This is topic Israel took the bait, shot a bunch of people dead on flotilla, approaching conflict in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Top of gnews now for many hours running.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Big deal. A bunch of fanatics tried to break Israel's blockade. Israel offered to take any aid they had and bring it in through proper channels. Israel delivers literally tons of food and merchandise to Gaza every day. It isn't like there's an actual humanitarian crisis there.
They were told to either divert to Ashdod port or be boarded. They refused, so they were boarded. But they were laying in wait, and as soon as the soldiers came aboard, the flotilla people attacked them.
They should have sunk the damned ships.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Big deal ... It isn't like there's an actual humanitarian crisis there ... They should have sunk the damned ships.
Lol. Okay.
A sage bit of commentary I heard from someone earlier:
quote:I think one of the ways that Israel shoots itself in the foot constantly is that they approach situations with a "tactical advantage above all else" attitude. And when you look at it, it served them well when they were fighting their neighbors over the past few decades. It works great for the Force-on-Force, medium- to high- intensity conflicts that they do so well at. Its a ****ing terrible idea in a counter-insurgency and stability environment which I think they're essentially in denial about being in.
Perfect example of this: use of White Phosphorus in cities. Improved WP is fantastic for both creating smoke screens to allow your troops freedom of movement. But its terrible for use inside cities. It might give you a tactical advantage, but the civilian casualties alone are going to ensure that you're created a much worse reaction on the back end.
This is pretty much a description of your armchair approach, lisa. You would take all of israel's counterproductive response and amp it up to 11, all the while utterly convinced of its moral righteousness.
Without even taking a side on who is in the right in this affair, I could safely say that one of the quickest ways to sink Israel would be to put you in charge. You would make it easier for people to bait Israel like this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do note that Israel has been doing stuff like this for a long time, and people have been saying for decades how they're shooting themselves in the foot... and unaccountably Israel is still there and still in control of whatever piece of ground it chooses to put soldiers on. There are sharp limits to the military importance of Western outrage and Arab outrage.
On the merits of the case, it seems to me that international waters or none, Israel has a strong case for being able to enforce a legally declared blockade. It's the old vexed issues of the distant blockade, what is contraband, the flag covering the goods, and the port of destination all over again, with Israel in the role usually assumed by Britain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I do note that Israel has been doing stuff like this for a long time, and people have been saying for decades how they're shooting themselves in the foot... and unaccountably Israel is still there and still in control of whatever piece of ground it chooses to put soldiers on. There are sharp limits to the military importance of Western outrage and Arab outrage.
"Sharp limits" is the same operating procedure that countries like Burma and the DPRK work on. Efficient, to a point. Leaves you a backwater. Even then, they're not the most important issue. The longitudinally most important issue is the outrage of the Jewish population, as Israel's actions divide the 'people' themselves. Israel's actions are increasingly alienating the Jewish populations of the West, which is going to come around to bite them in the ass. Support in the US is dropping almost comically fast, especially with the young. The days when Israel can bank on the "my country right or wrong" support of the world Jewish population are rapidly waning.
Watch what happens then.
On the merits of the case, storming ships in international waters like this is enough to make this all at the very least incredibly dubious and open up a ton of problems for Israel.
I mean it. They took the bait. They are fools. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Zzzzzzzzz, wha... Huh? Sorry I was asleep were you saying something important that you would like people to respectfully listen to?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Perhaps if you find her rhetoric so objectionable, Blayne, you ought to once in awhile rise above its perceived style instead of playing around in the pigpen with it? How would you respond if someone spoke to you like that? How have you reacted?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Have you read the previous thread me and Lisa interacted in? This is precisely how she responded to me when I gave an in detail reply to why I found her Stock Response to my conversational troping annoying, desrespectful and even worse incorrect and out of context with its original use.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i guess when I said 'approaching conflict' in the title of my thread i should have been more specific
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Gasp.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i guess when I said 'approaching conflict' in the title of my thread i should have been more specific
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The longitudinally most important issue is the outrage of the Jewish population, as Israel's actions divide the 'people' themselves. Israel's actions are increasingly alienating the Jewish populations of the West, which is going to come around to bite them in the ass. Support in the US is dropping almost comically fast, especially with the young. The days when Israel can bank on the "my country right or wrong" support of the world Jewish population are rapidly waning.
What's your support for this idea?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Zzzzzzzzz, wha... Huh? Sorry I was asleep were you saying something important that you would like people to respectfully listen to?
BURN!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Whenever sociologists analyze the rate at which attachment to israel is turning into alienation from israel, they find that each subsequent generation of american jews has a significantly lower percentage of attachment to Israel. Already, a majority of them disagree with Israel's actions surrounding things like settlements, expansions of housing in jerusalem, etc. -- The pro-israel/seminary studies tend to focus on elements like intermarriage diluting attachment to Israel, and the uni studies broadly explore the role that disillusionment plays.
In some areas of methodological study, this is astoundingly evident. Over 70% of american jews want the united states to essentially bully both sides of the israel/palestine conflict into compromise, instead of just letting israel self-determine the 'solution.'
I listened to a talk about studies showing how young adult american jews have a markedly increased amount of alienation from israel, and what factors play into it. Political individuation on the american spectrum was surprisingly subtle, even though a large majority of american jews are liberal/progressive (cue 'ugh') and by and large support Obama. Even in a 2007 study called "Beyond Distancing," the authors concluded that the effects are 'generational and permanent,' in their words.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I mean it. They took the bait. They are fools.
I disagree. Yes, it was bait. Yes, it sucks. But I'd rather take a PR hit than a security hit.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Zzzzzzzzz, wha... Huh? Sorry I was asleep were you saying something important that you would like people to respectfully listen to?
<smile> Feel better, Blayne? I'm sorry I pissed you off so much.. I felt like you were making a point of ignoring any feedback from anyone else on the subject of the tvtropes site, and it irked me. So I responded the way I did. You can continue to hate me if you like. I'm not sorry for what I did, except that it apparently pissed you off more than I'd intended.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Perhaps if you find her rhetoric so objectionable, Blayne, you ought to once in awhile rise above its perceived style instead of playing around in the pigpen with it? How would you respond if someone spoke to you like that? How have you reacted?
Rakeesh, I did the same exact thing to Blayne the other day. He's entitled to be pissed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Zzzzzzzzz, wha... Huh? Sorry I was asleep were you saying something important that you would like people to respectfully listen to?
BURN!
Really?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Whenever sociologists analyze the rate at which attachment to israel is turning into alienation from israel, they find that each subsequent generation of american jews has a significantly lower percentage of attachment to Israel. Already, a majority of them disagree with Israel's actions surrounding things like settlements, expansions of housing in jerusalem, etc. -- The pro-israel/seminary studies tend to focus on elements like intermarriage diluting attachment to Israel, and the uni studies broadly explore the role that disillusionment plays.
In some areas of methodological study, this is astoundingly evident. Over 70% of american jews want the united states to essentially bully both sides of the israel/palestine conflict into compromise, instead of just letting israel self-determine the 'solution.'
I listened to a talk about studies showing how young adult american jews have a markedly increased amount of alienation from israel, and what factors play into it. Political individuation on the american spectrum was surprisingly subtle, even though a large majority of american jews are liberal/progressive (cue 'ugh') and by and large support Obama. Even in a 2007 study called "Beyond Distancing," the authors concluded that the effects are 'generational and permanent,' in their words.
On the one hand, who cares? On the other hand, the stats are bad, because that "large majority" is itself made up a very large majority of Jews who have no attachment to Judaism in the first place. I'm not just talking about people who aren't Orthodox; I'm talking about people who barely identify as Jewish. Who have no qualms whatsoever about marrying out. Who know less about Judaism than Eddie Murphy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:On the one hand, who cares?
Obviously not the person who says 'big deal' in response to this issue and says israel should have just sunk all the ships.
Others who have what I would consider a more realistic appraisal towards managing israel's future are probably going to care. Thus, the tons of talks and plans for managing the issue, inside and out of Israel.
But the fact that you don't care, yes, we have that loud and clear. Thanks!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Zzzzzzzzz, wha... Huh? Sorry I was asleep were you saying something important that you would like people to respectfully listen to?
BURN!
Really?
sorry - I love both of you. I just thought it was funny bc I saw your exchange in the other post.
Perhaps I was insensitive to comment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who cares? Well, insofar as Israel's security can be connected to its standing in the world at large - and I think that's a pretty easy case to make, though just how much can be argued - well, the people who care are those who want Israel to continue to exist as a nation as safely as possible.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I mean it. They took the bait. They are fools.
I disagree. Yes, it was bait. Yes, it sucks. But I'd rather take a PR hit than a security hit.
I tend to agree.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
This is a well written analysis of the situation. Wish I'd written it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Who cares? Well, insofar as Israel's security can be connected to its standing in the world at large - and I think that's a pretty easy case to make, though just how much can be argued - well, the people who care are those who want Israel to continue to exist as a nation as safely as possible.
Ta-da. See, I'm big on future implied trends because they can allow an intragenerational knowledge of a watershed point. The people running Israel these days are all people who fought in the bad old days, and they're incapable of viewing events other than through that lens. It's really stupid and unforgivable, they're as out of date as the WWI generals who kept thinking they were going to win the war with a cavalry charge.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Another good one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I mean it. They took the bait. They are fools.
I disagree. Yes, it was bait. Yes, it sucks. But I'd rather take a PR hit than a security hit.
I tend to agree.
a PR hit is a security hit. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: snipped for brevity
Zzzzzzzzz, wha... Huh? Sorry I was asleep were you saying something important that you would like people to respectfully listen to?
<smile> Feel better, Blayne? I'm sorry I pissed you off so much.. I felt like you were making a point of ignoring any feedback from anyone else on the subject of the tvtropes site, and it irked me. So I responded the way I did. You can continue to hate me if you like. I'm not sorry for what I did, except that it apparently pissed you off more than I'd intended.
I think I'm actually about to cry and I don't mean this sarcastically.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I mean it. They took the bait. They are fools.
I disagree. Yes, it was bait. Yes, it sucks. But I'd rather take a PR hit than a security hit.
Unless you're making the case that the flotilla was going to stab israelis to death were they allowed to make landfall or otherwise not attacked in international waters, the counterpoint is just too ludicrous to bear.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That makes no sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would be interested to learn why they were intercepted in international waters. I mean, the Israelis knew they were coming, right? Why not let them come just a bit further until they were in Israeli waters?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I would be interested to learn why they were intercepted in international waters. I mean, the Israelis knew they were coming, right? Why not let them come just a bit further until they were in Israeli waters?
They wouldn't have been. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Intercepting them in international waters was the only way to make sure it was clearly legal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The aforementioned "tactical advantage above all else" foolishness and shortsightedness.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really. The other 5 ships were also trying to break the blockade, and they were in the wrong. But at least they didn't get violent when Israeli soldiers boarded them. The ship that did can dock in hell, so far as I'm concerned.
Look, it's pretty simple. I don't believe that war is a game. Dumbass marquis of queensbury rules don't make sense. The aggressor has no right to do anything but stand down. And the aggressee has no responsibility to do anything but stop the aggressor from causing harm. By whatever means necessary. Now, I'm quite aware that there are people out there who don't have a clear view of who the aggressor and the aggressee are here. I'm not just talking about this incident, but in general. So I don't expect that argument to work on people with that particular blindness. But whether you agree or not, a modicum of unblinkered observation will tell you that we don't agree with you.
The only thing wrong with this operation was the way in which the politicians tied the hands of the soldiers. They boarded those boats with their weapons strapped to their backs and their pistols holstered. It took about half an hour of brutal beatings and stabbings on the part of the scum on the boats before they finally gave up on doing it the politically expedient way and started fighting back for real. What kind of idiot "leaders" place the welfare of enemies over our own?
I'll tell you something. You talk about a split among the Israeli populace. These idiots on the boat may have done us a favor, because I'd be willing to bet that the percent of the Jews in Israel who approve of this operation is upwards of 95%. A tiny percentage of radical leftists will criticize the operation, and I presume that 80% or more of the Arabs in Israel will criticize it. But we can live with that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What about being within the Exclusive Economic Zone? Surely you have some leeway there, also it is a legal blockade, where else are they gonna intercept craft?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really. The other 5 ships were also trying to break the blockade, and they were in the wrong. But at least they didn't get violent when Israeli soldiers boarded them. The ship that did can dock in hell, so far as I'm concerned.
Look, it's pretty simple. I don't believe that war is a game. Dumbass marquis of queensbury rules don't make sense. The aggressor has no right to do anything but stand down. And the aggressee has no responsibility to do anything but stop the aggressor from causing harm. By whatever means necessary. Now, I'm quite aware that there are people out there who don't have a clear view of who the aggressor and the aggressee are here. I'm not just talking about this incident, but in general. So I don't expect that argument to work on people with that particular blindness. But whether you agree or not, a modicum of unblinkered observation will tell you that we don't agree with you.
The only thing wrong with this operation was the way in which the politicians tied the hands of the soldiers. They boarded those boats with their weapons strapped to their backs and their pistols holstered. It took about half an hour of brutal beatings and stabbings on the part of the scum on the boats before they finally gave up on doing it the politically expedient way and started fighting back for real. What kind of idiot "leaders" place the welfare of enemies over our own?
I'll tell you something. You talk about a split among the Israeli populace. These idiots on the boat may have done us a favor, because I'd be willing to bet that the percent of the Jews in Israel who approve of this operation is upwards of 95%. A tiny percentage of radical leftists will criticize the operation, and I presume that 80% or more of the Arabs in Israel will criticize it. But we can live with that.
I hear there are Christian groups that are hoping to hasten Armageddon. Maybe you could get them to pay you for your Hatrack posts. I mean, you sure do work hard at it. You ought to get paid. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really.
If you don't think it was preferable, why do you desire it?
quote:Look, it's pretty simple. I don't believe that war is a game.
Nowhere in my analysis do I equate war to 'a game.' I note that actions in war (or in boardings in international waters, which are most entirely a different thing) involve consequences that you want, and which you don't want. Smart leaders avoid these consequences. Dumb leaders 'solve' them in ways which create more problems down the line. You talk about the fact that aggressors have no right to do anything but stand down and that aggressees have no responsibility to do anything but stop the aggressor from causing harm. This is such a retardedly black-and-white analysis of war's 'rules' that it would have justified dropping a nuke on the flotilla, because they're aggressors.
Sadly, the world has concluded that there are additional responsibilities of parties to warfare, and thus we have little things like 'war crimes.' And the real world continues to have consequences above and beyond the tactical, which is why in a situation where its really hardly ambiguous that Israel did the flotilla and the anti-israel forces of the world a favor, you'll muse that the flotilla did YOU a favor.
quote:You talk about a split among the Israeli populace.
No, I don't.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Steven. It's getting old. And definitely not hilarious enough for a rolly polly laughy-face.
Lisa is right about Jewish perception of the operation. Or at least Israeli perception. The only thing to lament is that Israel doesn't have Don Draper doing its PR - it's the war of information that we're losing, which is a shame, because we have the facts on our side.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The only thing to lament is that Israel doesn't have Don Draper doing its PR - it's the war of information that we're losing
You have more to lament than that.
Case in point: this. Bad move. International waters. Taking the bait. Even if having the facts on your side were an unquestioned assumption, the people running the country turn the road ahead of them into a minefield by acting like this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really.
If you don't think it was preferable, why do you desire it?
They were offered a chance to change course and make landfall at Ashdod port. They refused. At that point, screw them.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Steven. It's getting old.
Back off. I have no idea what you're talking about, but back off, in a general sense. You're nobody, to take that tone.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This is definitely a PR mistake for Israel, but I don't think it is fair to give all the sympathy to a group who knowingly broke a blockade instead of getting their cargo inspected, became violent when their ship was boarded, then began shooting the Israelis, and now complains that the Israelis eventually shot back.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So we are told by the Israelis anyways.
*shrug* Anyways, one does wonder why Israel is managing its PR so badly when the US is occupying two countries in the Middle East, bombing civilians in a third, and routinely found to be torturing people among other things while still maintaining a superior standing in the world PR game.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Steven. It's getting old.
Back off. I have no idea what you're talking about, but back off, in a general sense. You're nobody, to take that tone.
I'm nobody? Dude. Who talks like that? Just because we're on the internet doesn't give you an excuse to behave like a total jerk. Present your opinions. And back off of Lisa. I, frankly, don't enjoy hearing from you in a post that lacked all substance and was simply there to jab at someone.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
This is an interesting article. Basically saying the error that the Israeli military made was going in too soft.
quote: Jason Alderwick, a maritime warfare expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, faulted the marines for not commandeering the vessel more efficiently.
"Success begins with planning and with decent intelligence, and they have boarded such ships before," he said.
"This time they didn't go in hard enough, fast enough and in sufficient numbers to establish overwhelming control."
Some of the troops wielded paintball rifles - non-lethal weapons designed to bruise, beat back and mark suspects for later arrest, but which apparently proved of limited use against activists who had the protection of life-jackets and gas masks.
I really don't know enough about the situation (this specifically, and the Gaza conflict as a whole) to have an opinion. It has been interesting reading this story though the Australian media though. It started as very much anti the Israeli actions, and seems to have modified since then.
Edit - I should make it clear. I think the prevailing view here the loss of life is dreadful. But it's becoming the opinion that the reasons for the raid itself are understood - it's just that raid was done badly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I could have guessed, but I have to keep in mind that you literally think they should have just sunk the ships. I'm sure in your mind that's preferable to letting them make landfall, too.
Not really.
If you don't think it was preferable, why do you desire it?
They were offered a chance to change course and make landfall at Ashdod port. They refused. At that point, screw them.
Ok. So I know that I can come to you for opinions involving the desire for vengeful actions that are pretty crazy and would never even be considered by the israelis. Insofar as realistic approaches to the israel situation go, though, I would have to consult others.
Like, seriously, the 'sink all the ships' approach is insane. Petty, too. It's the product of a mind willfully devoted to an extremist approach shut off from consideration of the consequences of israel's actions.
Israel's being stupid, but we (and they!) can be glad they aren't interested in being that stupid.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Samp. that's not her approach. She was saying "sink all the ships" rhetorically. I'm pretty sure she made that clear in an earlier post.
I think the argument is that Israel drew lines in the sand. And in order to maintain its own security, it cannot waiver, it cannot be subtle, and it must never compromise. It's like the policy of never negotiating with terrorists - once you begin to negotiate, you encourage 100s of other terrorists.
Israel continues to be subtle, it continues to try and fight as morally as it can - they sent in the operatives with paintball guns, and after suffering beatings and stabbings, they did what they had to do.
Mucus is right. The U.S. is not nearly as subtle and hairsplitting in its military objectives - yet it is winning the PR war.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lol. This is a start. israeli street teamin' social networking sites.
I'm curious if it would have gone better HAD the Israelis used real guns. The Free Gaza protestors may not have thought they were easy targets, and surrendered immediately.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Look, it's pretty simple. I don't believe that war is a game. Dumbass marquis of queensbury rules don't make sense. The aggressor has no right to do anything but stand down. And the aggressee has no responsibility to do anything but stop the aggressor from causing harm. By whatever means necessary.
This is just a mistaken theory of self defense.
If you come at me unarmed, and I have a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, I'm morally obligated to use the minimum necessary force to ensure my own defense. Namely the tazer. Using the gun is wrong.
The same reasoning applies doubly in war, where more lives are at stake.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If you come at me unarmed, and I have a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, I'm morally obligated to use the minimum necessary force to ensure my own defense.
The minimum necessary force required to ensure your own defense is always going to be the maximum available force.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: [QB] Samp. that's not her approach. She was saying "sink all the ships" rhetorically.
