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.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
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.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
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.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
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.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
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.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
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.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
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?)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
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.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
If the US invades Syria... We'll have a BORDER with the US! Except that Israel becomes virtually useless to the states.
*SOTG SPOILER.*
But then... Sir Orson Scott Card (I knight thee) will have to change SOTG, with the whole Alai-flying-over-the-Golan-Heights thing.
*END OF SPOILER.*
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
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.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
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.
Posted by Erez (Member # 8282) on :
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.
Posted by sands (Member # 8344) on :
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
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
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*
Posted by Erez (Member # 8282) on :
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. Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
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 by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Like Squick, I feel that the best way to oppose an argument I disagree with is to open with an unsupported ad hominem attack Posted by Erez (Member # 8282) on :
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.
[ July 26, 2005, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Erez ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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 by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course, that's not what he said.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tell me Dag, what do you think relief means? For me, it means an end or at least temporary lessening in pain or suffering.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why on earth do you spend so much time attacking someone you consider a "freaking nutjob"?
And why do you have to take sentences out of context to do it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
[ July 26, 2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
weren't such people only vindicated to know that Bush's policies were wrong and weren't working?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
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.
o_O.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
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.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
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.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Sid,
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And you should stop pretending like you know what others think.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I can only react to people based on how they come across to me. I try to gather the best evidence that I can and make judgements off of that. If you've a better method, I'd like to hear it.
Was I wrong to find rivka dismissive and disrespectful, especially in the light of her accusing me of something that I clearly didn't do and that I've repeatedly said that I don't do (often in response to this blanket accusation)?
Was I wrong to apply the literal meaning of the word relief and consider OSC's past comments in coming up with why he chose that way of saying it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But you didn't say you found her post dismissive and disrespectful, did you? You said she lacked integrity and had no shame.
And why even speculate on why OSC said what he said? You can't prove it, and there's a clear interpretation that is self-consistent and contrary to the one you made, even applying the literal meaning of the word. Why not say "here's how this can be interpreted, here's why even if he meant something else he shouldn't have said this, and here's the harm caused by such language"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I said that I thought that rivka had more integrity and sense of shame than to spring the "You said that all people who disagree with you are bigots." canned argument on me. I thought that she did this because it is clearly not what I said, was in fact something that I've constantly come out against, and because she was very disrespectful and dismissive.
On OSC, I thought as I did because he has made very similar statements in the past. When a person has repeatedly said that people who disagree with the Bush administration want our efforts to prevent terrorism or our soldiers in Iraq to fail and that they don't care about America and when that person makes a statement that read literally fits in snugly with that, I tend to intrepret things that way.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
odd I'm sure I posted a reply to Beanny...
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Unfortunately, a Syrian hacker deleted your post because it held the key to the destruction of Syria...that's the risk in posting in international forums.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
... there on to me... Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Hehe. Why not post again? That'll both be passive resistance, and I'll be able to know what you had to say about the topic.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Okay, what I think I said was that okay I was mostly speculating based on what I thought Mr Card had been implying in previous essays which I have been reading through 1 by 1 for the last... day. But nevertheless I had also said the Israel could still in any decisive military engagement against any Arab nation armed with 1970's(?) Soviet Weaponry kick the utter living cr*p out of them, occupatation and other stuff usually only occurs when I had already invaded given contry (in a game that is).
However, it is still possible to expand the current Israeli defence for in an emergancy, should say Syria begins taking it up a notch, just that Israel would be the oppurtune solution to America's porblem, the US can't possibly invade another country without a very good excuse and Syria isn't giving it, however Israel requires very little to prod them to seek actions to garantee their national security and should attacks persist or should information "conveniatly" fall into the hdans of the Israeli'[s it wouldn't be improbable that with American assurance seek to secure their borders with military means.
That is my speculation.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Sid,
Your entire statement that Israel should invade Syria is based on these arguments: This war would end quickly because Israel has a superb army. The US will support Israel. Israel is waiting for an excuse to go to war. You also seem to believe that Israel is like America in terms of its national security strategy and actions, but just smaller and far away.
