
First of all, I'd like to know from which site you've brought these figures, if you don't mind. Even if they are theoretically correct, they do not reflect reality.
40% of the women in Israel shirk the military service. Very few women serve in combat units. With the exception of aircraft pilots (a very small number), women do not participate in the reserve forces, unless they have served in a combat unit – and in that case they are considered part of the reserve force until the age of 26. Moreover, about half of the army (if I’m not mistaken, and I’m pretty sure I’m not) consists of non-combat soldiers. Religious orthodox men (many of those in Israel) do not serve in the army. Unless you count them as God’s soldiers, that is. Also, Many religious men serve in a track called “Yeshivat Hesder” where they devote more than half of the time of their military service to studying at a yeshiva – making them much less useful to the army. Besides, think of all the people who are injured or incapable of fighting or abroad, years after their military service. They won’t count as reserve forces.
And, more than all, invading Syria, even after carrying out the engagement plan, when the IDF will be slightly less busy – would be a terrible mistake! Israel will be fighting not only Syria, but other countries as well – some of which are armed with nuclear weapons! Remember that this is not a blitzkrieg war – we bomb locations a,b,c, and do blah, blah, blah and we won. This is a war both against armed forces and guerilla forces! And even if we manage to destroy most terrorist bases in Syria – what will be the cost? Tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers and civilians will die! In the meanwhile, throughout the few decades of its existence, around 21000 Israeli lives have been lost in wars – most of them soldiers in general wars, about 1000 of them from terror attacks. A quick, logical observance will show you that the sacrifice will be much larger than the outcome.
And don’t forget this – if the US has problems in Iraq, it can always withdraw its forces and go back home to their big prosperous island thousands of miles away. Israel can’t withdraw. This would be a war on Israel’s existence. And it must not be carried out.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Our perceptions of what OSC attempts to accomplish with his writing are very different. From my perspective, you bend over backwards to say "Well, here's what OSC actualy meant.", even to the point of saying in the past "He doesn't really mean that. He's just angry and said it wrong."
In this case, I think he clearly meant to say that the anti-Iraq war people were on a very significant level happy with the London bombings because they'd rather there be bombings that show President Bush to be wrong than there be no bombings and President Bush be right. There may be some people that this is true for, but for nearly all of them, it isn't. It's the same, "People who disagree with the President want America to fail." garbage that he's already put forth in his essays in a slightly different package.
What you're saying seems to me "He meant to say that they felt vindicated." I don't think this is true. Relieved does not equal vindicated. It has the clear meaning of a respite from suffering, with a indication of gratitude. To me, this is description highly divergent from reality. I also don't think OSC actually believes it, but it serves his rhetorical purpose to state it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you use what even you must admit is at best speculation to justify calling him names, in clear violation of the rules you agreed to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, given the rules of the English language and his past behavior, I find his meaning extremely clear. And you know what, you're right, I did post a personal insult. I'll leave it there, as deleting it would be dishonest, but I'd like to ammend it here to mean something like "This is a belief that is widely divergent from reality."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why do you start at the insults instead of your analysis of the text? The insult suggest, very strongly, that this IS what he meant, not that it can be interpreted that way or even that he most likely meant for it to be interpreted that way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the pattern OSC has established on Hatrack is that he'll post some untenable and often insulting thing, people will call him on it, and he'll never post on that thread again. I didn't expect this to be any different.
He said something that I saw as being clearly awful and untrue. I called him on it. I expected that this would pretty much be the end of it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For someone who complains so much about what OSC says about what others really think, you engage in that same behavior yourself an awful lot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