"They should have just sunk the damned ships"
yes, that's very rhetorical.
quote:Israel continues to be subtle, it continues to try and fight as morally as it can
'trying to fight as morally as it can,' to me, would necessitate taking the extra step of not actually invading the ships while they were still in international waters and making this a clearly illegal act. They are clearly fighting as morally as they can be arsed to, but with little other regard.
quote: they sent in the operatives with paintball guns, and after suffering beatings and stabbings, they did what they had to do.
That's an interesting whitewash. If you enter my house and I hit you with a lamp, you don't 'have' to shoot me. You have the additional option of leaving my house.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I'm curious if it would have gone better HAD the Israelis used real guns. The Free Gaza protestors may not have thought they were easy targets, and surrendered immediately.
It would have gone better if the Israelis had gone onto the ships once they were no longer in international waters, and done so after waiting for daylight, while carrying cameras to document their side and having appropriate levels of LTL crowd control. The way they did it was stupid on all levels and WILL degenerate israel's security situation and put the nation at further risk.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If you come at me unarmed, and I have a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, I'm morally obligated to use the minimum necessary force to ensure my own defense.
The minimum necessary force required to ensure your own defense is always going to be the maximum available force.
A flamethrower would be even more forceful yet may very well bring burn down the whole house with you in it.
At some point, increasing the force applied will result in undesirable consequences, even if we look at the question purely pragmatically.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh look.
quote:a PR hit is a security hit.
quote:Bad move. International waters. Taking the bait.
quote:I note that actions in war (or in boardings in international waters, which are most entirely a different thing) involve consequences that you want, and which you don't want. Smart leaders avoid these consequences. Dumb leaders 'solve' them in ways which create more problems down the line.
quote:And the real world continues to have consequences above and beyond the tactical, which is why in a situation where its really hardly ambiguous that Israel did the flotilla and the anti-israel forces of the world a favor
They've been around since 2006. What's your point?
They just launched a massive initiative to whitewash the issue on social networking sites.
PR crisis control attempt.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Steven. It's getting old.
Back off. I have no idea what you're talking about, but back off, in a general sense. You're nobody, to take that tone.
I'm nobody? Dude. Who talks like that? Just because we're on the internet doesn't give you an excuse to behave like a total jerk. Present your opinions. And back off of Lisa. I, frankly, don't enjoy hearing from you in a post that lacked all substance and was simply there to jab at someone.
Seriously, Armoth, I appreciate it, but don't get involved with steven. Nothing he says matters. To paraphrase something Pix once said, getting insulted by steven is like being made fun of by the retarded kid in the playground. I know I should be mad, but all I can do is laugh.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If you come at me unarmed, and I have a tazer in one hand and a gun in the other, I'm morally obligated to use the minimum necessary force to ensure my own defense.
The minimum necessary force required to ensure your own defense is always going to be the maximum available force.
A flamethrower would be even more forceful yet may very well bring burn down the whole house with you in it.
At some point, increasing the force applied will result in undesirable consequences, even if we look at the question purely pragmatically.
Or, similarly, a gun with poor stopping power may be more lethal but less effective in defense than a tazer.
A dart tipped with slow-acting poison would also be more lethal but less effective.
Anyway, I would be happy to amend the principle to say the minimum defense required to ensure your own defense to a reasonable level of certitude. For instance, if the tazer is 98% effective but non-lethal, and the gun is 99% effective and lethal, I would say you're obligated to use the tazer.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 'trying to fight as morally as it can,' to me, would necessitate taking the extra step of not actually invading the ships while they were still in international waters and making this a clearly illegal act.
"Illegal act"? There's nothing illegal about boarding ships which are violating a blockade.
Read this, and stop making ignorant accusations.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh look. ...
quote:That's an interesting whitewash. If you enter my house and I hit you with a lamp, you don't 'have' to shoot me. You have the additional option of leaving my house.
Good posts, man.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Read this, and stop making ignorant accusations.
quote:NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty
Thanks, Redstate.
lol, he says they were in the right to board the "terrorist boat"
fail.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: It's true. You're so right.
This is also right. Good posts, man.
Thanks man!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh look.
quote:a PR hit is a security hit.
quote:Bad move. International waters. Taking the bait.
quote:I note that actions in war (or in boardings in international waters, which are most entirely a different thing) involve consequences that you want, and which you don't want. Smart leaders avoid these consequences. Dumb leaders 'solve' them in ways which create more problems down the line.
quote:And the real world continues to have consequences above and beyond the tactical, which is why in a situation where its really hardly ambiguous that Israel did the flotilla and the anti-israel forces of the world a favor
Actually they announced they are opening the border but the gates won't swing open until Wednesday. We'll see if that actually happens.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 'trying to fight as morally as it can,' to me, would necessitate taking the extra step of not actually invading the ships while they were still in international waters and making this a clearly illegal act.
"Illegal act"? There's nothing illegal about boarding ships which are violating a blockade.
That is stupid. Your correction is ignorant, not the accusation. Redstate isn't even quoting a relevant law. They aren't even quoting law. They are quoting something which even they admit is not accepted under a maritime treaty between nations but which they apply as being "representative" of law.
Trust me, if Redstate could have found an actual law demonstrating how this was legal, they would not have felt it necessary to try to resort to stretching their case like this.
Ships in international waters remain sovereign territory of the flag that they fly and that this act was regretfully illegal under maritime law.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture
From Lisa's link, that definitely seems to show Israel had the legal right to attack it.
I wouldn't call it a bad PR move either. It doesn't seem to be changing anyones mind on the matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: From Lisa's link, that definitely seems to show Israel had the legal right to attack it.
I wouldn't call it a bad PR move either. It doesn't seem to be changing anyones mind on the matter.
1. That's not law. Even redstate admits that what they're quoting to evidence the 'legality' of the boarding isn't a treaty. it's got nothing to do with the convention of the law of the seas.
2. it is a bad pr move and it is bad for israel's security situation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Actually they announced they are opening the border but the gates won't swing open until Wednesday. We'll see if that actually happens.
Border's open, dude. It is open today. Thousands of Palestinians have crossed already at Rafah. Guardian has pictures.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I wouldn't call it a bad PR move either. It doesn't seem to be changing anyones mind on the matter.
What about the Egyptians?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's nice to see some civil discussion on this issue happening here. Maybe that isn't new; it's been quite a while since I followed threads on the subject here.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: From Lisa's link, that definitely seems to show Israel had the legal right to attack it.
Meh.
quote:1. Did Israel violate international law in boarding the ships?
Yes, it probably did.
Israel justifies the boarding of the ships in international waters basically as an act of self defence. It is Israels argument that the naval blockade of Gaza is needed to prevent Hamas in Gaza from attacking Israel.
However, notes Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International law at UBC, the test in international for constituting legal self defence is whether the action taken was necessary and proportionate. On the facts, the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent, Prof. Byers said.
To say that this blockade would be jeopardized by the flotilla and that sometime down the road weapons might come into Gaza as a result, and thereby pose a threat to Israel, is to stretch the definition of self defence way further than anyone ever countenanced.
The fact that commandoes may have encountered violent behaviour when they boarded the ships still is not justification for their use of deadly force, he added. The issue isnt whether the passengers were violent, but whether Israel should have boarded the ships in this way at all.
quote: It doesn't seem to be changing anyones mind on the matter.
Well.
quote:Less than three years ago Shimon Peres addressed the Turkish Grand National Assembly - Turkey's parliament - in Ankara.
It was the first time an Israeli president had addressed legislators in a Muslim country, a gesture which spoke volumes about the extraordinary relationship between Israel and Turkey, a relationship dating back to the early Turkish recognition of the Jewish state in 1949.
Uniquely among Muslim countries in the region, Turkey has strong trading ties with Israel.
The Turkish military buys weapons from Israel and trains with its armed forces, and in 2008 Turkey played host to more than half a million Israeli tourists, making it their favourite overseas holiday destination.
What has gone wrong?
Over the past 18 months the two countries have lurched from one diplomatic crisis to another, culminating in the furious Turkish response to Israel's botched blocking of a convoy from reaching Gaza.
Combine that with Egypt's above response and the fact that China will probably have an easier time opposing sanctions on Iran after this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Actually they announced they are opening the border but the gates won't swing open until Wednesday. We'll see if that actually happens.
Border's open, dude. It is open today. Thousands of Palestinians have crossed already at Rafah. Guardian has pictures.
From the article you linked,
"The decision...prompted dozens of people to race to the crossing point in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah, although the gates remained closed.
Officials in Egypt and Gaza said the crossing would open on Wednesday until further notice -- a step seen as an attempt by Cairo to deflect criticism of its role in imposing the blockade."
So people who are in need of medical assistance can come through, and those who are delivering aid into Gaza can come through. Palestinians who just want to enter Egypt, and buy a home, and find a job are not being allowed through. And seeing as how Islamists are likely going to be in control of Gaza for the foreseeable future, the border is not truly open.
[ June 01, 2010, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Anyway, I would be happy to amend the principle to say the minimum defense required to ensure your own defense to a reasonable level of certitude. For instance, if the tazer is 98% effective but non-lethal, and the gun is 99% effective and lethal, I would say you're obligated to use the tazer.
I don't agree.
While I think that risking your life to safeguard the well-being of your attacker is, in many cases, a morally superior act, I am not convinced that it's an obligation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think risking your life to safeguard the well-being of your attacker is a fundamentally immoral act, and thankfully, carries its own punishment more often than not.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
If there is a legal blockade and it is violated then Israel has a right to take action. Other boats were peaceful and had no issues. One boat started attacking Israeli authorities, so they defended themselves.
As Martin Lawrence would say, "What the problem is?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why is everyone assuming that boarding in international waters is illegal? A properly declared blockade may be enforced against neutral ships in any waters whatsoever. Or at any rate that's the doctrine Great Britain always followed when the Royal Navy was top dog. It's also the implicit doctrine the US followed when declaring the blockade in the Cuban Incident; those Russians were nowhere near American territorial waters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If there is a legal blockade and it is violated then Israel has a right to take action. Other boats were peaceful and had no issues. One boat started attacking Israeli authorities, so they defended themselves.
So, don't really see a problem here?
The problem was that this was an obvious trap, and Israel stupidly walked into it like they were playing their puppeteered part in a farce.
Don't want to create huge international outcry and degenerate your country's security situation? Don't shoot them once they start hitting you when you board their ship in international waters in a poorly-planned event. In fact, don't take the bait and board them in international waters at all.
That's what the problem is.
It's really pretty straightforward and simple. It should be even to the people who want to insist that they were right to board the ship, and will even contrive convoluted demi-legal justifications for it.
Even Israel's leaders realize that there is, definitely, a problem. Because, duh. Haaretz is reporting that there's a dust-up starting inside the Israeli government.
quote:Israeli ministers likely to demand probe of Gaza flotilla raid
Netanyahu convenes political-security cabinet; senior ministers fume after Gaza flotilla operation goes ahead without their approval.
Members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political-security cabinet were expected Tuesday to demand that a panel of inquiry be established to investigate how and why the decision was made to carry out a commando raid on a flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip.
Senior ministers have been sharply critical of the fact that the decision to seize control of the flotilla to Gaza was made after two meetings of the forum of seven senior ministers but without official deliberation by the inner cabinet, the body that has the authority to approve military actions of this scale.
With all this going on, it's a bit silly to sit back and wonder if there really is a problem. Here. There's problems. Look.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why is everyone assuming that boarding in international waters is illegal?
When you're making a legal argument, it involves what the law says. In this case, present-day maritime treaty. Present-day maritime treaty is different from maritime treaty many decades ago.
You could make a case that Israel used this precedent in thinking that they could get away with it cause others did, but that's different than talking about whether or not the act was illegal.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Which treaty is involved?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Anyway, I would be happy to amend the principle to say the minimum defense required to ensure your own defense to a reasonable level of certitude. For instance, if the tazer is 98% effective but non-lethal, and the gun is 99% effective and lethal, I would say you're obligated to use the tazer.
I don't agree.
While I think that risking your life to safeguard the well-being of your attacker is, in many cases, a morally superior act, I am not convinced that it's an obligation.
Fair enough.
I should emphasize that all I need to prove Lisa wrong is the fact that it's wrong to use a lethal method when a non-lethal method of equal or greater effectiveness is available.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Samprimary you have yet to post a single relevent link to show that this is indeed a violation of international law and thus far have been shown many links that it IS perfectly legal under international law and consensus.
Smarten up boy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
What about the Globe and Mail link he provided earlier?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or this:
quote: Israel may face problems justifying the legality of its decision to storm the Turkish aid ship in international waters (writes Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor). Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are regarded as not belonging to any nation
Boarding a vessel is acceptable in certain circumstances, such as when a boat is suspected of terrorist activities or carrying weapons of mass destruction, but even then Israel, for example, would need to seek permission from the country where the boat is registered, in this case Turkey
Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention
Israel declared a 20-mile exclusion zone off its shores, warning pro-Palestinian activists to stay away. Yesterdays raid took place some 40 miles outside the exclusion zone
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Samprimary you have yet to post a single relevent link to show that this is indeed a violation of international law and thus far have been shown many links that it IS perfectly legal under international law and consensus.
I have been shown A link by lisa and it was not a valid legal argument. Meanwhile, multiple people have piped up with information on the legality of the event that shows otherwise. Don't fail your thread-reading comprehension roll.
quote:Smarten up boy.
Hmm. Still smarting to the extent you'll try to pick fights in other threads?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So, don't really see a problem here?
The problem was that this was an obvious trap, and Israel stupidly walked into it like they were playing their puppeteered part in a farce.
Don't want to create huge international outcry and degenerate your country's security situation? Don't shoot them once they start hitting you when you board their ship in international waters in a poorly-planned event. In fact, don't take the bait and board them in international waters at all.
That's what the problem is.
It's really pretty straightforward and simple. It should be even to the people who want to insist that they were right to board the ship, and will even contrive convoluted demi-legal justifications for it.
I still don't see what the problem is. Whether it was bait or not, they were perfectly justified in their actions. Have you even read the reports? When the activists started attacking the Israelis, they first used non-lethal force, including paintballs. When order could not be restored, they resorted to lethal force.
They tried to calm them down and end the conflict peacefully. When that didn't work they used non-lethal force. When that still didn't work they used lethal force.
If they had just stormed the ship guns blazing then I would have an issue with it. As it stands though, Israel did what they had to do.
Bait or not, if the people on that boat went in with the intention of causing an international incident then screw them. If you want peace, practice what you preach. Don't go in with the intent of causing a ruckus and then claim to be victims.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Samprimary you have yet to post a single relevent link to show that this is indeed a violation of international law and thus far have been shown many links that it IS perfectly legal under international law and consensus.
I have been shown A link by lisa and it was not a valid legal argument. Meanwhile, multiple people have piped up with information on the legality of the event that shows otherwise. Don't fail your thread-reading comprehension roll.
quote:Smarten up boy.
Hmm. Still smarting to the extent you'll try to pick fights in other threads?
And multiple people have also piped up the opposite that you are wrong boy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And multiple people have also piped up the opposite that you are wrong boy.
What's with calling me 'boy?' Is it just a step before you flip out in this thread too?
If so, please cut directly to the childish obscenities. No need to start slow when your course is so ruefully predictable.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I still don't see what the problem is. Whether it was bait or not, they were perfectly justified in their actions. Have you even read the reports? When the activists started attacking the Israelis, they first used non-lethal force, including paintballs. When order could not be restored, they resorted to lethal force.
This has been said before: why not just leave? Let the ship go for now and wait for a more advantageous time to arrest the people on it.
Also, the claim on the table is that their mistake was boarding the ship in the first place.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And multiple people have also piped up the opposite that you are wrong boy.
What's with calling me 'boy?'
Racial epithet? Are you black, Samp?
Kidding! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Samprimary you have yet to post a single relevent link to show that this is indeed a violation of international law and thus far have been shown many links that it IS perfectly legal under international law and consensus.
I have been shown A link by lisa and it was not a valid legal argument. Meanwhile, multiple people have piped up with information on the legality of the event that shows otherwise. Don't fail your thread-reading comprehension roll.
quote:Smarten up boy.
Hmm. Still smarting to the extent you'll try to pick fights in other threads?
And multiple people have also piped up the opposite that you are wrong boy.
Blayne, just take a step back and cool off before you continue this discussion. Right now you are addressing Samp more than the actual issue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I still don't see what the problem is.
There are both problems and controversies with this event. Without even commenting on which party was 'in the right,' the events have caused both for Israel and, in many ways, aided those who wish to destabilize their security.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And multiple people have also piped up the opposite that you are wrong boy.
What's with calling me 'boy?'
Racial epithet? Are you black, Samp?
I'm the polar opposite, but at least I don't burn easy.
Despite having a ye Fairest of the Faire princessey-white complexion prior to getting tanned.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Blayne, just take a step back and cool off before you continue this discussion. Right now you are addressing Samp more than the actual issue.
Okay.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I still don't see what the problem is.
There are both problems and controversies with this event. Without even commenting on which party was 'in the right,' the events have caused both for Israel and, in many ways, aided those who wish to destabilize their security.
I agree with you on this. When I first turned on the news this morning they made it seem like Israel had just gone over and attacked these people for no reason. It wasn't until I read more about it that I learned they didn't do that.
I think this has the potential to backfire on the activists though. If they were given instruction to cause problems, then harsher action could come down on future ships carrying aid. They took a risk and they hope this will make Israel look like the bad guys.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Or this:
quote: Israel may face problems justifying the legality of its decision to storm the Turkish aid ship in international waters (writes Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor). Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are regarded as not belonging to any nation
Boarding a vessel is acceptable in certain circumstances, such as when a boat is suspected of terrorist activities or carrying weapons of mass destruction, but even then Israel, for example, would need to seek permission from the country where the boat is registered, in this case Turkey
Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention
Israel declared a 20-mile exclusion zone off its shores, warning pro-Palestinian activists to stay away. Yesterdays raid took place some 40 miles outside the exclusion zone
I've been looking through the convention of the law of the sea, and it makes no mention of blockades. Consequently what is legal under blockade conditions is still regulated by the older conventions, the 1856 Treaty of Paris and the 1910 Declaration of London. These treaties allow you to stop and board neutral ships in international waters.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I think this has the potential to backfire on the activists though. If they were given instruction to cause problems, then harsher action could come down on future ships carrying aid.
I'm sure plenty of aid will come in through the now-open border with Egypt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry Samp, but if you don't burn easy, you do not have the fairest of the Faire princessey-white complexion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They don't hope. They know. They succeeded.
This is what you're not catching on to with this situation: the issues you don't see when you are asking 'what the problem is' is that the problems are already there, and manifest, but you seem inclined to believe that they'll readily be turned against the activists.
It's really too late for that. This is a blow to Israel. One that's so bad that it practically requires that they be protected by momma United States yet again. The US will invariably block and soften resolutions, but they've already earned themselves a complete fallout with Turkey, lost Egypt's blockade, weakened their international situation.
It could have played out differently if Israel hadn't gone about this in such a completely retarded way. They could have waited until the flotilla was out of international waters. They could have committed to the raid under better circumstances, and brought documentation crew. Went on board with effective crowd suppression. Just done anything that prevented them from waltzing right into this like a bunch of dunderheads.
When a state acts like this, they empower violent resistance. They empower a pack of about 30 clods wielding sticks to completely implode international ties and score a major victory against Israel. Admiral ackbar would be proud.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm sorry Samp, but if you don't burn easy, you do not have the fairest of the Faire princessey-white complexion.
It takes me about 45-50 minutes in the sun to burn exposed skin. The typical expected burn time for my skin tone is something like 15 minutes. 9 out of 10 dermatologists agree i do not make sense. Past usage of skin treatments and tetracycline may be at issue!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If there is a legal blockade and it is violated then Israel has a right to take action. Other boats were peaceful and had no issues. One boat started attacking Israeli authorities, so they defended themselves.
As Martin Lawrence would say, "What the problem is?"
The key word in this is "if". The legality of the blockade is (at a minimum) heavily disputed. The impact of the blockade on the economy and living conditions in Gaza has been disastrous.