Neither of these statements is true. Here are my arguments:
1. How this war will look like: First of all, this won’t be a regular war, it might include unconventional weapons, plus it will be a war against terrorists fighting Guerilla, so the war cannot end without having to occupy territories in which millions of Israel-hating Arabs live. Are you forgetting Vietnam? “Those sissy commies – America’ll kick their darned butts and finish the war in weeks” – and the US lost. So think Vietnam but much, much, worse. And don't forget that also Iran and other Arab countries will be involved.
2. Inability to regret and turn back: Unlike America who can always withdraw – Israel cannot. We are practically living between Arab countries, and if we flee it will only encourage them to destroy us – because they believe they are closer to achieving that goal, and rightfully so.
3. International reaction: If Israel invades Syria, the UN and the international public opinion will be against us. Perhaps you don’t know this, but Israel has never been “liked ” in the world. The world opinion will almost always be anti-Israel pro-Arab (yes, even today with world terrorism). Example: a Palestinian woman, in the disguise of a pregnant woman, hid a bomb under her dress and then turned out to be a suicide bomber and she caused many deaths. Nothing about it in the world news. However, several days later a pregnant Palestinian woman at a barrier claims to be pregnant and must see the hospital, but she has no proper certification and does not agree to expose her stomach to prove that she is indeed pregnant (there are only men soldiers in the barriers). The women was sick, hid behind the bushes while trying to give birth – and died. The world news was celebrating on the scoop and as usual portrayed Israel as a fascist conqueror, which of course we aren’t. We aren’t even occupiers. [HISTORICAL BACKGROUND] The West Bank actually belongs to us (the Gaza Strip is controversial, personally I think not), even though I believe we should disengage from parts of it some day, if the Palestinians prove that they are capable of having peace with Israel. [/HISTORICAL BACKGROUND] Also, no western leader (including Bush) wants to seem as Israel’s partner for war. From that reason, in Gulf War I the US pressed Israel not join the war – because that would give an incentive for the Arabs to be even more anti-western. Do you know how they refer to the US and Israel? The big devil and the little devil. The US doesn’t like that one bit.
4. You’re always forgetting that the Israeli army is just too busy!!! The forces will have to leave Israel, none will be left (there just aren’t enough), and the Palestinians will destroy Israel country from the inside!
So yes, Israel’s army is superb, well equipped and very experienced in combat in the Middle East. That is why Syria, despite supporting terrorism, fears us and will never, ever dare attack Israel directly. The power of threat is much stronger than a real war, plus casualties = zero. We attacked a Syrian military base with a missile because Syria started to hint taking slightly more aggressive actions towards Israel. Assad kissed Sharon’s arse for months after that. Don’t you think that’s a way better than losing men over a useless war? I am sure that if nations who don’t have the same problems unite together and decide to invade Syria, Israel will support them and allow them to set bases on its territory. But Israel will not be the US’s “opportunity” at the cost of Israeli lives. Don’t forget this – war will not solve everything. We (the west) need Arabs that truly object terrorism, from the bottom of their hearts – who are brave enough to fight it themselves. Even moderate Arabs don’t like the western intervention; it makes them feel like in the Colonial era.
[MORE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – not related to our debate] – did you know that there was no such thing as a Palestinian nation until the end of WWII, when France and Britain divided the middle east between them and Israel was not a part of Syria (which then included Lebanon and other areas). Those Arabs who lived in where Israel is today, who wanted to be part of “the great Syria” – were now isolated, and they resorted to hoping that the Arabs living in what was once called Palestine will gain control of it. In 1947, the UN decided on dividing Palestine to two states – an Arab one (45% of the lands) and a Jewish one (55% of the lands). The Arabs living in Palestine claimed: “we will have everything or nothing”, and started the war which turned into Israel’s war of Independence, against seven Arab countries. They ended with nothing. During the war of Israel’s independence, 1948, many Palestinians fled to other Arab countries. Those countries did not accept them and allow them to become citizens, but kept them in refugee camps for decades – on purpose, because they didn’t want them and they preferred that Israel would have to deal with them. The Palestinians realized that they belong nowhere, the hatred was deepened, and their goal became to destroy Israel and to establish an autonomic Palestinian state. [/HISTORICAL BACKGROUND]
Edited for clarity.