What the Israelis seem to be missing is that the objective of this aid flotilla was not solely, or even principally, to get aid to the Palestinians living in the Gaza. It was to draw attention to the blockade, its questionable standing and the impact its having on Palestinians.
By allowing the situation to escalate to violence and killing, the Israelis made this a major international news story and a thus a massive success for people whose goal was to draw attention to the blockade. Because the Israelis killed a bunch of activists, this is headline news and lots of people who'd never heard of the blockade and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza are now talking about it and many of them are going to side with groups like Amnesty International who believe the blockade is immoral and illegal.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I've been looking through the convention of the law of the sea, and it makes no mention of blockades.
It makes no mention of them because article 24 basically says that there are no naval blockades. This also seems to be Canada's legal interpretation of the charter (as below).
What it does note are certain narrow criteria for when vessels can be boarded which is what the Times Online is referring to in the second and third points.
quote:Naval blockades, such as those during the Cuban missile crisis and the recent Persian Gulf war, are popular military tools for bringing about political compliance. Blockades are, however, prima facie breaches of the LOSC as they interfere with freedom of navigation on the HS. The law of the sea does not, however, exist in isolation from all other international law; naval blockades may be legitimized if they are supported by a United Nations Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter. The blockade of Iraq had such authority;(51) the blockade of Cuba did not.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What the Israelis seem to be missing is that the objective of this aid flotilla was not solely, or even principally, to get aid to the Palestinians living in the Gaza. It was to draw attention to the blockade, its questionable standing and the impact its having on Palestinians.
By allowing the situation to escalate to violence and killing, the Israelis made this a major international news story and a thus a massive success for people whose goal was to draw attention to the blockade. Because the Israelis killed a bunch of activists, this is headline news and lots of people who'd never heard of the blockade and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza are now talking about it and many of them are going to side with groups like Amnesty International who believe the blockade is immoral and illegal.
In case people missed this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Blayne, just take a step back and cool off before you continue this discussion. Right now you are addressing Samp more than the actual issue.
Okay.
Thanks Blayne. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
A positive Op-Ed on CNN.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
A flotilla carrying weapons is properly called an armada.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yesterday, 12:16 PM:
quote:An argument I think we will all start seeing soon is that cement is a war supply, since it can be used to construct improved fighting positions like bunkers. Expect to see that talking point bandied about in the coming days.
Today, 1:12 PM:
quote:What is it doing allowing its nationals to smuggle cement that could build bunkers?
Man, he nailed it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Yeah, he mentions bunkers three times, makes no mention of anything else that would disqualify the cargo as humanitarian aid, and then rails about whether Iran has nuclear material. What does any of this have to do with Gaza?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
They could have passed it through Ashdod as they were asked to. They were trying to break the blockade. Guess what? The blockade remains unbroken.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... They were trying to break the blockade.
Well:
quote:The Israeli Foreign Ministry had harsh words for the organizers of the flotilla. These people are not supporting the Palestinians and they are not even supporting humanitarian causes, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. They are engaged in only one thing, and that is to create provocations and to collaborate with Hamas propaganda.
Success on both counts really. I don't think the people on the boats really thought they would be able to sneak past the Israeli navy, especially with journalists aboard. The much more realistic point was, well, bait. As in the title of the thread.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They could have passed it through Ashdod as they were asked to. They were trying to break the blockade. Guess what? The blockade remains unbroken.
You don't see how the tactical "victory" was irrelevant? This is really not something you have figured out?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They could have passed it through Ashdod as they were asked to. They were trying to break the blockade. Guess what? The blockade remains unbroken.
quote:I think one of the ways that Israel shoots itself in the foot constantly is that they approach situations with a "tactical advantage above all else" attitude.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Nice that you're so concerned about Israel "shooting itself in the foot". I don't think you care the least bit about that, though. I think it's just a clever way for you to criticize Israel when the evidence is clearly against you.
"I can't demonstrate that Israel did something wrong, so I'll call them idiots for not doing things the way I would."
Boring.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
A tactical victory? Perhaps in the short term. If they had not gone there with the express purpose of CAUSING the issue I would have more sympathy for them.
On the radio last night a CBS reporter said that some of the the "activists" had firearms on board, and it wasn't until one was discharged that Israel took steps to protect themselves.
This did not help the activists cause. If they want to deliver aid to Gaza things just got a whole lot tougher on them. Now that they have attacked Israeli troops Israel is likely to come down harder on them now in the long term, not back off.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What was the source for the CBS news report?
Right now the story being told by the activists that have returned to Europe is dramatically different from the story being told by Israeli officials. Until a neutral party investigates the event, I'm not prone to believe the stories coming from either side.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Geraine: The next two boats will probably be very happy to hear that Israel is likely to come down harder on them.
[ June 02, 2010, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Or not.
quote:JERUSALEM Israel and Egypt signaled a temporary easing of the Gaza Strip blockade Tuesday following harsh international condemnation of the deadly Israeli raid on an aid flotilla en route to the sealed-off Palestinian territory.
Now that the border between Gaza and Egypt is open, the IDF should go in and march every single last one of them across that border into Sinai, and seal it back up again. And the entire Katif Strip should be settled. Not just the part that was destroyed by Ariel Sharon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nice that you're so concerned about Israel "shooting itself in the foot". I don't think you care the least bit about that, though. I think it's just a clever way for you to criticize Israel when the evidence is clearly against you.
What does this even mean? It doesn't make sense even as a supposition of my motive. What evidence is against me? All you've contributed to the discussion is
1. handwaving and 'who cares,' 'big deal' 2. you wish they had just sunk the ships 3. a redstate link giving the 'legal' argument that it was legal to board the flotilla, which was easily shot down because it didn't even cite relevant law, or anything that was international maritime law at all 4. claims that avoiding the security hit is better because <here's two links about some other unrelated security issues> abstrusely used to try to make the case that this was more preferable 5. Some side talk about how 'the only thing wrong' with this operation was that the soldiers didn't get to be violent enough, essentially (this was funny)
THEN
6. Moving straight to concluding that I just like to criticize israel in clever ways when the evidence "is not on my side" 7. more handwaving ("boring, boooring, don't care, big deal, boring, i'm so bored over here, YAWN") 8. ??? 9. Profit?
Remember, kids: the best way to destroy one's image of being able or willing to present a good faith argument is to pull this kind of crap. Lisa, do better, or don't try at all. Actually demonstrate the evidence is clearly against me before you try to front that kind of statement, or you're subject trolling with preconclusive arrogance.
Thanks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Now that the border between Gaza and Egypt is open, the IDF should go in and march every single last one of them across that border into Sinai, and seal it back up again. And the entire Katif Strip should be settled. Not just the part that was destroyed by Ariel Sharon.
I think I get it now. I think you're a sleeper agent who craves israel's failure.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nice that you're so concerned about Israel "shooting itself in the foot". I don't think you care the least bit about that, though. I think it's just a clever way for you to criticize Israel when the evidence is clearly against you.
"I can't demonstrate that Israel did something wrong, so I'll call them idiots for not doing things the way I would."
Boring.
This is an ad hominem.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nice that you're so concerned about Israel "shooting itself in the foot". I don't think you care the least bit about that, though. I think it's just a clever way for you to criticize Israel when the evidence is clearly against you.
"I can't demonstrate that Israel did something wrong, so I'll call them idiots for not doing things the way I would."
Boring.
This is an ad hominem.
Clearly you don't understand what the ad hominem fallacy is. Pointing out that Sam is a jerk is not an ad hominem. Saying, "Sam is a jerk, and Sam is bitching about Israel. So bitching about Israel is clearly a jerk thing to do" is an ad hominem.
I didn't say that. Sam has failed to show that Israel did anything either morally or legally wrong. Rather than back down, he switched lanes, so to speak, and started attacking Israel for not doing a good job at public relations.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nice that you're so concerned about Israel "shooting itself in the foot". I don't think you care the least bit about that, though. I think it's just a clever way for you to criticize Israel when the evidence is clearly against you.
"I can't demonstrate that Israel did something wrong, so I'll call them idiots for not doing things the way I would."
Boring.
This is an ad hominem.
Clearly you don't understand what the ad hominem fallacy is. Pointing out that Sam is a jerk is not an ad hominem. Saying, "Sam is a jerk, and Sam is bitching about Israel. So bitching about Israel is clearly a jerk thing to do" is an ad hominem.
I didn't say that. Sam has failed to show that Israel did anything either morally or legally wrong. Rather than back down, he switched lanes, so to speak, and started attacking Israel for not doing a good job at public relations.
Sorry, I was assuming what you said was supposed to somehow bear on the topic under discussion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, even if you don't get that Samp's first post was supposed to be about how Israel is harming its own self interest, his second post is obviously concerned with just the point you accuse him of "switching lanes" to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Heh. Really?
I 'switched lanes' even though the whole idea that Israel goofed up is the major underpinning of my original post, second post in thread and response to you, consistent through the entire thread, etc. The whole legal issue got chimed in on later.
Man, you could be further off the mark, but not by much. I almost wonder if there is some alternate thread that you are inhibiting, somewhere, and conflating it with this one when you bust in and start making dismissals like how the evidence is clearly against me.
Interesting.
I wonder how often you make the spurious jump to concluding people's motives based on the "evidence being clearly against" them, without bothering to go to that silly little step of actually clearly demonstrating any such thing. Perhaps the evidence is clearly against me in your mind. I don't doubt it! In terms of actually presenting it, however, you've fallen rather depressingly short.
Perhaps you're still stuck on the whole part where the Redstate link offered no valid justification for Israel's actions, yet you presented it so conclusively as though it so clearly, verifiably, unassailably did. That would certainly be interesting, especially considering that the author of the bit themselves even offered the caveat that what we were looking at was inconveniently not even legally relevant.
Whoops Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Now that the border between Gaza and Egypt is open, the IDF should go in and march every single last one of them across that border into Sinai, and seal it back up again. And the entire Katif Strip should be settled. Not just the part that was destroyed by Ariel Sharon.
I think I get it now. I think you're a sleeper agent who craves israel's failure.
On the subject of ad homs, gentlemen, this is how it's done: To accuse the opponent of being a traitor who advocates a course of action only because she favours the destruction of her nation, now, that's ad hom!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
thanks dude!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Now that the border between Gaza and Egypt is open, the IDF should go in and march every single last one of them across that border into Sinai, and seal it back up again. And the entire Katif Strip should be settled. Not just the part that was destroyed by Ariel Sharon.
I think I get it now. I think you're a sleeper agent who craves israel's failure.
On the subject of ad homs, gentlemen, this is how it's done: To accuse the opponent of being a traitor who advocates a course of action only because she favours the destruction of her nation, now, that's ad hom!
Yeah, true.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
This is a thing of beauty. I think this may be the first time I've ever seen or heard anything with Glenn Beck in it. But he explains the situation in clear and simple terms so that even a leftist can understand.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, Beck is never hard to understand.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the flotilla was made up of peace-loving people who we'd like to have over for dinner.
Some of us have, off and on, been suggesting that the nine of them who died didn't deserve to.
Juan Cole has some relevant thoughts. Not saying I completely agree, but they provide a better-informed counterpoint to some of what Beck says.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
He still (as always) comes across as condescending, arrogant, and a spin-meister.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Cool, glenn beck explains the situation in clear and simple enough terms to counter all of the claims we're not making.
I feel so edified I almost want to run out and buy some gold at marked-up prices Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: He still (as always) comes across as condescending, arrogant, and a spin-meister.
beck, Misinformer of the Year 2009, is really really really good at spin and whitewash in that sort of way that certain demographics totally eat up. That one right there looks like it was scientifically designed to hypnotize likudniks.
It's admirable, in a way. It's a way to compress all the crazy into a half hour. It's too bad people figured out he's kinda unforgivably nuts and his viewership is dropping.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: It's too bad people figured out he's kinda unforgivably nuts and his viewership is dropping.
Unfortunately, the explanation is probably just that he's not "fresh" anymore.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think his (Beck) TV show is much better than his radio program.
I don't like most of his ideas, but he certainly does alot of work to run a radio and TV show on a daily basis.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: It's too bad people figured out he's kinda unforgivably nuts and his viewership is dropping.
Unfortunately, the explanation is probably just that he's not "fresh" anymore.
Maybe exactly that, in that his histrionic antics (for more on the subject, see the stewart pantomime) are bound to cause outrage fatigue.
Or, in his case, paranoia fatigue.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
It is kind of appropriate that the person who takes the position that they should have just sunk all the "terrorist ships" and should respond to the Egypt border opening with a brute mass removal and Jewish conquest of the region has discovered Glenn Beck in the process of finding people who agree with her.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Speaking of ad hominems...
I mean, honestly. You called me on an ad hominem that wasn't even an ad hominem, but you seem to think it's just fine when you engage in them.
Forget that it's Glenn Beck who said that. Pretend it was Janeane Garafalo, or some other darling of the left. It's what a person says that matters; not who says it. That's why the ad hominem argument is a fallacy.
[ June 03, 2010, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I did say that his claims are beside the point, for purposes of this discussion, since no one here is trying to defend the good character of the activists on the flotilla.
They'd still be beside the point even if spoken by the goddess Garofalo.
[ June 03, 2010, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Forget that it's Glenn Beck who said that. Pretend it was Janeane Garafalo, or some other darling of the left. It's what a person says that matters; not who says it. That's why the ad hominem argument is a fallacy.
Okay.
"Gosh, Lisa, since when did Janeane Garafalo turn into such a smug idiot? And are you under the impression that what she just said in your link relates to OUR argument? Just wondering".
This is fun.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Okay. So you all deny that you're trying to justify the flotilla. And you deny that you're trying to bash Israel for not acting in a way you think would give them better PR (as though anything in the world would do that).
Sounds like you're pretty much talking about nothing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Meanwhile, countries like Turkey are finding out that Israel isn't the only country that can shoot itself in the foot. Linky Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Um, yeah. The issue is that no matter who glenn beck is, what he's saying is irrelevant to any case we've made here. I'm sorry, maybe because he's counteracting a claim that 'even we lefties' are supposed to be able to understand, it's supposed to be our claim. idk.
I admit it's completely unsurprising that you found your way to actually honestly quoting Glenn Beck, seeing as how Free Republic and Redstate have already been cited by you.
I'll keep my eye open for Newsmax or Michelle Malkin. :/
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Sounds like you're pretty much talking about nothing.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who cares?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Big deal.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Yawn.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And you deny that you're trying to bash Israel for not acting in a way you think would give them better PR
I thought this was exactly what we were doing, minus some of the connotations of the word "bashing."
At least, the point I've been trying to argue for is that Israel has undermined its own best interests by generating such awful PR for itself.
I've also been trying to argue that, while the flotilla's crew may have been a bunch of awful terrorist-supporting people doing the wrong thing by running the blockade, the Israelis were also wrong to board the ship and to kill those nine people.
quote:Meanwhile, countries like Turkey are finding out that Israel isn't the only country that can shoot itself in the foot.
It certainly isn't the only one.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Okay, while he did describe things fairly well, this clip shows that he's a bit delusional when it comes to the non-FOX media.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Meanwhile, countries like Turkey are finding out that Israel isn't the only country that can shoot itself in the foot. Linky
It's too bad that won't work on the other Muslim countries.
Wait, it would...but we'd actually have to start investing in alternative energy, to really hit them in the pocketbook. Heavens to Betsy! What a terrible idea!
I figured out that getting off oil was the REAL solution to all this stuff back in November 2001.
I'm counting the years until everybody else catches up with that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I just read Debbie Schlussel's articles on this event.
She's a complete and utter child. Like, a total stewpot of ridiculous islamophobia and misinformation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol, israel just killed the quadro Scuba Squad of Awesome. looks like gaza's getting attacks on the sea there now.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And now Iran wants to get in on this. I think at this point President Obama needs to say that intentionally trying to run the blockade as a means to score political points is ridiculous and needs to stop.
Israel shouldn't have to deal with this constantly. At this point, it's not about aid at all, it's about spinning things so ignorant folks at these country's home towns who don't know better think Israel is trying to starve the Palestinians.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Israel shouldn't have to deal with this constantly.
They shouldn't, which is why it is important for them to not act like retards. They can aspire to not exacerbate these situations like they totally did here.
Figures you'd post a link to Ma'an. Why not go directly to the PA website and get their official take.
The only person acting like a retard here is you. And it's kind of funny, because ordinarily you come across as an adult, at least. Now you just sound like a bitchy little baby.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: there's no need to post your second sentence, you know exactly what it's going to lead to.
What exactly is MA'AN btw, I suppose I could do my own research right now, but you seem to know something about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think at this point President Obama needs to say that intentionally trying to run the blockade as a means to score political points is ridiculous and needs to stop.
*L* I don't think the people that are involved in either effort listed in the article will listen to Obama. Heck, I don't think Israel itself is much inclined to listen to Obama much either.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... What exactly is MA'AN btw, I suppose I could do my own research right now, but you seem to know something about it.
Ma'an does look sketchy, but CNN is running essentially the same story with an Israeli admission, so meh. Gaza convoy tapes edited, Israel acknowledges Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: No, they don't. There might be more that US could do, but I think at this point we need to at least get behind Israel on this particular matter.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Why? What possible benefit is there*?
You get covered in by tar in association by Israel with no possible change in how people actually treat the blockade. In fact, they might even be extra encouraged to go challenge the blockage to stick it to the US, especially in the Iranian case.
(foreign benefit, I can see a domestic American benefit to make Americans feel good about themselves)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: there's no need to post your second sentence, you know exactly what it's going to lead to.
What exactly is MA'AN btw, I suppose I could do my own research right now, but you seem to know something about it.
It's a Pallywood misinformation service.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only person acting like a retard here is you. And it's kind of funny, because ordinarily you come across as an adult, at least. Now you just sound like a bitchy little baby.
Strangely, out of the two of us, I am not the one posting these incensed and immature things!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... What exactly is MA'AN btw, I suppose I could do my own research right now, but you seem to know something about it.
The only editing was to remove dead air. When people complained about that, they immediately posted the whole thing, uncut. "Admission", my ass.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The only editing was to remove dead air.
That is not true. They re edited it to string together stuff and make it seem like the immediate response from specific ships to the Israel fleet, and they made this an official release.
You also need to calm down and act more mature if you are going to criticize other people for their maturity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... The only editing was to remove dead air. When people complained about that, they immediately posted the whole thing, uncut. "Admission", my ass.
Meh, it's CNN's headline, not mine. And considering how right-wing biased CNN is, it is probably the "best" (pro-Israeli) you'll get on an actual news outlet outside of Israel.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Why? What possible benefit is there*?
You get covered in by tar in association by Israel with no possible change in how people actually treat the blockade. In fact, they might even be extra encouraged to go challenge the blockage to stick it to the US, especially in the Iranian case.
(foreign benefit, I can see a domestic American benefit to make Americans feel good about themselves)
Not much foreign benefit, we are already perceived as favoring Israel far too much. But it's a simple matter of recognizing that Israel has the right to blockade its coast. If Iran is going to force the issue, I think it would be kinda fun to try to run the blockade (Iran's Blockade) with boats carrying a cargo of free press newspapers and news magazines.
[ June 07, 2010, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... The only editing was to remove dead air. When people complained about that, they immediately posted the whole thing, uncut. "Admission", my ass.
Meh, it's CNN's headline, not mine. And considering how right-wing biased CNN is, it is probably the "best" (pro-Israeli) you'll get on an actual news outlet outside of Israel.
Wait. CNN is "right-wing biased"? So what would you consider left-wing biased? This? Or is that "right-wing biased" as well.
You have to be a complete fruitbat to think that CNN is "right-wing biased". Or that any network that has Christiane Amanpour "reporting" on Israel could ever be considered "pro-Israeli".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: I've never heard anybody accuse CNN of having a right-wing bias. If anything, I've only heard right-wing folks say that CNN is too leftist.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I consider CNN to be more to the right than to the left. Less so than FOX, of course, or CBS and ABC. A tad more to the right of MSNBC.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Is lisa just going to keep namecalling?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I consider CNN to be more to the right than to the left. Less so than FOX, of course, or CBS and ABC. A tad more to the right of MSNBC.
I think MSNBC is quite a bit to the left. But then again left in the US is quite a bit to the right.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... You have to be a complete fruitbat to think that CNN is "right-wing biased".
Or you know, just not American or Israeli. But I appreciate your insult and thoughtfulness it conveys.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus: I've never heard anybody accuse CNN of having a right-wing bias. If anything, I've only heard right-wing folks say that CNN is too leftist.
*shrug* Take a list of actual news organizations, international or otherwise, The Economist, BBC, CBC, Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, IHT, and so forth and you'll quickly see that CNN generally sorts to the right and in many cases is seen as a corporate counterpart to Voice of America.
Thats why CNN was specifically targeted by the likes of Anti-CNN regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
And more to my specific point, in this grand world of news reporting, who would be a major credible source of pro-Israel articles if not CNN?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Is lisa just going to keep namecalling?
You didn't seem troubled when Sam was calling Israel retarded.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think there's a big difference with thinking that israel is on the whole retarded, which is why I can bother to care when they're, disappointingly, acting like retards. It's positive in the sense that I can at least expect better of them.
But thank you for hinting at a sort of a justification of your actions, however not-really-applicably, on mine. I am glad to know that despite your low opinion of me you'll still use me as an excuse for your own behavior.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
So basically, you'll continue being an ass?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
You both could be more civil. Now come on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So basically, you'll continue being an ass?
My post has nothing to do with how I intend to act in the future. I'll note that I am neither acting as childishly as you nor am I calling you names like you're calling me names. If you care to set any benchmark, you have gone lower. Which is why at the very least while you continue to devolve into outright emotional hostility and the namecalling that invariably follows, don't bother coaching it in tu quoque.
You don't inspire any faith in your position when you start by just declaring 'big deal' and 'who cares' and, essentially, handwaving, and then despite how much you apparently don't care about the argument proper, deciding to flood it with bad facts and dismissive gestures.
But back to the subject of the last two posts: Kind of missing the point, aren't you? I know you know what tu quoque is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you care to set any benchmark, you have gone lower.
Why do you care what benchmark she sets?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
This is ludicrous.
Every freaking thread seems to turn into a "who can act more childish" contest, a self-perpetuating descent into irrelevancy, where name-calling replaces discussion.
I didn't think that anything would ever make me long for the days of AOL, but seeing how much this board has devolved makes me nostalgic for the sound of a dial-up modem.
Way to go guys, way to go.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If you care to set any benchmark, you have gone lower.
Why do you care what benchmark she sets?
I don't, really, I'd prefer no confrontation at all.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:I don't, really, I'd prefer no confrontation at all.
Riiiiight. My very limited view of your posting style seems to indicate your love of confrontation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
My daughter turned 18 yesterday. She lives in Israel. In Maaleh Adumim, as it happens, which is outside the 1949 armistice lines. My son will turn 16 on June 19. You think this is some theoretical game of mental masturbation where you can sit back and make asinine judgements from afar. But my children are the ones who stand to pay the price for your idiocy.
This whole thread started because Israel boarded a boat full of terrorists and terror supporters. Not all the boats in the flotilla were. Some actually contained activists who, while maybe well meaning, were in the wrong. But the Mavi Marmara was carrying missiles and other serious armaments.
Did Israel know that? No, but you'd have to be an ass not to suspect it. The Arabs have made a regular practice of transporting arms in ambulances and firing missiles from civilian sites. And it turned out this ship was no exception to that rule.
Tell you what, Sam. The day you have a nation of savages clamoring (slavering) for your blood and for the destruction of your country, then you can open your overly large mouth and maybe have it mean something.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:But my children are the ones who will pay the price for your idiocy.
Someone's children always pay. Such is the true nature of humanity that people can say "I'd rather it be your children than mine."
quote:The Arabs have made a regular practice of transporting arms in ambulances and firing missiles from civilian sites.
The Arabs. Really? All of them? Because I was at my friends house yesterday and apparently I must have missed the weapon smuggling ambulance departing between dinner and dessert.
quote:Tell you what, Sam. The day you have a nation of savages clamoring (slavering) for your blood and for the destruction of your country, then you can open your overly large mouth and maybe have it mean something.
Wha...?!? I'm pretty sure the same "savages" that want to destroy Israel would also like to destroy the U.S...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:I don't, really, I'd prefer no confrontation at all.
Riiiiight. My very limited view of your posting style seems to indicate your love of confrontation.
No, seriously, I'll completely indulge in confrontation. Yet, to me, the optimal situation is to have it so that you could start a thread on Israel and not have her jump at the earliest opportunity to pepper it with indefensibly extremist views and pretty bald emotional hatred.
Her first post in thread was seriously who cares, i wish they had just sunk the ships. Even going so far as to point out the ridiculousness of this position is enough to count as provocation.
But sure, I'm amenable to changing my tone, even when I am, in turn, provoked by her. Because I can see how annoying we both can be to the rest of the forum!
But, it's worth checking through the thread and seeing the nature and ramping of our interactions.
quote:My daughter turned 18 yesterday. She lives in Israel. In Maaleh Adumim, as it happens, which is outside the 1949 armistice lines. My son will turn 16 on June 19. You think this is some theoretical game of mental masturbation where you can sit back and make asinine judgements from afar. But my children are the ones who stand to pay the price for your idiocy.
man, the best thing I could possibly do for your kids is keep Israel safe from what people like you would do to it if they got their way. Imagine if you'd gotten your wish and israel had just balls-out sunk the ships: boom, their lives just got harder. Israel's situation as a whole gets more screwed up for a good long stretch of time. The less credible you are, the better off your kids ultimately are. I'm happy for that. I'm happy for them!
Also, I'm not going to accept the presentation about the Mavi Maramara having missiles on that. You're not really credible enough to offer that on faith. I'd accept some credible news reports on it, of course, since I'd like to find out if there were actually missiles on board the ship. but right now, I straight up don't believe you!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
At least by US law, what Israel did was entirely legal.
Breach of blockade is the passage of a vessel or aircraft through a blockade without special entry or exit authorization from the blockading belligerent. Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade, and for vessels exiting the blockaded area, continues until the voyage is completed. Knowledge of the existence of the blockade is essential to the offenses of breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade. Knowledge may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification provided to affected governments. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels or aircraft are bound for a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area. (Capture of such vessels is discussed in paragraph 7.10.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, I'm not going to accept the presentation about the Mavi Maramara having missiles on that. You're not really credible enough to offer that on faith. I'd accept some credible news reports on it, of course, since I'd like to find out if there were actually missiles on board the ship. but right now, I straight up don't believe you!
7.7.4 is in regards for when a blockade of one country is being initiated onto another country and this act is being sanctioned under an act of war. It's not applicable, technically, to the situation in Gaza. 7.7.2.5 renders Israel's action arguably illegal under US law anyway so it's not like they're going to use US law to defend their actions, so what US law says about the matter is a red herring.
Still waiting for credible evidence that there were missiles on the Mavi Maramara.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, I'm not going to accept the presentation about the Mavi Maramara having missiles on that. You're not really credible enough to offer that on faith. I'd accept some credible news reports on it, of course, since I'd like to find out if there were actually missiles on board the ship. but right now, I straight up don't believe you!
This is a video that shows me some missiles. Are they purported to have been on the ship? Is this actually a news site? What does the news site say? All are a mystery.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It looks like the Israeli equivalent of youtube. Clearly, this is amazingly credible.
Note that the actual article from Israeli's own propaganda doesn't even go to the extreme lengths of claiming that they found missiles. The most they can do are kitchen knives, metal rods, clubs, and sticks.
I can only imagine the ribbing Blayne would get if he linked to something that was more propaganda than Xinhua Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It looks like the Israeli equivalent of youtube. Clearly, this is amazingly credible.
Note that the actual article from Israeli's own propaganda doesn't even go to the extreme lengths of claiming that they found missiles.
You wanna know something funny about the picture of the bulletproof vests on your link? Some people looked up its EXIF data and it's a picture that's been on file from, I think, 2007.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, I'm not going to accept the presentation about the Mavi Maramara having missiles on that. You're not really credible enough to offer that on faith. I'd accept some credible news reports on it, of course, since I'd like to find out if there were actually missiles on board the ship. but right now, I straight up don't believe you!
On the planet you come from, that counts as a credible news report? I guess?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yup totally still waiting for any credible news showing that there were missiles on that ship.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QB][/QB]
^ it speaks volumes.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
A friend of mine pointed me at this article. I thought it might be interesting here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to fosterindeed, have actively opposeda Zionism that challenges Israels behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionisms door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.
Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral. If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them
Hee. Well, we'll see how that goes in combination with Israel itself experiencing the burgeoning problem of Orthodox economic and social coasters.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It looks like the Israeli equivalent of youtube. Clearly, this is amazingly credible.
Note that the actual article from Israeli's own propaganda doesn't even go to the extreme lengths of claiming that they found missiles.
You wanna know something funny about the picture of the bulletproof vests on your link? Some people looked up its EXIF data and it's a picture that's been on file from, I think, 2007.
Is there a link about this?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
As embarrassing as the lack of follow-up on this is, and as smug as the triumph may be, it should be noted that that footage was, at one point, what ships were bringing in to Gaza, which was the reason for the blockade in the first place.
I think that the footage serves as evidence for Israel's moral claim of having to implement a blockade for its own safety - and helps complete an otherwise damning picture of an evil blockade causing human rights violations.
I thought this interview with Mahmoud Abbas was really interesting for his thoughts about how violent protest has failed, and that tactics should change.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:As embarrassing as the lack of follow-up on this is, and as smug as the triumph may be, it should be noted that that footage was, at one point, what ships were bringing in to Gaza, which was the reason for the blockade in the first place.
Obviously that's part of it, but there have been statements from Israeli govt officials and American supporters suggesting that the goal is "to put Gaza on a diet" as punishment.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You say as punishment. Because that's the way you think. These people are making war against us. We owe them *at the very most* a sustanence. We certainly don't owe them a single grain of wheat beyond that.
If they stop making war against us, they can live their lives however they want. If they don't, they're lucky we allow them a sustanence at all.
And Armoth, I know this is spitting in the wind, but you don't listen to what Holocaust denier Abbas says in English or to an English speaking audience. You find out what he's saying in Arabic to an Arabic speaking audience. Because that's what counts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Abbas is a holocaust denier? That's the first I've heard of it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
And Armoth, I know this is spitting in the wind, but you don't listen to what Holocaust denier Abbas says in English or to an English speaking audience. You find out what he's saying in Arabic to an Arabic speaking audience. Because that's what counts.
Stop making sense. It's harder to dismiss you that way. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Abbas is a holocaust denier? That's the first I've heard of it.
Or you know, just Google the words abbas, holocaust and denial.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It looks like the Israeli equivalent of youtube. Clearly, this is amazingly credible.
Note that the actual article from Israeli's own propaganda doesn't even go to the extreme lengths of claiming that they found missiles.
You wanna know something funny about the picture of the bulletproof vests on your link? Some people looked up its EXIF data and it's a picture that's been on file from, I think, 2007.
Oh hi lisa! welcome back to the thread. Hey how's the search for that credible news report about there being missiles on the ship. Just you know keep us updated or whatever. Sorry if it is such a bother to actually find.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Abbas is a holocaust denier? That's the first I've heard of it.
Or you know, just Google the words abbas, holocaust and denial.
I could have done that I suppose, I just figured you'd do it for me. I wasn't doubting you.
Plus I don't google a whole lot out here because it thinks I want google in Chinese and who knows what sites are blocked or censored out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hello democracy freedom blackblade, freedom democracy free taiwan sino-russian border treaty tienanmen square democracy protest freedom xinjiang tibetan independence how are you doing today.
*sam gets permanently blocked from blackblade's view*
*blackblade goes 'yesssssssssssssssss'*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Google has already moved google.cn to redirect to google.hk, so basically if you can google at all then the search results shouldn't be censored by Google. http://www.google.com/prc/report.html
Whether you can google at all depends on a keyword search of what is returned (and an assessment as to how rich your area is and how likely that connection is to be used by foreigners) and you should get a time-out or something similar IIRC.
As for Hatrack, if you want to knock BlackBlade off the page, I think you might have better luck with the Chinese equivalents rather than the English, like June 4th rather than Tiananmen Square (or rather the Chinese equivalent of June 4th).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hello democracy freedom blackblade, freedom democracy free taiwan sino-russian border treaty tienanmen square democracy protest freedom xinjiang tibetan independence how are you doing today.
*sam gets permanently blocked from blackblade's view*
*blackblade goes 'yesssssssssssssssss'*
Ha! That was pretty funny.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh hi lisa! welcome back to the thread. Hey how's the search for that credible news report about there being missiles on the ship. Just you know keep us updated or whatever. Sorry if it is such a bother to actually find.
I don't know what to do with this quote. Honestly, I agonized over it for a good 10 minutes before I started typing something, erasing it, and then typing it again.
Surely it can be appreciated that you want to prove Lisa wrong, and that you don't want to stand for any misinformation, and you can make an example of this particular event.
But at the same time, shouldn't we, as a community, insist that we debate ideas and not debate personalities? Sarcasm, nastiness, and ego breed more sarcasm, nastiness and ego. I don't want to make an enemy of you Samp - but there is a way you can make your point and still earn the respect of others on this forum, including your opponents.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Surely it can be appreciated that you want to prove Lisa wrong, and that you don't want to stand for any misinformation, and you can make an example of this particular event.
But at the same time, shouldn't we, as a community, insist that we debate ideas and not debate personalities?
I am debating the idea that there were missiles on that ship. Lisa can respond to this by finding any credible report that substantiates her very clear and incensed claim, or by admitting that she was wrong and bought up a clearly, obviously untrue thing as 'fact' as part of her rabid denunciation of me and my 'clearly wrong' position. Or she could just clam up embarrassingly after she pulls a stunt like this and just seem less credible.
And if you want people to debate ideas and not personalities, you could start with her and her attempt to invalidate any position I might have through claims about how connected i am or am not to the 'savages' and/or because of her children in Israel. You could do that, aside from being very very much so personally predisposed to her side, to the extent that you will make excuses for things she has said on the issue that even you are reluctant to believe she actually means.
As for your wider idea? it's interestingly contradictory. If you really wanted to divorce debating ideas from debating personalities, you wouldn't have to worry at all about having to 'make an enemy of me' because whether or not my tone incenses you when I call Lisa on her obvious falsehoods would be irrelevant to you, me, all of us. You would just start and end by looking at whether there were actually a bunch of missiles being smuggled on the Mavi Marmara.
What's your take on that? Do YOU believe that? Let's get right to debating that idea! I'm all for it! Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yeah sorry Armoth. But Lisa presented complete BS in this thread and once she got called on it, she presented a link that looks like complete misinformation and now she is dodging the issue completely.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think what Armoth is objecting to is that Samp has already castigated Lisa for not providing evidence to his satisfaction and he isn't letting up on the point. In school yard terms it's like a person walking away after acting like they wanted to fight you and you start yelling after them,
"What what? See, you got nothing! Come back her you coward, I knew you didn't have anything, you're just a big sissy! Yeah you better walk away!"
I'm sure Samp really does want a big juicy link with the missiles, and I am certain he wishes to continue discussing this. Lisa not posting for awhile removes one of the louder and more interesting voices in this discussion.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In school yard terms it's like a person walking away after acting like they wanted to fight you and you start yelling after them,
"What what? See, you got nothing! Come back her you coward, I knew you didn't have anything, you're just a big sissy! Yeah you better walk away!"
I think that's an excellent analogy. And it's about as appealing and cute here as it is in the analogy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Plus I don't google a whole lot out here because it thinks I want google in Chinese and who knows what sites are blocked or censored out.
Oh, man... I don't know if that's funny or tragic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Plus I don't google a whole lot out here because it thinks I want google in Chinese and who knows what sites are blocked or censored out.
Oh, man... I don't know if that's funny or tragic.
Meh, it's still better than it used to be. CNN used to go totally black mid broadcast at times, heck it probably still does depending on the story.
edit: So far I've identified youtube, facebook, and comixed.com as blocked.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am debating the idea that there were missiles on that ship. Lisa can respond to this by finding any credible report that substantiates her very clear and incensed claim, or by admitting that she was wrong and bought up a clearly, obviously untrue thing as 'fact' as part of her rabid denunciation of me and my 'clearly wrong' position. Or she could just clam up embarrassingly after she pulls a stunt like this and just seem less credible.
And if you want people to debate ideas and not personalities, you could start with her and her attempt to invalidate any position I might have through claims about how connected i am or am not to the 'savages' and/or because of her children in Israel. You could do that, aside from being very very much so personally predisposed to her side, to the extent that you will make excuses for things she has said on the issue that even you are reluctant to believe she actually means.
As for your wider idea? it's interestingly contradictory. If you really wanted to divorce debating ideas from debating personalities, you wouldn't have to worry at all about having to 'make an enemy of me' because whether or not my tone incenses you when I call Lisa on her obvious falsehoods would be irrelevant to you, me, all of us. You would just start and end by looking at whether there were actually a bunch of missiles being smuggled on the Mavi Marmara.
What's your take on that? Do YOU believe that? Let's get right to debating that idea! I'm all for it!
1) For your first point - you, began by debating the idea. Now, for everyone to see, it's all a bunch of ego. You can deny that all you want, but all your posts, including this one, are dripping with ego. I'm with you on the facts. Lisa has no proof, you called her out on it, you won. You're dancing on her grave, kicking her when she's down, or whatever school yard analogy you want to give. And while you're succeeding in embarrassing her, you've also succeeded at embarrassing yourself.
2) "Why are you yelling at me, and not at Lisa" - Not that I think it's a logical retort, nor productive to focus on this, but you're right. Honestly, I feel like I understand Lisa a lot better than I understand you - but for the sake of community, I have no problem calling her out in the future. And now, she won't have the argument that you just leveled against me - she'll know I called you out in the past, and so I'll have the credibility to call her out in the future. Thank you.
3) This last point needs the most explanation. I never said I wanted to divorce personalities from arguments. And if we were all perfect human beings, you'd be right - we could ignore tone and ego and simply argue the facts. But we're humans. We can't. We're emotional. And that's a good thing. There's a lot of warmth and heart,a lot of hope in our unification of ideas that are only possible with the emotion behind our words. Let's face it: we're creatures of emotion - if we were only creatures of intellect, I'm not sure we would be passionate about anything, and all of our arguments would be meaningless to us and to others.
We can't divorce personality from argument. But what we can do is reflect the side of our personalities that expresses warmth, a desire to communicate, a desire to reconcile differences, or at least to express those differences in a way where the other person will not simply react, but actually listen. If you want to get really straight about it - your method of communication serves to get your message across to people who already agree with you - no one else is emotionally built to hear you. And that's a darn shame if your ego takes over so much that you sit on a forum everyday to communicate with your[i]self[/i} rather than to build bridges with others.
And let's face it. This forum represents an incredibly smart, sensitive, and gifted portion of the population. If we can't communicate, compromise, and understand the other side - there is no hope for any conflict resolution anywhere in the world.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... In school yard terms it's like a person walking away after acting like they wanted to fight you and you start yelling after them
Or rather, walking away, pretending as if there was never going to be a fight, and taunting while on more favourable ground (i.e. Holocaust denial and whether Israel should punish Gaza).