[ July 27, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Beanny ]
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Alright, as I said just speculation. Either way I very do much respect and admire Israel and its detemrination to mantain its freedoms, though I don't know about you but I don't like or trust Sharon, since I'm pretty damn sure he's responsible for what are easily war crimes at worst sever negligence at best in lebanon.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Sharon cannot be trusted on the long run. But sometimes, in dark times, and situations of difficult decision-making you need a strong leader to bend democracy a little, to get things done. For an example, the Disengagement Plan. If a true democrat were the Prime Minister, it would have taken forever until Israel rid of those territories. To fight terrorism you need a strong leader – which is exactly why Bush was elected. I don’t think that his socio-economic views and beliefs are the source of the support in him, but people were driven by fear that Kerry won’t be strong enough to deal with today’s hard-core terrorism.
The question is – after we achieve that goal, who will be PM? I’ve set my mind on two people. In my first priority – Ami Ayalon, a former Brigadier-General and Chief of the Israeli navy, the former head of the Shabac (like the American FBI), and an initiator of many leftist projects, some of them very famous. Until now he refused to join politics due to the corruption and terrible bureaucracy of the Israeli parliament and government. But now he’s slowly shifting towards politics, and I’m hoping that he’ll run for the headship of the labor party. Another guy is Ofir Paz-Pines, currently Israel’s minister of internal affairs, who is very sincere, intelligent, a leftist, “for the people” kind of guy – only he has no military experience and that’s a problem in Israel’s situation today.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
P.S I think Syrian hacker left. You can tell me all about your secret plan to overthrow the Syrian government.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I'ld go for the former KGB guy, Navy people I tend to think are quite rational considering naval warfare. The other guy would be better if not for terrorism.
As for my plan to overthrow the Syrian government, what you need is to gather a large bunch of Syriannationals (100,000 would be nice) indoctrinate them in democracy or communism or whatever trian them to use "people's war" geurrilla tactics, arm them with AA, AT, and AI weapons plus lend them some hackers so that they can slowly infiltrate the Syrian computer system, infiltrate across the border and cause mayham.
Should they need help send in the Panzers. (though realistically what you would do in that situation would be to slowly increase the political pressure on Syria and then once they commnit some sort of atrocity against civilian targets preferably refugees, commence sanctions on Syria to up the stakes.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
).
Posted by I am the Syrian hacker (Member # 8412) on :
Just you wait.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Leave me alone! I did nothing wrong just babling thats all! No, NOOO, not that please anything but that! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO ARGH!!!......
...........................
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
(The conversation has moved past this, but I did want to mention one itty-bitty thang...)
Squick said:
quote: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.
This is contrary to my perception of these events. The pattern I see is this:
OSC will post his thoughts on sometimes controversial threads because those are the subjects he thinks are important and worthy of debate. He submits his opinions to the mix because he thinks he has something to add and his views are worth considering, and people might take something useful from them. People who disagree with his opinions sometimes take offense and sometimes rebut his opinions with their own. OSC, who cares about many other things and has many more responsibilities than this forum (which he pays to keep alive even when he is not present) leaves the conversation to tend to his life, and by the time he comes back to Hatrack the thread is days behind the new and just as controversial issues of the present day, where OSC might again post another bit of his opinions. On those occasions when the original thread lingers long enough to catch his eye again (such as that "redefining beauty" thread awhile back), he sometimes returns and clarifies his position if needed.