I gotta agree with Dan_Frank though, the analogy and event are both pretty cute and appealing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:1) For your first point - you, began by debating the idea. Now, for everyone to see, it's all a bunch of ego. You can deny that all you want, but all your posts, including this one, are dripping with ego. I'm with you on the facts. Lisa has no proof, you called her out on it, you won. You're dancing on her grave, kicking her when she's down, or whatever school yard analogy you want to give. And while you're succeeding in embarrassing her, you've also succeeded at embarrassing yourself.
Then i'll drop the 'ego' (and oh man is there a lot of it) and discuss this in a forthright fashion. I am not just mocking something after-the-fact schoolyard-taunting style. I am provoking the issue because her chosen retreat from my request was as intellectually dishonest as it comes: selective avoidance of my request. She hides from it and snipes at other positions. One request. Nothing. Two requests. Nothing. As mucus said, she walks away, pretends there was never going to be a fight, and then sequesters herself to taunting on more favorable ground.
No matter. Was gonna be my last address towards that issue anyway, short of her pulling another "evidence is clearly on my side" fiat. I recognize that I've been everyone's less-than-favorite contributor here as of late. I'm trying to change my ways!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Think so? Funny... I suspect that had Armoth or BlackBlade asked the same question, I might have answered it. You being a snide asshat, I didn't feel the need. Make that "don't"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Cool. Yeah, it really puts me in my place to have you clam up and run away from the issue because you're loathe to admit to me how obviously incorrect you were.
Please continue to not feel the need to substantiate your Israel positions and/or continue to snipe with non-critically reviewed 'facts' from whatever you construe to be safer ground. I'm sure that will continue to show me what-for.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here's an addendum:
You're acting worse to me than I am to you. you're calling me more names, being more dismissive, being more arrogant, etcetera. In terms of our wonderful rapport with each other, I cannot compete with your namecalling, your general dismissals. You sit, you boil over, and then you eventually snap with things like this:
quote: I think it's just a clever way for you to criticize Israel when the evidence is clearly against you.
"I can't demonstrate that Israel did something wrong, so I'll call them idiots for not doing things the way I would."
Boring.
Which was you just palling the debate from the level it had set at.
Then stuff like this:
quote:The only person acting like a retard here is you. And it's kind of funny, because ordinarily you come across as an adult, at least. Now you just sound like a bitchy little baby.
then you boil over to this:
quote:My daughter turned 18 yesterday. She lives in Israel. In Maaleh Adumim, as it happens, which is outside the 1949 armistice lines. My son will turn 16 on June 19. You think this is some theoretical game of mental masturbation where you can sit back and make asinine judgements from afar. But my children are the ones who stand to pay the price for your idiocy.
This whole thread started because Israel boarded a boat full of terrorists and terror supporters. Not all the boats in the flotilla were. Some actually contained activists who, while maybe well meaning, were in the wrong. But the Mavi Marmara was carrying missiles and other serious armaments.
Did Israel know that? No, but you'd have to be an ass not to suspect it. The Arabs have made a regular practice of transporting arms in ambulances and firing missiles from civilian sites. And it turned out this ship was no exception to that rule.
Tell you what, Sam. The day you have a nation of savages clamoring (slavering) for your blood and for the destruction of your country, then you can open your overly large mouth and maybe have it mean something.
Let's look at some aspects of your behavior in this thread that I dare anyone AT ALL reading this thread to read all of my posts in it and try to find anything that compares.
quote:Now you just sound like a bitchy little baby.
quote:a bitchy little baby
quote:The day you have a nation of savages clamoring (slavering) for your blood and for the destruction of your country, then you can open your overly large mouth and maybe have it mean something.
Overt, angry namecalling and an attempt to say that I have no right, no place to say anything meaningful on the subject.
These are things I simply cannot match, in terms of how much of an "asshat" i can be. Your asshat is bigger. Sorry.
When, as part of your justification for your position, you make claims like the one you made, and you create an onus to back it up when I make REPEATED REQUESTS, very straightforward, to substantiate your position, and then you, who has by far acted the most immature and petulant and arrogant and dismissive of anyone in this thread (and again, I state, if anyone doubts it, they can go back through the thread and read every one of our responses to each other, in fact, I encourage it!) and then use my asshattery as your 17th handwave, to the tune of 'this is why I didn't respond to you' it's a height of intellectual cowardice and double-standards.
I'm sorry I'm wearing on you. but I'm right, and I'm right both in terms of the substance of this discussion as well as my management of the tone. All of this goes back to the whole bit I already expanded upon about your abandonment of honest dialogue. For every time you'll try to pin it on me, while everyone knows you are inclined to fly off the handle and call much more polite and fair-minded arguers than me "monsters," "scum," "idiots," "ignorant fools," "retards," "bitchy little babies," or whatever emotional outpouring you will have worked yourself up to at that point in time, I'm going to pin it on the wall. I like to have a little bit of fun with it too in response to you being so flippant and dismissive and throwing stuff out in the thread like how they should have just sunk the ships, but hey. I can call that off.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe we've all come to expect this from Lisa, and hope that others can do better.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Samp. You've instigated a fair amount yourself. Even the title of this thread was meant to stir the pot.
No one. I mean NO ONE respects the way Lisa posts. No one likes it. And it's just as harmful and as useless as all the other emotionally charged, ego-driven, and jerky posting on hatrack.
But seriously, "I'm right?" You're not right about the "management of your tone" because it isn't about what Lisa does - it's about meaningful communication and the respect of your peers.
You come off as a pretty likable person, so it's a shame that you let your opponent drag you down.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Maybe we've all come to expect this from Lisa, and hope that others can do better.
Perhaps. Actually pretty likely! It's just semi-hilarious (and semi-stupid) that it results in her behavior being largely passed over in favor of commentary on mine. Oh well?
quote:Even the title of this thread was meant to stir the pot.
Sorry. It's not bait. It's a straightforward take by me, no intent to incense. I could have named it practically anything and Lisa's negative involvement would have been practically guaranteed, because the subject is the Israel/Palestine conflict.
quote:But seriously, "I'm right?"
Well, the thing is? I am. This comes with the understanding that of course I could do better and not play around with subject trolls like Lisa the way that I do.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: Lisa gets defensive about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it has/has had direct import on her still being alive today. Bearing that in mind I should think it wouldn't be very hard to politely debate even in the face of being called bad names.
I'm not excusing Lisa losing her composure, I expect this topic is one she is far more invested in emotionally than either of us are. It's great to be able to discuss a topic in an emotional vacuum, and heaven's knows I personally try hard to do that about topics I myself feel emotional about, but extending a greater measure of sensitivity is something I think you could be doing regardless of how right you feel you are regarding the actual topic of Israel and the flotilla.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
interestingly, as i read this carefully, you're essentially saying that her emotional investment both drives her inability to maintain composure and is specifically the reason why I should strive to be more gentle in response to her statements in threads on this subject.
Should my politeness be in any form a product of acknowledgement that her emotional investment vulnerabilities mean that I can't expect better of her?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: No, sensitivity does not mean you lay down, but it does mean you do more to vent bad vibes, as it were. For me it also means that proving myself right no longer becomes my primary objective, but having yet another conversation where I and those I am talking to both have a positive and amiable exchange of ideas, rather than proving myself right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Um, ok. To what extent do I work for/hope for a 'positive and amiable exchange' when the other person's initial foray is things like 'who cares, I wish they had just sunk the damned ships' or 'Arabs lack the capacity of empathy' things that immediately prompt most rational minded people to fairly express the complete unconscionably of the statement? What in response to a lack of apparent desire to argue in good faith, immediate hostility and derision, abstract appeals to authority ('i have children in israel, you don't, therefore ..')
etcetera.
I mean, sorry to belabor the point, but i want to know really where the lines are forming on this whole deal. would I have kept the politeness indefinite on people like Clive Candy, for instance? When do you give up and just hope they don't pollute your threads?
[ June 14, 2010, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: Far be it from me to ask you to just become me, but I would start with addressing the fallacious ideas in such a way that the person doesn't feel like I bear them any ill will.
I feel like most people (including Lisa) want to argue in good faith, but there are myriad things that can prevent that from happening. Personality disorders, traumatic experiences, lack of sleep, lack of food, etc. Certainly there are people who are going to consistently be unable to converse maturely to the point that they should be ignored or asked to leave.
Yes, you should be indefinitely polite to people like Clive Candy. You can politely tell somebody to go away, or that they are not welcome. If that's not your style of discourse then you should hold your peace until you can. Look I appreciate off the cuff edgy dialogue as much as anybody. But I also know that there are certain people who will not respond positively to that manner of speaking and so I adapt, I try to find a way that we can still converse and actually enjoy it.
I'll try not to name names specifically though I have mentioned this poster in the past, but I absolutely cannot talk to them about religion, (It's not KOM btw, though we've come close to that before.) I felt like no matter what I said they were determined to dislike me and turn every word on it's head. I could have insulted him personally for failing to take a chill pill, but instead I recognized that religion is right out as a topic when we converse and I now elect not to talk to him about it. Near as I can tell as long as we stay off that topic things are fine. Were he to follow me around and deride me about other topics I'd check them off one by one until we were out of topics.
At that point I would just stop speaking to him. I don't have to respond just because somebody directs words at me. I hate acting that way because pompous dicks do that same thing but for very different reasons. In anycase, that's the responsibilities of a poster as I see it. It's up to moderators to recognize when somebody is beyond redemption, will not improve, and to take measures to remove the toxicity.
Lisa isn't like that, she's a good person who feels like there can't be any peace with the Palestinians. There are quite a few who feel as she does, and in her case it's not something she has believed since the day she was born, it's something she has come to believe through years of experiences. I may disagree with her, but I recognize that she does not wish for the Palestinians to leave because she just hates them. She thinks peace with them is impossible, there can be no compromise, and they are going to attempt to subvert the state of Israel everyday until the Jews are all gone.
Maybe she's right, I don't think she is, but when I realize that's where she is coming from, I am able to be more patient as I feel for her. I hate the fact that this whole conflict exists. Here in the US we just beat our natives into submission and we feel all bad about it now, but that was years ago and so we can just go on with our lives as normal. I imagine it'd be nice to think "If we just kick them all out now, in a few decades nobody will really care that much anymore?" But instead we live in an information age where people actually care about minorities (to some extent) and you can't just throw your weight around like that.
I mean were I an Israeli I would be completely stumped as to what I should be doing about this problem.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I feel like most people (including Lisa) want to argue in good faith, but there are myriad things that can prevent that from happening. Personality disorders, traumatic experiences, lack of sleep, lack of food, etc. Certainly there are people who are going to consistently be unable to converse maturely to the point that they should be ignored or asked to leave.
Well. I'll keep it in mind, then.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I've been lurking a bit on this thread and I will just make a short comment, or at least my own personal opinion. Extremes of definition are rarely ever met, such as if I say someone is "smart" I'm not trying to say that every decision they make is smart, simply that they are a bright individual who probably has made a few dumb decisions in their life. So, although emotions are part of everything that we do, there are many good reasons for minimizing their impact on a majority of intellectual debate. The problem that we tend to have with the other side is not if they are intelligent, but that we don't share the same values ( ethics, etc. ). That does not make the other person "retarded" and what not does little to recognize that fact.
Then my short comment on the running of the blockade. A blockade is an act of war, and regardless of what your business is you can expect to be boarded/sunk/chased if you try and run one. To me it isn't surprising that thing became violent, but boarding the ships with commandos was on the lower end of the threat level, rather than simply sinking all the ships etc.
I think the problem that people have with this whole incident is the blockade itself, this incident simply being one of many symptoms. Even then the entire blockade is on the lower level of violence then could be used in this situation. The same people that cried about the sanctions on Iraq are the same people who cried when America invadred Iraq. I'm not saying that those people were necessarily wrong, simply that there is no pleasing them. In that sense the blockade may be the lesser of necessary evils. That and Israel and Palestine aren't going to come to a agreement any time soon, and it is BOTH sides fault for a number of reasons.
In the end war is a lose/lose situation, its simply about being on the side that loses the least.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm not saying that those people were necessarily wrong, simply that there is no pleasing them.
Arguably, such people could have been pleased by not invading Iraq and not blockading Gaza.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Arguably, such people could have been pleased by not invading Iraq and not blockading Gaza.
Which were such people less displeased with? Rocket attacks on Israel, or blockading Gaza?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I imagine that the set of people who didn't want the U.S. to invade Iraq intersects the set of people who prefer anti-Israeli rockets to Gaza blockades and the set of people who prefer blockades to anti-Israeli rocket launches.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course. Talking about sets of people usually isn't helpful, particularly when I think what Black Fox's point was was that for some people, no action, even surgical sanctions (insofar as they are possible) would have pleased a certain set of people, not that nothing would have pleased any of them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I feel like most people (including Lisa) want to argue in good faith, but there are myriad things that can prevent that from happening. Personality disorders, traumatic experiences, lack of sleep, lack of food, etc. Certainly there are people who are going to consistently be unable to converse maturely to the point that they should be ignored or asked to leave.
Yes, you should be indefinitely polite to people like Clive Candy. You can politely tell somebody to go away, or that they are not welcome. If that's not your style of discourse then you should hold your peace until you can. Look I appreciate off the cuff edgy dialogue as much as anybody. But I also know that there are certain people who will not respond positively to that manner of speaking and so I adapt, I try to find a way that we can still converse and actually enjoy it.
It's an interesting perspective! I mean, it's for the benefit of the 'community' who has sat through a bajillion lisa/israel thread lockings and spewings more than anything else, but I understand.
Well, we'll see.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: ... The same people that cried about the sanctions on Iraq are the same people who cried when America invadred Iraq.
I would quickly note that on the issue of Iraqi sanctions versus the Iraq Invasion.
Sanctions on Iraq were passed via UN resolution 661 which were only opposed by Cuba and Yemen, but notably not opposed by any permanent members or Canada who was a non-permanent member at the time.
Meanwhile, the draft resolution authorizing the Iraq War was ditched when it was known that Russia and France as permanent members were opposed and only 4 out of 15 possible votes were in favour at any given time. Canada which at that time was no longer a member and approved the sanctions made a specific point of not participating in the Iraq War as well.
So one could definitely argue that there are more people represented by those that approved of sanctions and opposed the invasion as opposed to those that disapproved of both.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Which is not the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to get across is the idea that there was a situation in Iraq that was deemed unacceptable to a large portion of the global community. Between sanctions and the invasion of Iraq there was a group of people that were fervently against both, and this group was and is in many ways impossible to please and "fix" the "problem." To get at an even deeper kernel, many people oppose direct violence on the premise that any direct violence is inherently worse than any kind of indirect suffering. Even if in many ways the indirect suffering is structurally perpetual, that is if the structure within the nation does not change the same problem will continue to exist. In many ways this has far worse consequences than direct action, not to mention a worse outcome for the "innocent." Interestingly enough many of our societies were built on the idea that extreme short term suffering ( violence, war, conflict, revolution ) was on a higher moral ground than continuing to suffer indirect ( and direct for that matter ) consequences for existing within a flawed structure. I'm not making the claim that this was the case in Iraq, simply that the premise that this was the case in Iraq is part of argument to make the invasion of Iraq a just one. Proving that premise is an entirely different argument. Not to mention a majority does not make an action just.
However, to avoid being extremely vague I will make my position on Iraq, and many other similar conflicts, clear. Do I believe we were morally justified ( and perhaps even obligated to do something firm and swift ) in invading Iraq, yes. Does that somehow justify a poor occupation strategy and plain piss poor civil performance in the Iraq War, heck no. Maybe I'm just a little too Hegelian in my love of freedom for the individual, but thats just how things roll for me.
[ June 15, 2010, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Black Fox ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are you saying that our only choices in Iraq were to continue oppressive sanctions or to invade?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BF: I'm mainly just objecting to your use of the phrase "same people" in the sentence I quoted. By no means are the two groups you are describing the same.
As for the rest, I think you have to demonstrate something about the numbers of people in each group for it to be of much interest to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I feel like most people (including Lisa) want to argue in good faith, but there are myriad things that can prevent that from happening. Personality disorders, traumatic experiences, lack of sleep, lack of food, etc. Certainly there are people who are going to consistently be unable to converse maturely to the point that they should be ignored or asked to leave.
Yes, you should be indefinitely polite to people like Clive Candy. You can politely tell somebody to go away, or that they are not welcome. If that's not your style of discourse then you should hold your peace until you can. Look I appreciate off the cuff edgy dialogue as much as anybody. But I also know that there are certain people who will not respond positively to that manner of speaking and so I adapt, I try to find a way that we can still converse and actually enjoy it.
It's an interesting perspective! I mean, it's for the benefit of the 'community' who has sat through a bajillion lisa/israel thread lockings and spewings more than anything else, but I understand.
Well, we'll see.
Bluntly put, I don't expect the tendency of Israeli/Palestinian threads getting locked to suddenly cease regardless of what you do Samp. All it takes is two posters to decide they want a thread locked and it will get locked. But I do believe in doing what's right for its own sake. I also find alot of joy in seeing a poster actively endeavor to become better conversant.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do not believe that there was any moral reason or obligation to intervene in Iraq, there was insufficient evidence of WMD's, Iraq's dancing around the guidelines of the cease fire agreement to my mind is insufficient enough of a casus beli, its government while dictatorial is also not a casus beli as there are at the time dozens of governments with similar human rights records or worse, with even less free governments in even more closed societies and guess what! They're allies of the US.
This venture was a mistake and with American influence and power on the decline all it did was speed up the process to the point you met Paul Kennedy's prediction for government debt years earlier and he wrote that in 1986.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
No, but it was an extremely unstable element in an extremely unstable region. May I point to the Iran-Iraq war that resulted in the death of over a million people. Neither did we fight conflicts with any of those people( that you're bringing up), have a combat brigade parked outside its borders at all times on high alert, or have an extremely shady diplomatic relationship with. Its not every nation that we drop munitions on every couple of years. However, I will be honest when I say that I have no idea exactly what your beliefs are, but I have a feeling you would have had problems with a war in Iraq if they had weapons of mass destruction either. As lots of destructive regimes have those too, look at North Korea. That and pointing to our own moral failures when it comes to certain situations should somehow change the moral nature of another problem.
That and I am actually curious, what governments do we have "good" relationships right now that we aren't forced to our of sheer survival or utility that have a human rights record worse than Iraq's? Not to mention even more closed societies and less free governments ( since Iraq's was completely "unfree", I find your claim slightly dubious ). That and examples from completely eras don't count.
That and being the hairsplitter I love to be, if we were already destined to decline in a somewhat short period, what difference does a decade make? Seems the "end" was already predestined, if not already knocking on the door the way you see it.
I have never found the moral arguments, " but other people are worse than him, or other things or worse," as being very strong arguments. Why do you love Jill when so many other girls are just as beautiful, not to mention even sweeter.
In the end you seem to simply be looking for a justification in another argument to support a moral belief that you hold that has nothing to do with the facts that you are bringing up. In those cases I Would much rather hear the argument for what you really have against the conflict. Such as tha war is a waste of life. Or that there are better ways to solve these issues other than violence. Or simply that our resources would be better spent against a bigger evil. Or that utility is a stupid way to judge more value and one should look at things with a deontological view, that is some things are simply intrinsically bad.
Literally your argument parallels the structure that I should not help a poor man, as there are other men potentially even more poor. Some people would agree with you, I simply do not.
That and do not equate the actions of Saddam Hussein to be that of the Nation of Iraq, they are two extremely different things. There are many ways to show that a dictatorship is not a nation, and its actions are not the actions of the nation. How can they be without consent? In all honesty it is a clearer statement to say that we waged war on Saddam Hussein's regime that was occupying Iraq rather than saying that we were fighting the nation. Even at the height of the insurgency there was nothing even remotely close to a majority of the population fighting against the United States. Anyhow, I highly doubt I will change your mind as it is one of those opinions that has been burned into the cultural ethic, you are either for or against it, with little chance of rational discourse changing opinion.
[ June 15, 2010, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Black Fox ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Bluntly put, I don't expect the tendency of Israeli/Palestinian threads getting locked to suddenly cease regardless of what you do Samp. All it takes is two posters to decide they want a thread locked and it will get locked. But I do believe in doing what's right for its own sake. I also find alot of joy in seeing a poster actively endeavor to become better conversant.
Not saying I'm trying or would try for this in the future, but the forum is presently unmoderated.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Bluntly put, I don't expect the tendency of Israeli/Palestinian threads getting locked to suddenly cease regardless of what you do Samp. All it takes is two posters to decide they want a thread locked and it will get locked. But I do believe in doing what's right for its own sake. I also find alot of joy in seeing a poster actively endeavor to become better conversant.
Not saying I'm trying or would try for this in the future, but the forum is presently unmoderated.
Funny you should mention that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:No, but it was an extremely unstable element in an extremely unstable region.
It was a secular stable government that was aligned with US interests for decades in fact there is more evidence of it being a beacon of secular stability then islamic funamentalist extremism when measured against the region excluding Israel as a whole.
quote: May I point to the Iran-Iraq war that resulted in the death of over a million people.
A war that the US supported and provided military, logistical and financial support to to get Iraq to topple Iran's islamic government, Iraq at this time was also legally getting reactor material and expertise from France and for the most part had considerable support from the West.
quote:Neither did we fight conflicts with any of those people( that you're bringing up)
Your going to have to better enunciate what you are trying to say here.
quote:have a combat brigade parked outside its borders at all times on high alert, or have an extremely shady diplomatic relationship with.
Your still not making sense, if I geuss/assume that you are referring to "those countries" that I state are also oppressive and unfree I am still puzzled as that is not what I said. I said "the US has a close working relationship with many unfree countries".
quote:Its not every nation that we drop munitions on every couple of years
Depends if we define "drop" as "sell".
quote:I will be honest when I say that I have no idea exactly what your beliefs are
Marxist-Leninist with some admiration of Mao Zedong Thought and Canadian, nuff' said.
quote:but I have a feeling you would have had problems with a war in Iraq if they had weapons of mass destruction either
Considering I was in high school then I don't think I actually had an opinion but for the sake of the argument I go back in time to an alternate universe where they DID find conclusive evidence of WMD's then I would support in theory an armed intervention if and only if all other peaceful diplomatic means through the organs of the United Nations had failed and if and only if such an action is taken as a part of an international coalition of lawful states operating under the consent and oversight of the UN ala Korean War.
quote:As lots of destructive regimes have those too, look at North Korea. That and pointing to our own moral failures when it comes to certain situations should somehow change the moral nature of another problem.
Bzzzrt Wrong! Thus far North Korea is the only hermit of a rogue state that has conclusively WMD's/a WMD program and did so kinda legally (as they did withdraw from the NPT) and we are thus going through the legal international organs to resolve the crisis in a manner satisfactory to all the regional powers involved.
North Korea also happens to be the single most fortified nation on the planet as an army with a country invading it would be foolish waste of life while there are still options, NK is not a significant military threat to the United States and only a relatively minor threat to the region a few failed sub kiloton nuclear weapons isn't going to adjust that imbalance.
Also the failure in Iraq is actually perfect to illustrate what the US shouldn't do in North Korea and instead should be more focused with cooperation with China, Japan and South Korea to see them peacefully implode and get integrated with South Korea.
quote:That and I am actually curious, what governments do we have "good" relationships right now that we aren't forced to our of sheer survival or utility that have a human rights record worse than Iraq's? Not to mention even more closed societies and less free governments ( since Iraq's was completely "unfree", I find your claim slightly dubious ). That and examples from completely eras don't count.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan for a while, for all intents and purposes your allied to China, Georgia, Turkey has a fairly atrocious human rights record according to my brother if we're willing to extend the timeframe to the beginning of the Cold War the USA has a pedobear like history of subverting democracy in Latin America and replacing it with Banana Republic tinpot dictators to keep Marxism at bay.
Oh and Lolz, Afghanistan right now with Karzai.
quote:I have never found the moral arguments, " but other people are worse than him, or other things or worse," as being very strong arguments. Why do you love Jill when so many other girls are just as beautiful, not to mention even sweeter.
The point is that it is hypocritical to use "because he is a dictator" as an excuse or your modus operandi for invasion when it is egregiously insufficient a reason and is also not legally a casus beli under international law.
quote:In the end you seem to simply be looking for a justification in another argument to support a moral belief that you hold that has nothing to do with the facts that you are bringing up. In those cases I Would much rather hear the argument for what you really have against the conflict. Such as tha war is a waste of life. Or that there are better ways to solve these issues other than violence. Or simply that our resources would be better spent against a bigger evil. Or that utility is a stupid way to judge more value and one should look at things with a deontological view, that is some things are simply intrinsically bad.
Nyah Myah Muah old Theist copout argument of God moves and mysterious ways, your counter point here is confused, off kilter, and utterly unreadable and fail to substantiate your point, what moral argument am I bringing up and from what other argument? As far as I am concerned there is only one argument here that the war was not morally justified.
A) Did not satisfy any legal casus beli's. B) Did not properly go through the United Nations. C) Did not find any WMD's and in fact subverted the process by invading before the inspectors could finish their jobs. D) Was a stupid endeavor that will doom the United States as the sole superpower.
quote:Literally your argument parallels the structure that I should not help a poor man, as there are other men potentially even more poor. Some people would agree with you, I simply do not.
Incorrect, I am saying that you should not beat up the convicted sexual offender in your neighbourhood when half of your close friends were bank robbers, ex mercs, and a drug dealer since he hasn't done anything wrong yet and the police aren't done investigating him.
quote:That and do not equate the actions of Saddam Hussein to be that of the Nation of Iraq, they are two extremely different things.
I didn't either, I am equating Suddam Hussein as irrelevant because I proscribe to a realist political science paradigm that holds nation-states as the only relevant international actors, Suddam is an individual and is thus irrelevant.
quote:There are many ways to show that a dictatorship is not a nation, and its actions are not the actions of the nation.
quote:How can they be without consent? In all honesty it is a clearer statement to say that we waged war on Saddam Hussein's regime that was occupying Iraq rather than saying that we were fighting the nation.
Tell that to the million dead children, destroyed infrastructure (including hospitals), sanction induced famines, strangling of its trade, the decimation of its armed forces, bombed out cities, oh and looted priceless historical landmarks and excavation digs that the US should have secured immediately.
quote:Even at the height of the insurgency there was nothing even remotely close to a majority of the population fighting against the United States.
Unrealistic goalpost moving, during the American war of independence and the Chinese War of Liberation only a minority of people were engaged in actual fighting with the majority of normal people either apathetic or supportive with those in opposition retreating with the enemy armies in a disapora. Just because say only 1% of the population took up arms doesn't mean that large portion of the people are somehow magically exstactic at some arrogant white people waltzing in replacing the old guy with someone worse.
There was probably arguably a majority of people who hated Saddam but they hate you more, because at the end of the day Suddam was their bastard.
quote: Anyhow, I highly doubt I will change your mind as it is one of those opinions that has been burned into the cultural ethic, you are either for or against it, with little chance of rational discourse changing opinion.
Pfft. My political opinions on the topic are based on the fact that the war was stupid, done for stupid reasons, executed by stupid people and supported by a stupid nation filled with stupid people.
They didn't even have the intelligence to fake the evidence.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Half your arguments prove what I was trying to say in the first place. For one we did support the Iraqis when they were a stable secular state, and through a series of events that most of us are familiar with that relationship obviously came to an end. Also, radical Islam is not the only threat to stability in the Middle East. Secular Iraq does not equate to "good" Iraq.
Wacky Nazis does little to argue against the fact that often a dictatorship is not necessarily the nation. The Nazi dictatorship is a bit more complex than that and had great popular support across the majority of Germans. Also, many of the millions of deaths were more than just a Nazi final solution, but even racist elements within the Wehrmacht ( regular German Army during WWII ) and other institutions within Germany. There is a reason why Germans as a nation are generally extremely embarassed about what happenedin WWII. I certainly count myself amongst those, and my Opa felt twisted his entire life for having been a Luftwaffe pilot on the Eastern Front.
That, and I find the notion of a legal Casus Beli to be something of a joke. So if I can find plurality within a small seu ction of nation-states (of which it could be strongly argued that many are no longer nation-states) it is completely morally justified to go to war with a country? That sounds like a laughable idea to me.
That and if you adhere to the idea of the nation-state then you shouldn't even support statehood for the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan, as what exactly is an Iraqi. Point to me an Afghani, are they Pashtu, Hazara, Uzbek, or any of a number of other smaller tribal and cultural groups in Afghanistan? Or are we just going to try and create Renand's civic nationalism across the world? You should read some modern literature on nationalism and the idea of imagined communities etc. I personally find nationalism to be one of the wicked forces in the world. Millions upon millions of human beings have suffered and died for their worship of the Church of the Nation.
You've also spent little time talking with any people from those countries. Many of them do detest the presence of Americans and foreigners on their soil, I certainly agree with the in a sense. However, they also tend to detest and hate the insurgent groups within their countries' even more. I've seen this first hand in both places. However, as I said far above, war is an event where everyone is a loser. Not only this but if as many people supported the insurgents as you claim then we would really be getting our rears handed to us. I understand that most people are used to the idea of war as some form of a video game, but the fact is that during a counter insurgency you can't always apply maximum force for a number of good reasons.
That and the United States has certainly done many deplorable things. I'm not saying that the United States isn't hypocritical. However, Ad hominem attacks upon the United States for being unethical before and having some friends ( more by necessity and utility than by some glowing love ) that are unethical does little to change the actual moral
That and reading your final lines it certainly seems obvious where you are coming from, as I stated previously. Your belief has more to do with emotion than anything else, you simply detest war. I certainly don't hold that against you, if anything I find it an admirable trait. I even have to chuckle at your joke that we didn't have the intelligence to fake the evidence, I can see what sort of morality you prescribe to.
I can say that at the very least that my unit from the 101st Airborne was amazingly frustrated at what happened during the fall of Baghdad. We weren't allowed to arrest looters as there was no where to put them. We obviously couldn't shoot them, for a number of reasons, chiefly that it would have been wrong It was a generally whacked situation that occurs in war. The only time my company was allowed to use force was to L ambush some idiots trying to rob a bank with machine-guns and RPGs. It is really easy to be an armchair general on a situation you are honestly very clueless about. One of my fondest memories was chitchatting with a Shiite teacher in Baghdad and eating fried eggs. The man gifted us the eggs and said that he was extremely happy to see us and to see Saddam done for. However, as we talked both of us came to the conclusion that it was going to be an extremely unpleasant road into the future.
That and it is obvious that you are a cut and dry Utilitarian, which I suppose is really not a horrible thing, but I and many others have many issues with it. Which, is really what I was trying to get across more then anything else. IN the end we really don't have different bank of facts that we are looking at, we simply look at hem differently and value things differently.
Hence, I am not going to change your mind and if you noticed I said that going to war with Iraq was justified, however!!!!!! The manner in which it was executed was not! Really we agree that the whole thing was a botched up pile of decisions, however all I am really trying to say is that we were morally justified in deposing Saddam even through war. That doesn't make how we actually went about it doing it morally justified. Not that I'm thinking you would even come close to agreeing with everything that I'm asserting.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Black Fox, what did Iraq stand to gain from the US invasion that would make the requisite loss of life worth it?
To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I'm not a pacifist but do believe that wars have to have an obvious rather than arguable justification to qualify as just. I'd taxonomize recent US and US-led conflicts this way:
JUST
WW2 Korea Gulf War Afghanistan
UNJUST
Vietnam Iraq
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Bluntly put, I don't expect the tendency of Israeli/Palestinian threads getting locked to suddenly cease regardless of what you do Samp. All it takes is two posters to decide they want a thread locked and it will get locked. But I do believe in doing what's right for its own sake. I also find alot of joy in seeing a poster actively endeavor to become better conversant.
Not saying I'm trying or would try for this in the future, but the forum is presently unmoderated.
Funny you should mention that.
olol
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Destineer-
Given your standards the only war that is justified is a war of defense, or at least a war to defend another country. Not really a bad thing, and a rather commonly held belief. However, I would say given your qualifications Vietnam would have been justified at the time using the same reasoning on why we went into South Korea in the first place. You are using anochronistic thought to justify Korea and not Vietnam. Often we see a war being justified or not based on the result, not the initial intent of conducting the conflict.
Iraq was justified under a number of things. For one, the general populace of Iraq was suffering under sanctions that were doing little to undermine Saddam Hussein's authority. The reason we were doing that was that Hussein had a history of trying to expand his borders by force: Iran and Kuwait. Not only this, but Hussein was a destabilizing element in the region and the world. Not to mention it was quite simply a matter of unfinished business. The whole WMD questin was simply a part of the greater picture that the United States, and most of the world simply did not trust that regime, and for good reason. However, for myself it is most justified by the fact that we encouraged the Shiite Arabs in the south of Iraq to revolt, and then left them out to dry. I am a believer that any government not selected by its populace is simply unacceptable. I admit, invading every dictatorship in the world is not feasible. However, getting people killed on the promise that we would help them reclaim their government and then stopping at Kuwait is not quite the same. However, I think that the invasion was earlier than it should have been and that there were methods of getting Saddam out of power that would have been better on a number of levels. Again, I am not trying to assert that it was justifiable in its content, in that sense I think that as it was conducted, the war in Iraq was unjustified. However, in my eyes, the use of force, violence, and war to remove him from power was justified. I don't think that the solution to the worlds problems is to knock off ever dictator or invade every country that is not well run.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I would quickly note that the other thing that links the Iraq War and the Vietnam War, is not only the poor result, but the fact that the US had fake evidence as reasons for the entry into both during the UN presentation on WMDs and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident respectively.
After all, if the reasoning was merely based on the poor result and not the initial intent, then Afghanistan should be in unjust category as well.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
The Gulf of Tonkin certainly led to a formal declaration. Realistically we had already been fighting and the Vietnam War was already under way. See, I would classify the Vietnam War as a more just conflict than Iraq as well. Many people that found the conduct of the war to be deplorable saw that many South Vietnamese did not want to join North Vietnam. Of course that doesn't make how the war was conducted to be just. I think of it like this. A police officer may be justified in arresting a person, but that doesn't justify them to beat the heck out of that person, or destroying a neighborhood in pursuit of the suspect. If that makes any sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Given your standards the only war that is justified is a war of defense, or at least a war to defend another country.
That's definitely not my view. Afghanistan wasn't a defensive war, since the US was never attacked by the government of Afghanistan.
quote: Not really a bad thing, and a rather commonly held belief. However, I would say given your qualifications Vietnam would have been justified at the time using the same reasoning on why we went into South Korea in the first place.
In my view there's a big difference between defending a foreign government against external invasion (as in Korea) and against a popular domestic uprising, both morally and also in terms of how easy the war will be to win. (Ease of winning should definitely factor into whether a war is just.)
quote: Iraq was justified under a number of things. For one, the general populace of Iraq was suffering under sanctions that were doing little to undermine Saddam Hussein's authority.
Yeah, but it'd be hard to argue that this suffering was equal to or greater than the suffering caused by the US invasion. A lot of Iraqis were killed; also many Americans.
quote:However, for myself it is most justified by the fact that we encouraged the Shiite Arabs in the south of Iraq to revolt, and then left them out to dry.
Sounds like a sunk cost to me. We'd already made that mistake. Why follow it up by hurting the Iraqi people even more?
quote:I am a believer that any government not selected by its populace is simply unacceptable.
I agree, another reason I wouldn't have supported the Vietnam war.
quote: However, getting people killed on the promise that we would help them reclaim their government and then stopping at Kuwait is not quite the same. However, I think that the invasion was earlier than it should have been and that there were methods of getting Saddam out of power that would have been better on a number of levels.
That might be right. So are you saying a war can be just if there are better options available? That sounds implausible to me.
I should mention a further problem with the Iraq war that hasn't been mentioned. (Vietnam also had this problem.) Atrocities in a protracted war are inevitable. The stress on troops is just too hard; psychologically some of them are inevitably going to misbehave very badly. But in Iraq, since we were fighting partly to win over the populace, atrocities undermined that goal and set the war back (unlike eg in WW2).
I think it's a big mistake to start a long war knowing that atrocities committed by your own troops will undermine the war effort. You just can't control (not perfectly) whether such things will happen.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
The Gulf of Tonkin certainly led to a formal declaration. Realistically we had already been fighting and the Vietnam War was already under way. See, I would classify the Vietnam War as a more just conflict than Iraq as well. Many people that found the conduct of the war to be deplorable saw that many South Vietnamese did not want to join North Vietnam. Of course that doesn't make how the war was conducted to be just. I think of it like this. A police officer may be justified in arresting a person, but that doesn't justify them to beat the heck out of that person, or destroying a neighborhood in pursuit of the suspect. If that makes any sense.
Also it isn't a poor result that I am trying to get at, but the actual actions used to reach the result. A just war does not necessarily mean that all means are now acceptable. It is an interesting scale. For example, many see WWII as a just war for the Allies, but there are many actions on the Allies part that would be considerd unethical. It is scale of sorts when unjust conduct in a war can lead to the war as a whole to become unjust. In that manner an unjust war could have been justified in the beginning.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Vietnam was assuredly unjust as it was provoked by the United States in typical pedobear fashion waltzing in subverting the national elections for unification and installing a strong man in Saigon and then later faking evidence to justify intervention, the United States only had 1 reason for entry and that was to "stop the communist take over domino effect" something they wouldn't have needed to do if they had listened to Ho Chi Minh's request for aid and forced the French to negotiate with the Vietnamese freedom fighters.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
There is certainly some truth their Bradley. Had FDR not died as soon as he did we would never had problems in Vietnam as he was staunchly anti-imperialist and would not have supported the French going backing into Vietnam. Should we have supported a strongman in Saigon, of course not. Doing that really subverted the United State's goal for a democratic Vietnam. Does that mean that it was worthwhile to keep North Vietnam out of South Vietnam, I think so. Although I admit that the difference between Vietnam and Korea were immense as the relationship between Vietnam and China was much different, which is certainly evident when the Chinese invaded Vietnam. Not only this, but the Vietnamese were never really the stooges of the Soviets. The Soviets were simply a means to an end, unified Vietnam. That does not change the fact that many Vietnamese did not want to be Communist. Don't get me wrong, I think Vietnam is a cluster caused by many poor choices that occured long before we ever began to actively fight there. However, I would still say that a democratic freely elected Vietnam or South Vietnam would have been preferable to what happened and worth fighting for. Simply not how we did fight there.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There would have been no need to "keep" North Vietnam out as they would have democratically won the elections and unified it as a majority supported Ho Chi Minh, who I must point out had once visited the United States and admired its culture and based the constitution of Vietnam on the US constitution, yes he was Marxist but so was every independence movement as Marxism was a decidedly anti imperialist ideology nothing came close to it in the hearts and minds of asian anti colonial intellectuals. So talking about how it would have been morally better for South Vietnam to have won or have vietnam be democratic was bs and undermined by the very actions of the United States who pressued Saigon to CANCEL the elections that would have decided the issue.
Both China and the Soviet Union heavily supported Vietnam regardless of the split as theyre interests were aligned in keeping the US out of Vietnam and China allowed for the passage of Soviet arms through China, China and vietnam clashing came about afterwards due to circumstances completely different from the circumstances then.
POLITICS!
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
It has to do that Vietnam and China have clashed on multiple occasions across history. Whereas Korea was historically a Chinese protectorate. Which is why historically when Japan tried to take Korea they ended up fighting the Chinese. For this reason China fought against the United States in the Korean War, with the only provocation being that we pushed into North Korea. Not only this, but the Vietnamese had no interest in being stooges to any other communist power. That is all really an extreme simplification and I realize that.