But I don't think he's trying to ignore anyone or is scared off by someone's rebuttals. For instance, I don't think he ever responded again to that thread Icarus started about handicapped children when Icarus was hurt by (what I think was) a misunderstanding. I don't think OSC meant to hurt Icarus, but I think hurt can nevertheless happen unintentionally. It's nobody's fault; it's the fact that communication is imperfect, and sometimes OSC chooses to value other things besides Hatrack. I don't think it's a huge deal, and I don't think it means he has no integrity or whatever.
The positions OSC asserts are sometimes "untenable" and "offensive" to you, Squick. They are usually not to me, and I think my opinions are just as valid. But I think that what I quoted you as saying up there is inaccurate, because you seem to think that OSC (a person I admire) is purposely avoiding conversations because he thinks his word as the be-all-end-all of opinions and when someone refutes his claims, he hides. It doesn't mesh with his character as I see it, and is needlessly simplistic.
Posted by sands (Member # 8344) on :
OSC stops posting when the thread degenerates into either random postings or people attacking each other for no reason.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fairness to Squick, OSC's also been known to stop posting in a thread well before that point, too. In fact, I've seen more than a few threads in which the last post was a fairly erudite, non-hostile rebuttal of his opinion -- with no reply. I don't necessarily think he's "scared off," but I do think he tends to avoid being drawn into serious debate. He also never posts just to apologize for a misunderstanding.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are two sides minimum in a misunderstanding.
(For instance: Mr. Squicky's responses in this thread hardly are erudite and polite. Nutjob, shameless, liar, etc.)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Immediately following the Iraq invasion, the nations I most worried about taking a stance on the acceptability of pre-emptive war were not China and Taiwan, but India and Pakistan... Both of which have had cause to label their neighbors as supporting "terrorist activities", and both of which possess nuclear weapons.
I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq; I'm very angry that our leadership has whimsically re-written our motivation for the act in mid-stream, I find the business relationships we've created for the purpose of launching and supporting operations in Iraq questionable at best, and the money and manpower being used to keep Iraq could have better been used elsewhere. Consider the recent military base closures: does the declaration that these closures will save something like $52 billion over ten years seem mocked by the fact that we spend over $82 billion a year in the Iraqi operation?
But worse... We can't get out. As frustrating as it is to say it, if we leave now, Iraq as a democracy has a life expectancy that could probably be measured in single digits. And whatever the truth may have been _before_ we invaded, what takes the place of the democratic government almost certainly _will_ be a breeding ground for terrorism.
Syria? I don't know. I fear a continued policy of taking out Middle Eastern governments with ties to Islam is just asking for a certain portion of the people of those nations to feel the U.S. is at war with Islam. Remember that these nations do not have a tradition of free press; however well-intentioned our troops may be, that's not the news that gets to the chanting crowds. Whatever the case, the notion of invading Syria is largely moot right now. The godawful planning involved in both the Iraq and the Afghanistan invasions is coming back to haunt us. Afghanistan is once again becoming a major producer of opium, and there are suggestions the Taliban may be re-emerging. Iraq, as I said, defies escape, and the continued bombing of the oil pipelines begs the question of how long it might be before Iraq is economically self-sufficient, never mind militarily so. If we decided to invade, or, God help us, needed our troops for defense, from where would we pull the manpower?
I felt neither relief nor vindication when I heard about the London bombings. I only felt sorry for the British people, and for Tony Blair. I think following Bush is going to cost him more than he ever imagined, and I'm not remotely happy to see it.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Well said... And who suggested China & Taiwan? That is militarily stupid in the extreme and economically disasterous for the United States of America!
So much of your economy is tied into China and Chinese manpower that despite obviously getting screwed job wise America still spends a vaste amount of money investing in China that the government just reinvests into the state/semi-private enterprises what will become America's competition. Do you even know how much we import from them??? I only had to look 30 seconds to find out my SPEAKERS were made in China, and forget aout anything from Taiwan since any war with China will ensure Taiwan will get dragged into it.