That and even the Soviet Union based many of their rights on the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, not that they always gave those rights. On many occasions the Soviets loved to bring up the fact that they had more rights in their constitutation than were written in our own. However, I think what you mean to say is that Ho Chi Minh's Proclamation of Independence is based off the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. If their constitution was based on the Constitution then it would have the same political structure as the United States, which it does not.
The Soviets were not really hot on the whole Vietnam issue until they saw that they could put a hurting on the United States. They really didn't care much for the Vietnamese themselves. The Soviets just always liked to show that they were the big boys on the block when it came to communism.
Either way, Vietnam was a big big mess that shouldn't have come to what it did. However, all I'm trying to say is that to promote a democratic government and to allow a people to become self determining is worth the violence that comes along with war. Obviously it is much nicer when we can do it without a war. I simply believe that at some point the suffering and loss that can occur waiting for some perfect moment for this to occur may end up causing more suffering then a short war. As I've been trying to say, I don't think we should just invade every non-democratic nation as we will be seen as a bunch of imperialists and doom the cause that we hope to promote. The thing is that certain situations end up occuring where we become involved in certain areas due to actions of people who came before us that may morally obligate us to fight and or become proactive to maintain a certain level of freedom ( I hate using that word due to all the Bush and anti-Bush rhetoric). I can't help what occured with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, or even American actions over the last 200 years. However, at certain moments of time you can only try and do what is best for that situation. Obviously I think there are an endless amount of decisions better than war in Vietnam before we came to war itself. However, by the time that we became seriously involved there I feel that there were limited options in what we could have done. I know that I would rather live in South Korea than Vietnam. That Taiwan would be preferable to China.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Friendly aside: More paragraphs, please. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: (Ease of winning should definitely factor into whether a war is just.)
This seems like a terrible criterion to me. Care to elaborate?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
easier winning = less death, hardship, destruction of livelihood, requirement for non-voluntary participation, etc
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That's definitely not my view. Afghanistan wasn't a defensive war, since the US was never attacked by the government of Afghanistan.
Sheltering an organisation which commits acts of war on the scale of 9/11 is an attack, and a legit casus belli, by any interpretation of international law. If Afghanistan had handed over the Al-Queda leaders, that would be one thing; refusing to do so was an act of war, and the resulting invasion legitimately defensive.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: easier winning = less death, hardship, destruction of livelihood, requirement for non-voluntary participation, etc
That certainly makes the war more pleasant. But more just?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it's fair to say that the more death and destruction something causes, the harder that thing is to justify.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Goals in warfare all hit a point where they are not worth the cost in human lives and collateral suffering.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sad to say, but death and destruction is the method of war. If you accept that wars can be just, then you're saying some things are worth fighting against even if that results in widespread death and destruction.
In terms of death and destruction caused, Iraq doesn't even scratch the surface of most of our historic wars. I guess that means it's the most just?
Edit: Samp's post slipped in while I was writing this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In terms of death and destruction caused, Iraq doesn't even scratch the surface of most of our historic wars. I guess that means it's the most just?
No. Noting that the amount of collateral damage and death and hardship that a war imposes must be factored into whether or not a war is justifiable is not saying at all that this is the sole metric by which a war can be considered more or less just.
For instance, the goals in warfare can be wrong in and of themselves and make war unjust even if it causes no death and destruction in the conventional warfare sense. Or a situation could be such that it is more unjust not to commit to the war and its consequences rather than do nothing, even if the toll is great.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Not in the slightest. All he said was it was ONE factor. Justification usually comes down to:
Predictable Benefit - Cost = Quality of Justification
Benefits can include upholding human rights, bringing justice to criminals, improving welfare of citizens, among other things.
Things with high costs can be justified, but only if the benefit is huge. Things with low costs can be unjustified if the benefit is even lower. When measuring costs on the scale that even the quickest wars require, the benefit has to be pretty big no matter what.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I would wholeheartedly agree with you Sam. The big question ends up becoming exactly where that line is. I think for many people it is impossible not to cross it with warfare, and some simply have a dedication of sorts that lets things get a lot worse then they ever should have gotten.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Goals in warfare all hit a point where they are not worth the cost in human lives and collateral suffering.
This may be true from a standpoint of practicalityif you've lost too much, and have no hope of winning, perhaps you should surrender but I don't think it has any bearing on whether or not the war is just.
I submit that if a metric of lives lost is the only basis for determining how just a war is, there's a good chance the war in question is already unjust. In an unjust war, each additional life lost is another reason to pack it in and go home. In a just war, those lives are still a terrible tragedy, but the greater purpose of the war doesn't vanish in the face of that tragedy. The survivors need to push on and continue to try to find victory.
I hate to mention WW2, because everybody does this, but it's really the only war where I can basically be sure everyone here agrees was just. Right?
How many more lives would the USA, or Great Britain, have to have lost before it became an unjust war? I don't think that number exists. I think using lives lost as a metric for a war's justness is fundamentally flawed.
Edit: Gah, I am way too slow on the draw. This was written before all those replies above me. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I submit that if a metric of lives lost is the only basis for determining how just a war is
quote:Noting that the amount of collateral damage and death and hardship that a war imposes must be factored into whether or not a war is justifiable is not saying at all that this is the sole metric by which a war can be considered more or less just.
quote:Not in the slightest. All he said was it was ONE factor.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I submit that if a metric of lives lost is the only basis for determining how just a war is
quote:Noting that the amount of collateral damage and death and hardship that a war imposes must be factored into whether or not a war is justifiable is not saying at all that this is the sole metric by which a war can be considered more or less just. [/b[
quote:Not in the slightest. All he said was it was [b]ONE factor.
Yeah, thanks Samp. See the above edit. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
My post was before your edit soooo dunno what you're rollin your eyes at.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Nothing, man. They always do that. My eyes can barely even stay in their sockets.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: The big question ends up becoming exactly where that line is. I think for many people it is impossible not to cross it with warfare, and some simply have a dedication of sorts that lets things get a lot worse then they ever should have gotten.
I think this is accurate. More than that, I think that in the modern age, people have become less and less comfortable with the idea that some loss of life can be necessary to accomplish a goal. And less comfortable with the idea that in war, like in everything, mistakes happen, but when they happen in war, people die.
Basically, it seems to me that in our recent conflicts public opinion has been insanely fickle, based on, I think, unrealistic expectations of what war is. And because people were using lives lost as a primary metric for how just the conflicts were.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Well Dan, I am going to have to disagree with you there on a few points.
1)If American society had to suffer a totalitarian dictatorship with dreams of expansion across the Americas and killed millions of Germans in America to beat the Nazi menace. Well, I think that would simply be too far. I know that sounds comical, but I think it is clearly one case where a just war should no longer be fought.
2) I am not so much disagreeing here, but I think part of the problem here is our defining a just war. I think that the justifications to instigate violence never become unjust, however the actual conflict itself. The real war itself, can become unjust. The justification still exists to have potentially began it, however the consequences of the conflict were so great that the conflict itself is no longer a just one.
Example ( to beat the WWII metaphor to death ): Instead of Japan surrendering after two atomic bombs being dropped on it the resolve of the nation is bolstered. A quick end to the war actually ends in over a million American combat deaths and millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. Not only this, but we drop one more atomic bomb on Tokyo to finally break the back of the Japanese resistance. The resulting fallout and loss of life pushes the Japanese culture and society to break and practically vanish from the planet. At this point I think we can say that the war ( the actual application of force itself ) was no longer just/ethical/morally correct. Of course that wouldn't change the fact that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and that we were completely justified to attack Japan.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Basically, it seems to me that in our recent conflicts public opinion has been insanely fickle, based on, I think, unrealistic expectations of what war is. And because people were using lives lost as a primary metric for how just the conflicts were.
Studied this. A lot of this has to do with the social fallout of how the rationale for war with Iraq completely fell apart, alongside a timeframe where the administration's constant stressing of imminent victory came as the nation plunged into further chaos.
When people go from being told that the war was necessary and we would be cheered as liberators to having all of that turn out to be completely false, and then spend months being told that victory is right around the corner (death throes, etc) as grimmer and grimmer news and scandals like Abu Ghraib pop up, people's idealism burns out. It becomes an equation of lives lost cleaning up a mess.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Why would kiloton sized nukes (which the Hiroshima city busters were roughly) on only three cities make Japanese culture "vanish"? This is a nation that managed tocompletely resist western imperialism and join the international system as a great power in of itself.
America was arguably justified to engage in hostilities against Japan as soon as it commenced to invade China in violation of international treaties and definately justified once it attacked Britain the military attack by Japan on Hawaii just ensured that the American people would be all for it.
Whether dropping more bombs 9when they eventually roll off the assembly line) or the physical invasion of Japan was just depends on how much we consider allowing for the possibility of japanese militerism to slunker off to come back another day. The war wasn't just a matter of international law of one nation defending itself but a global coalition to defeat the forces of reactionary fascism once and for all an utter rejection of the previous system of nations using war as a means to international ends.
Thus it was absolutely nessasary to deprive Germany and Japan of their soverignty and occupy them for the greater good of imposing democracy and disposing of their militeristic past via publicly trying their war leaders and war criminals as a lesson that this crud won't be tolerated by the international community forevermore.
To this end had the Japanese not surrendered after the second bomb (or more accurately had the Allies finally compromised and agreed not to force the abdication of the Emperor) then it would have seemed completely nessasary to invade (or drop more bombs) to insure once and for all that Japanese militerism was dead and its people could then move on more constructively.
The war has had an ideological depth to it as a war between Justice and Might.
quote:It has to do that Vietnam and China have clashed on multiple occasions across history.
Vietnam was just as often a protectorate/tributary state as well depending on the dynasty, that China provided arms, expertise and officers and volunteers to aid the Vietnamese is indisputable.
quote:For this reason China fought against the United States in the Korean War, with the only provocation being that we pushed into North Korea.
Among other incredibly thoughtless actions and statements by certain generals to provoke the reaction.
quote:but the Vietnamese had no interest in being stooges to any other communist power.
How is this relevant to the discussion? They also didn't want to be stooges to western imperialists as well, but the USSR and China still gave them aid and they still accepted it, this doesn't imply anything.
quote:That and even the Soviet Union based many of their rights on the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, not that they always gave those rights. On many occasions the Soviets loved to bring up the fact that they had more rights in their constitutation than were written in our own. However, I think what you mean to say is that Ho Chi Minh's Proclamation of Independence is based off the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. If their constitution was based on the Constitution then it would have the same political structure as the United States, which it does not.
The hypocrisy of one government doesn't bear anything to another, recall that Ho Chi Minh died of natural causes during the course of the conflict so we're unsure to what extand he would have reformed/loosened the system once the national emergancy was over, the point is that Ho Chi Minh had made many statements expressing a certain level of admiration of the United States based off of first hand experience, the United States should have more carefully considered Ho Chi Minh's request and more carefully treaded in the situation rather then a knee jerk reaction to oppose Communism on all fronts regardless of threat level.
quote:Either way, Vietnam was a big big mess that shouldn't have come to what it did. However, all I'm trying to say is that to promote a democratic government and to allow a people to become self determining is worth the violence that comes along with war.
There's got to be a word for this kind of soapboxing misdirection falacy argument but it currently leaves my mind, the second half here COULD be a valid point if it had any connection to the main argument and contention regarding the Vietnam conflict.
As it is historically clear that the goal in Vietnam WASNT to support the spread of democracy but instead to strangle the spread of socialism to which the United States was willing to use any means to stop even if it meant propping up right wing dictatorships.
quote:Obviously it is much nicer when we can do it without a war. I simply believe that at some point the suffering and loss that can occur waiting for some perfect moment for this to occur may end up causing more suffering then a short war. As I've been trying to say, I don't think we should just invade every non-democratic nation as we will be seen as a bunch of imperialists and doom the cause that we hope to promote. The thing is that certain situations end up occuring where we become involved in certain areas due to actions of people who came before us that may morally obligate us to fight and or become proactive to maintain a certain level of freedom ( I hate using that word due to all the Bush and anti-Bush rhetoric). I can't help what occured with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, or even American actions over the last 200 years. However, at certain moments of time you can only try and do what is best for that situation. Obviously I think there are an endless amount of decisions better than war in Vietnam before we came to war itself. However, by the time that we became seriously involved there I feel that there were limited options in what we could have done. I know that I would rather live in South Korea than Vietnam. That Taiwan would be preferable to China.
Words fail to describe this mess of an argument, yes there are justified wars and yes they are for the sake of brevity also morally just wars but the vietnam war wasn't just and never will be just no matter how much revisinism is done because the reasons for going in do not match the reasons that would make it just.
If entering Vietnam was justified then they would have been justified entering immediately, if they had to fake evidence to get in on the bombing brown people action then there was absolutely no possibility that the war ever would have been justified.
quote: I don't think we should just invade every non-democratic nation as we will be seen as a bunch of imperialists and doom the cause that we hope to promote.
This is what Iraq and the Vietnam debacle precisely appear to be to most of the Third World and 'the south'.
quote: The thing is that certain situations end up occuring where we become involved in certain areas due to actions of people who came before us that may morally obligate us to fight and or become proactive to maintain a certain level of freedom ( I hate using that word due to all the Bush and anti-Bush rhetoric). I can't help what occured with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, or even American actions over the last 200 years
Flat What.
quote:. I can't help what occured with the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire
Objection, relevance?
quote:However, at certain moments of time you can only try and do what is best for that situation.
How idealistic of you unfortunately American's don't have the patience of the competance to do anything other then 'Break things' and 'blow things up'.
quote: Obviously I think there are an endless amount of decisions better than war in Vietnam before we came to war itself.
There's only one decision that you should have made differently, not entering period.
quote: I know that I would rather live in South Korea than Vietnam. That Taiwan would be preferable to China.
Also for your information Vietnam, Mainland China are both very nice places to live in, have you ever been to these places or talked to people who've been there? Yes they have a lower standard of living but it doesn't make them wastelands or something out of Half Life 2.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Well Dan, I am going to have to disagree with you there on a few points.
1)If American society had to suffer a totalitarian dictatorship with dreams of expansion across the Americas and killed millions of Germans in America to beat the Nazi menace. Well, I think that would simply be too far. I know that sounds comical, but I think it is clearly one case where a just war should no longer be fought.
2) I am not so much disagreeing here, but I think part of the problem here is our defining a just war. I think that the justifications to instigate violence never become unjust, however the actual conflict itself. The real war itself, can become unjust. The justification still exists to have potentially began it, however the consequences of the conflict were so great that the conflict itself is no longer a just one.
Example ( to beat the WWII metaphor to death ): Instead of Japan surrendering after two atomic bombs being dropped on it the resolve of the nation is bolstered. A quick end to the war actually ends in over a million American combat deaths and millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. Not only this, but we drop one more atomic bomb on Tokyo to finally break the back of the Japanese resistance. The resulting fallout and loss of life pushes the Japanese culture and society to break and practically vanish from the planet. At this point I think we can say that the war ( the actual application of force itself ) was no longer just/ethical/morally correct. Of course that wouldn't change the fact that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and that we were completely justified to attack Japan.
I think you made some excellent points all around. I don't think I disagree with any of them, either. I especially agree with...
quote: I think that the justifications to instigate violence never become unjust, however the actual conflict itself. The real war itself, can become unjust. The justification still exists to have potentially began it, however the consequences of the conflict were so great that the conflict itself is no longer a just one.
That's a great point. In this context, I agree that "ease of winning" or lives lost can be considered.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... This is a nation that managed tocompletely resist western imperialism ...
No.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:How idealistic of you unfortunately American's don't have the patience of the competance to do anything other then 'Break things' and 'blow things up'.
This is similar to how you will often use your being canadian as a fiat to proclaim you are more knowledgeable on Insert International Subject X.
It's also as annoying and useless, so quit it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... This is a nation that managed tocompletely resist western imperialism ...
No.
Yes. Some unequal treaties at the beginning not withstanding but they managed to completely resist any foreign power from military intervening in Japan, avoiding the partitioning of its territory among foreign powers into spheres of influence and quickly managed to tear up the earlier treaties allowing for the ONLY foreigners allowed in being the ones who were providing support for Japan's dirigist economic development.
In short yes Japan quite handidly managed to avoid becomming a tool of foreign imperialism but isntead became its own energetic imperialist that merely borrowed and then improved upon western ideas.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:How idealistic of you unfortunately American's don't have the patience of the competance to do anything other then 'Break things' and 'blow things up'.
This is similar to how you will often use your being canadian as a fiat to proclaim you are more knowledgeable on Insert International Subject X.
It's also as annoying and useless, so quit it.
It is precisely because I am not American that I am able to generalize modern american ability to do things into two such categories and one that is backed up by evidence.
Afghanistan? Easily toppled the Taliban check.
Is Afghanistan now a fully functioning secular society with regular and effective elections under the rule of law with American forces showing any kind of competance in doing repairs? No. With the work that IS being done being done by Canadians.
Iraq, military wiped out and the country occupied within a month? Yes. Country now stabilized and rebuilt? No.
Care to give an example of where HAS the US military managed to occupy a country AND managed to rebuild it post hrrm Maybe 1980? Maybe Panana, okay I'll grant you panama.
Of course I do notice that this is the only thing you decided to contest implying that your uncomfortable with arguing on the actual subject preferring to challenge my rhetoric.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Blayne, by bringing up the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire I am trying to say that I can't change the context of the world today. That is I can't just go back in time and change the decisions that my forefathers made in America or Germany. I can't change the fact that the British Empire arbitrarily said this big piece of land will be India and this will be Nigeria etc. The Ottoman Empire over the fact that their loss in WWI led to the Middle East being caught in Western Imperialism and being partitioned into countries with no real basis of existence. I can't change the fact that who knows what high level individual in the State Department or the executive made some really botched calls in regards to Vietnam. I also can't help that the Soviets, especially Stalin, called for armed revolution all over the place and that Communism should be spread by the sword.
That being the case, we did one Vietnam to be a democracy, perhaps not for the lofty goal of freedom. Mainly for the fact that we wanted all markets to be open for American trade. Read the Atlantic Charter signed by FDR and Churchill.
Also I don't think the Gulf of Tonkin was a conspiracy, it was just a screwup on the level of the USS Maine blowing up in the harbor of Havana. There is some evidence to show that the US ships may have fired on one another, or that they were actually in North Vietnamese waters ( hence justifying any potential attacks against them ). Or that there was some glitch in the electronics on board the ships etc. etc. Things happen. Not to mention you obviously don't know much about the Vietnam War as American forces were in a shooting war long before the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The Japanese certainly stopped any Western influence on the level of the Philippines, conquered by the Spanish, or what occured to China, Opium wars. However, given the fact that they were forced to open their society by Commodore Perry and some American warships (military intervention) it would seem that the were pushed by the West. Not to mention the transfer of power from the Shogun to the Emperor was extremely influenced by the West. The very fact that they industrialized ( westernized ) shows that they did not escape western influence.
I am not trying to diminish their historical achievements, just saying that you are perhaps being a little too bombastic. Also, I would love to see how you would explain their becoming the democratic nation they are today without American military intervention.
Also socialism does not equate to communism. If we hated socialist so much we would have invaded Norway a long time ago. Not to mention our efforts to "strangle socialism" were not always from the high ground, but in the case of Vietnam we did want some form of Democracy. To go into all the reasons why that was not going so well one only has to look at the context thrust upon us by the French etc. Anyhow, I'm beating a dead horse there and I doubt you're actually going to agree with any of that.
If only "us" Americans wouldn't just break stuff all the time. Must come from our Anglo-Saxon tradition that loves to beat on Celts, yeah like that one that took hold in Canada. Oh yeah, and those French that live up north that took Vietnam by the bayonet. I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you, as it does to me. The comments you made were on the same level.