And unlike Tom Clany's dellusional little world the US will not get a spy in the Politburo able to give the CIA all of the info they need, you'll not be able to wipe out their airforce without losing a single plane, nor sink the PLAN wihout loses either. Now come's the idea of the PLA itself, 3 Million soldiers, well trained, okay led (similar to the Soviet Army in 1945), now tell me, invading a country with 350 million someodd possible recruits how the hell are you going to be able to invade China? Who is stupid enough to suggest it? You'ld need either Russia's coop or south east Asia's and none of them are ever gonna give it, Russia is still in its little economic sink hole and south east asia is somewhat Communist as well.
Then the Cultural thing, They are the freakin Middle Kingdom! With practically the oldest culture around with a history of being picked on by western powers and then there's the hostility to the US for supporting Chiang Kai Shek Pre and Post Liberation which America in my mind had no right to interfear with at that time Chiang was a ruthless Generalissimo who had to be COERICED into allying with Communist China against the Japanese. The Chinese people won't suddenly revolt against Beijing, in fact they'll revolt against the US and quite frankly the Chinese have mastered geurilla warfare and the principles of the People's War.
Without a really large army which America just doesn't have America will be unable to keep their troops supplied, and the Chinese don't hae an outmoded army their newest tank I hear could go head to head with the M1 Abrams the T-98 Main Battle Tank.
IMHO of course....
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, To be clear, OSC said that the anti-war people reacted to the London bombings with palpable relief and gloating. In the past, he has claimed that the people who oppose President Bush's plans don't care about America and want our efforts to prevent terrorism and the war in Iraq to fail. I find these comments to be awful. I was not looking for a respectful discussion of why I and people like me responded to the London bombings with a gleeful sense of "I'm glad that finally happened." Given OSC's past behavior, I certainly didn't expect any response to a post, no matter how worded, that disagreed with his terribly insulting mischaracterization of people who disagree with him.
The fight against terrorism isn't some sort of game, at least to me. It's not a political football that should be used to try and make the other side look bad. The people in London are real, living, breathing people like you and me, as are the people in Iraq, and those in the Pentagon and New York. The threat that terrorists pose to me and mine (not to mention all the people I don't actually know) is likewise very real.
I disagree with the administration's policies because I think that they are bad ones and that the administration has been extremely untrustworthy, dishonest, and simple-minded, not because I hate the President. I don't treat the success or failure of the President's policies as a sports team I don't like winning or losing. I don't feel relief nor do I gloat when people get blown up in a demonstration that shows that, despite the administration's claims, the terrorist groups they are fighting are still going strong and are able to operate in other countries besides Iraq.
edit:If, in what would to me be something surpassing reason and logic, Donald Rumsfeld statement that al Queda was on the ropes were actually accurate or if the insurgency in Iraq were, as the administration repeatedly claimed long after it was clear this was not true, just a some holdouts from Saddam's deposed regime, I would be greatful and would admit I was wrong. It's already happened at least once in this whole thing. I had to apologize to the people I argued with about going into Iraq for saying that I thought they were paranoid for saying that administration's claims that they knew that Iraq had WMD and that they were nearly confident that they were actively trying to hide them from the inspectors would turn out to be fabrications. I'm willing to apologize when I'm wrong, as in this case where I trusted my government not to baldfacedly lie to me. My concern is about achieving the safest world possible. Were the President's policies shown to bring this about, I'd apologize for saying I thought that they were very wrong. But can anyone show me reasons why I should think that this is the case or why I should trust the government that has repeatedly shown themselves to either be lying or poor at their jobs?/edit
The most positive emotion I felt was hope that possibly this would be a catalyst to change the way we are addressing terrorism. Of course, that's not going to happen if the debate is about why people who disagree with the Bush administration care much more about the administration looking bad than the very real threat of terrorism. I'm not a child. I felt no relief and no cause for gloating at yet more clear proof the either Donald Rumsfeld was lying or just incompetent. And it was awful to suggest that I and the other people like me did.
[ August 01, 2005, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:his terribly insulting mischaracterization of people who disagree with him.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Leave me alone! I did nothing wrong just babling thats all! No, NOOO, not that please anything but that! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO ARGH!!!......![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)