That and you have obviously not lived in Vietnam. We have a large refugee community and I have many Hmong and Vietnamese friends that would denounce what you just said very loudly. My Cousin just spent a year in China and said it was a very wonderful interesting place, but that she felt rather sorry for the conditions that the people had to live in and the scrutiny they were forced to live under. Have you even seen video of the environmental destruction going on in China? Not only that, but I would love for you o tell a bunch of Uyghurs that China is a wonderful place and that they would hate to live in a system that might actually protect some of their rights.
Little comical side note: I served with a bunch of Canadian EOD guys in Afghanistan who hated the fact that everyone thought of Canadians as somehow not having a martial spirit. They were more than happy to bring up the fact that they had a military tradition stemming directly from the British Empire.
Believe it or not, but America is not full of raging idiotic psychopaths, just saying.
[ June 16, 2010, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Black Fox ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In short yes Japan quite handidly managed to avoid becomming a tool of foreign imperialism but isntead became its own energetic imperialist that merely borrowed and then improved upon western ideas.
I too resist Lady Gaga by learning how to dress like her and singing her songs in karaoke clubs.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In short yes Japan quite handidly managed to avoid becomming a tool of foreign imperialism but isntead became its own energetic imperialist that merely borrowed and then improved upon western ideas.
I too resist Lady Gaga by learning how to dress like her and singing her songs in karaoke clubs.
I'm pretty sure Karaoke is a Japanese word. In either case, resisting Imperialism isn't the samething as resisting foreign culture of which a healthy exchange of is nothing to be ashamed of.
In short stop being contrary for the sake of being contrary if you have an argument substantiate it.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
You know, I love the Canadian guys in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't go so far as giving them even half the credit in the part of Afghanistan run by ISAF. The Brits tend to do a much better job in there. The Danes also do a great job for the number of men that they have there. I like to give them props whenever I can as NO ONE talks about the Danes.
I also don't believe that Eisenhower put soldiers into Vietnam to kill brown people. Neither do I think that LBJ, the executive that pushed civil rights in the United States, was out to kill brown people. I really don't believe that kind of off the wall unsubstantiated pure conspiratorial hyperbole.
"The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Vietnam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means" Eisenhower to Ngo Dinh Diem in 1954 on why he would support South Vietnam. A nation created by an agreement signed by North Vietnam. A nation that had all the Casus Belli to engage in warfare against North Vietnam, a nation that was attacking it. Not the other way around.
America's escalation of force was directly linked to Hanoi sending regular army units into Sout Vietnam in 64. Casus Belli.
Oh, I also would love to hear your justification for North Vietnam's annexation of the South Vietnamese.
One of America's greatest moral failings in the last century was our not supporting South Vietnam with air power, thus allowing the Soviet/Chinese backed North Vietnamese to defeat South Vietnam.
Being a student of history I do not see the Vietnam War as beginning in the 60s, but in the 50s under Eisenhower. At the very least the American participation in the war. Do I believe we were justified in supplying the South Vietnamese with trainers and weapons to defend itself. No. Hence, extremely justified war. Did LBJ make a mistake by escalating troop numbers, maybe. However, he had that hand pushed on him by the Soviets and North Vietnam.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Eisenhower
Words of a true breaker and smasher. Reading that it should not be hard for you to imagine why I was never a big fan of the Soviet Union or their push to spread their idealogical empire by the sword. One that had little to do with socialism, and much more to do with Russian nationalism, Russian imperialism, and pride.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Blayne, by bringing up the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire I am trying to say that I can't change the context of the world today.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
quote:I can't change the fact that the British Empire arbitrarily said this big piece of land will be India and this will be Nigeria etc.
What does this have to do with the context of the discussion.
quote:he Ottoman Empire over the fact that their loss in WWI led to the Middle East being caught in Western Imperialism and being partitioned into countries with no real basis of existence.
Also not relevant and also kind of wrong, Turkey, Iraq, Israeli and arguably Saudi Arabia all had a basis for existance, I'm a little fuzzy on whether Jordanians are their own ethnic group or not you would have to ask Lisa.
quote:. I can't change the fact that who knows what high level individual in the State Department or the executive made some really botched calls in regards to Vietnam.
Just because you can't change it doesn't mean you can somehow wish it all away and make it alright, "sorry we goofed, no harm no foul right?".
This is starting to remind me of the whole Cylon-Human thing on New Caprica.
quote:I also can't help that the Soviets, especially Stalin, called for armed revolution all over the place and that Communism should be spread by the sword.
Not really it was Lenin and Trotsky and Mao who called for it, Stalin was more then happy to be cautious to the point of paranoia to avoid clashing with the west.
quote:That being the case, we did want Vietnam to be a democracy, perhaps not for the lofty goal of freedom.
quote:mainly for the fact that we wanted all markets to be open for American trade. Read the Atlantic Charter signed by FDR and Churchill.
Yay for Imperialism and neomercantilism!
quote:Also I don't think the Gulf of Tonkin was a conspiracy, it was just a screwup on the level of the USS Maine blowing up in the harbor of Havana.
"I am not a crook!"
quote:There is some evidence to show that the US ships may have fired on one another, or that they were actually in North Vietnamese waters ( hence justifying any potential attacks against them ).
And I may have or may not have slept with your mom. Or that there may have been some glitch unfortunately with my electronics if you know what I mean but things happen.
quote: Not to mention you obviously don't know much about the Vietnam War as American forces were in a shooting war long before the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Thats putting words into my mouth, as I certainly didn't say they weren't there to some capacity prior to the incident, it is also not relevant that there were some 50,000 personnel sent by the Kennedy administration before hand to whether they were justified to invade with the full efforts of the United States military in the internal struggle of Vietnam.
quote:The Japanese certainly stopped any Western influence on the level of the Philippines, conquered by the Spanish, or what occured to China, Opium wars. However, given the fact that they were forced to open their society by Commodore Perry and some American warships (military intervention) it would seem that the were pushed by the West.
Words fail again, and you fail some relative economics. The point is that Japan is a nation that had such great pool of resources in terms of its national cohesion, its moral, its willingness to accept sacrifices for the goal of national determination and self-strengthening is that how can three piddly sized nuclear weapons that only could kill maybe 400-500 thousand at most destroy the culture of Japan with its population of 80 million?
ALSO I am saying is that the total value of economic growth and freedom of indepedence Japan acquired from its modernization along selective western lines far outweighs the opening by the US by many orders of magnitude, yes it got the ball rolling but by 1905 Japan had clearly shown itself free of undo influence by the west on Japanese soveriegnty.
quote:I am not trying to diminish their historical achievements, just saying that you are perhaps being a little too bombastic. Also, I would love to see how you would explain their becoming the democratic nation they are today without American military intervention.
More of that logical googilygok of yours, misdirection! No bearing or relation to the other parts of the argument we had already just established that for a multitude of ideological reasons occupation was required to destroy Japanese militerism in fact I was the one who stated that, however it wasn't so much as American intervention as it was Japan shooting itself in the foot by attacking the USA when it was woefully inadequate for war with the economic powerhouse the US was.
quote:Also socialism does not equate to communism.
I didn't say it was.
quote:If we hated socialist so much we would have invaded Norway a long time ago.
That was more Americans living in denial then an acceptance of soclialism as a legitimate form of government just look at all the "Obama is a socialist!" cries from half the US nowadays.
quote:Not to mention our efforts to "strangle socialism" were not always from the high ground, but in the case of Vietnam we did want some form of Democracy.
Firstly what do you mean by high ground, this is an ambiguous statement with many meanings, moral high ground? Order from on high in the administration? Strategic high ground?
And no you didn't want democracy only that a functioning democracy would have been a positive result as long as it wasn't the Communist Party who won the elections and THUS WHY YOU CANCELED THE ELECTIONS.
quote:To go into all the reasons why that was not going so well one only has to look at the context thrust upon us by the French etc. Anyhow, I'm beating a dead horse there and I doubt you're actually going to agree with any of that.
Well no duh sherlock.
quote:If only "us" Americans wouldn't just break stuff all the time. Must come from our Anglo-Saxon tradition that loves to beat on Celts, yeah like that one that took hold in Canada. Oh yeah, and those French that live up north that took Vietnam by the bayonet. I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you, as it does to me. The comments you made were on the same level.
I'm certain that may be a possibility if I could ever figure out what the crap your trying to say.
quote:That and you have obviously not lived in Vietnam.
I haven't but I've seen enough specials, documentaries and books to tell that it is probably half decent if I am willing to give up on somethings we soft westerners consider necessities.
But hey 30 million dong for a motorcycle sounds cool and it DOES have the best motoring way the Top Gear team have ever been to.
quote: We have a large refugee community and I have many Hmong and Vietnamese friends that would denounce what you just said very loudly.
Blah blah blah to the cry babies who lost.
quote: My Cousin just spent a year and China and said it was a very wonderful interesting place, but that she felt rather sorry for the conditions that the people had to live in and the scrutiny they were forced to live under.
Considering what conditions your used to no duh! But we aren't comparing here to there only that on their own merits these places would be alright to live in.
quote:Have you even seen video of the environmental destruction going on in China.
I have seen many, many, many documentaries and very well read on the subject of the changes going on in China and is essentially my hobby to study it [China] and while bad is essentially just the same kind of stuff any developing country goes through to get to where we are but doesn't really have bearing over whether it would be a fine place to live in or not, only practically which areas should be avoided.
quote: Not only that, but I would love for you o tell a bunch of Uyghurs that China is a wonderful place and that they would hate to live in a system that might actually protect some of their rights.
Hey, I think there's some Indians I should introduce you to...
Oh and those Mexicans in AZ...
But the relationship between the Han Chinese and how the PRC treats its minorities is a complex story that I am skeptical that you have any of the minimal grounding in to make any valid complaints about.
quote:Little comical side note: I served with a bunch of Canadian EOD guys in Afghanistan who hated the fact that everyone thought of Canadians as somehow not having a martial spirit. They were more than happy to bring up the fact that they had a military tradition stemming directly from the British Empire.
Again flat what please quote to me where I somehow stated the opposite, I think your doing more of that logical humbugary again here, pulling out random stuff hoping to confuse the issue.
quote:Believe it or not, but America is not full of raging idiotic psychopaths, just saying.
Realistically yes, but its easier and more humorous to describe American actions and cowboy diplomacy on the international as just being that of a rampaging bull in a china shop, and especially humorous that it is at least loosely based on fact.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Oh, I also would love to hear your justification for North Vietnam's annexation of the South Vietnamese.
*cough*
quote:Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel, and under the terms of the Geneva Convention, civilians were to be given the opportunity to freely move between the two provisional states for a 300-day period. Elections throughout the country were to be held in 1956 to establish a unified government
quote: In the south, former Emperor Bao Dai's State of Vietnam operated, with Ngô Đình Diệm (appointed in July 1954) as his prime minister. In June 1955, Diem announced that elections would not be held. South Vietnam had rejected the agreement from the beginning and was therefore not bound by it
That to me seems like a pretty good casus beli and the justification for the North to unify the country, thus the North wasn't attacking a sovereign nation but instead settling an internal affair.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
That and I honestly know there is no reason for me to argue any "facts" with you as you'll simply claim that Diem was a US puppet, instead of his simply being a nepotist, corrupt politician, and all around jerk. He canceled those elections, but I have a feeling you'll blame that on US influence somehow. I also love how people tend to turn every protest against Diem into a protest against America. Instead of a protest against a scum bag.
Anyhow arguing against you is completely futile as you have found it completely impossible to grasp the larger picture, or simply wish not to for some other petty reason.
Cowboy diplomacy? I find it a bit humorous that one president could change the past. That and "I'm not a crook" was Nixon, who was not the president that put us in Vietnam in mass ( that was LBJ ). It was the crook that pulled us out, funny huh. I find your anachronism to be a bit... no, extremely childish.
You would charge others with not going after a substantial part of your argument, I've noticed you do the same with my own. I am not a blind person and its easy enough to see what topics you don't want to touch with a long stick, most likely for the reason that you even know you're wrong.
Since we're just randomly bashing nationalities: You're Canadian, why don't you just go beat a Somali to death! Or even better, how about you turn over a bunch of Afghani prisoners to the Afghan Army to be tortured to death! Completely idiotic statements with kernels of truth to them. I find your method of discourse to be distasteful and practically useless to respond to.
I also find your attacks on my person to be proof of one thing: I made the better argument ; )
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
And we were simply assisting in that internal affair, so we really weren't at war. Really we were completely justified in our "police action." lol
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:That and I honestly know there is no reason for me to argue any "facts" with you as you'll simply claim that Diem was a US puppet, instead of his simply being a nepotist, corrupt politician, and all around jerk. He canceled those elections, but I have a feeling you'll blame that on US influence somehow. I also love how people tend to turn every protest against Diem into a protest against America. Instead of a protest against a scum bag.
Is why the North won but your still missing the point of the argument here, is that the US was not justified for its military intervention in the internal affairs of another nation especially because it was for realpolitik considerations not for liberty.
Its pre-1964 support I am actually and I have stated already ambivilent towards as both sides of the Cold War were giving support there and everywhere as long as the support was proportional I couldn't care less.
quote:Cowboy diplomacy? I find it a bit humorous that one president could change the past.
Sorry my mistake, pedobear diplomacy is the correct term.
quote: That and "I'm not a crook" was Nixon, who was not the president that put us in Vietnam in mass ( that was LBJ ). It was the crook that pulled us out, funny huh. I find your anachronism to be a bit... no, extremely childish.
That was satire, the fact of the matter is that the Tonkin Incident however it happened WAS used and passed on as a casus beli by the US to escalate its involvement and regardless of what happened at the actual boats no effort was made by the administration to insure it was legit.
quote:You would charge others with not going after a substantial part of your argument, I've noticed you do the same with my own. I am not a blind person and its easy enough to see what topics you don't want to touch with a long stick, most likely for the reason that you even know you're wrong.
The only parts of your argument I thus far have "avoided" are the ones that are so utterly unreadable and riddled with facetious circular logic that its a wonder that you could come up with them accidentally.
quote:Since we're just randomly bashing nationalities: You're Canadian, why don't you just go beat a Somali to death!
I actually was one of those... It was fun.
quote:I also find your attacks on my person to be proof of one thing: I made the better argument ; )
If I actually did insult you that would be one thing but I haven't actually insulted you ant any point of this discussion.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: And we were simply assisting in that internal affair, so we really weren't at war. Really we were completely justified in our "police action." lol
By international law it is illegal to infringe on another nations internal sovereignty, so no you weren't.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
What I mean by you missing the point is far far FAR earlier in this entire conversation I labeled out what I was talking about.
We were justified in defending South Vietnam, not in the manner that we did. Why? Because Diem was obviously a corrupt president. Really a bad situation, however strategic interest kept us from just letting things go on in complete accordance with the treaty ( since it was a military demarcation, not a political border). I really agree with all this. Just so we can stop bickering about all that.
I am not trying to say that all the decisions made by the administrations of that era were good ones, however they were in the attempts to do something good. Even if they were rather misguided.
Do I believe that we were justified to defend South Vietnam, conduct war, and a number of other things to attempt and build a free South Vietnam, yes. Did we do that, no. We allowed things to go the way they did in the name of utility, that the ends justified the means. That maybe we could fix things once the war came to an end etc. Really faulty thinking, I know.
Vietnam War = Bad
Think of it in terms of propositional logic
If the United States conducts war for a democratic South Vietnam it is possible that the war is justifiable ( due to what I was talking with Dan about earlier no war is necessarily justifiable)
To say the it is not the case that the United States conducted war for a Democratic South Vietnam and therefore it is not possible that the war is justifiable is a logical fallacy referred to as denying the antecedent.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that we didn't actually fight the war for a Democratic South Vietnam. You can say it violates international law until you're blue in the face all you want. I am talking about moral justification, which does not necessarily have anything to do with any legal justice. So what is the point of us arguing about it? None!
I am not trying to make the claims that you think I'm trying to make. I just fell into the trap of trying to argue about some other topics on the matter of the Vietnam War that have nothing to do with what I was trying to assert.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
That and to be downright honest with you I agree with a majority of the points you bring up. I do sometimes just like to argue certain points for the sake of seeing where someone will go. Sorry about that, it can be a bad habit. That is why I tried to bring it back to what I was really trying to claim in the first place.
You do have a fairly decent command of the subject, but I would still argue with a number of points. Our response in Vietnam was certainly larger than the Soviets, but I believe that when you look at things globally and historically it was far more balanced towards the Soviet side of the equation.
I also hate using my personal laptop for typing as the keyboard is junk, but I'm on TDY at the moment so I have to deal with it.
That and you did personally attack me, although nothing like Mal. I just don't like being referred to as an idiot, or being part of some odd beast known as the pedobear. I fear for the little cubs.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except I didn't call you an idiot, I may have said that Americans are stupid and only good for breaking things and I suppose you decided that as an American I was applying this to you but I feel that there is still an obvious distinction here is that I am not calling you one... yet.
Also weren't you just going on spouting how the PEOPLE aren't the same as the GOVERNMENT!? Ergo that me calling the US government out on its pederastic foreign policy should thus not be equated with me calling you that by your rules.
Also its an analogy, its more then a little flabbergasting to expect solid discourse while at the same time conflating my colourful descriptors as personal attacks every which ways.
Regardless though I feel that you have been doing a pretty long winded effort at disguising the issue which doesn't particularly involve Vietnam but more about your main gut-felt argument which I will summarize as this:
That the United States has the moral obligation and ethical duty to use military force to intervene in any nation, conflict, or region that it has the moral or ethical justification for.
The point is that you seem to feel that for long as we can justify it, then it is justified. My point is that this only works in theory. In practice this is an impossibility outside of a few clear cut issues of blatant aggression and that no amount of dancing around it and sugar dressing is going to change irreversible facts.
A war between two or more nation-states can only be a Just Cause if it is in self defense or in the aid of another sovereign nation operating in self-defense.
That I venture forth is my solid definition of a just war that one is morally and ethically inclined to fight, here's the ideological total war version.
A total war is only ethically and morally just to fight is if and only if it is in self defense or in aid of another nation also operating in self-defense and if it is fought to its natural conclusion of where the ideological forces that caused the war against all peace loving peoples is destroyed once and for all.
Under this working definition I would posit that invading Afghanistan was justified because they were holding Alqieda who had attacked the US and giving them shelter.
Intervening in the Persian Gulf War would then also be justified because Iraq had invaded Kuweit, if we ignored of course Kuweits own casus beli to Iraq and Suddams godawful diplomacy.
This breaks down with Iraq now because Iraq hadn't done anything.
This would make intervening in Vietnam not justified because that is only a civil war between two rival political forces not between two nation-states.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Of course I do notice that this is the only thing you decided to contest implying that your uncomfortable with arguing on the actual subject preferring to challenge my rhetoric.
The reason why I contested it in general was not because I have any discomfort arguing on the subject of your general sinophiliac obsessions (the weaknesses of which have already been documented to you in excess at numerous points in the past) but because I'd like only to hope you don't continue to rely on such base generalizations and fallacy.
Since you've already moved beyond that to a completely puerile defamation and are in full-on hot mode on the subject, I don't see any reason to try to get you to change your course. You are determined to remain reliant on immature tactics and overt hostility.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Nah you know what, you ain't getting a rise out of me this time.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
A war between two or more nation-states can only be a Just Cause if it is in self defense or in the aid of another sovereign nation operating in self-defense. That is really not a bad definition, one I would accept as well. The question is then to defend oneself or someone else from what? Would it be right to defend another sovereign nation from an idea, principle, or institution. I think that a majority of Americans, even George Bush, would have been happy to simply have Saddam step down or have some form of a graduated process to democracy. Of course we didn't see that ever happening.
I also hate to bring this up, but I really believe that the American Government ( wrongly ) believed that there were WMDs. Far too many of the individuals in the process were intelligent people with very little to gain from invading Iraq. I know people love to crack jokes along the lines of don't underestimate the stupidity of Bush, but still. Also look into psychology related to probability. People overwhelmingly get a 20/20 hindsight phenomena where looking back we tend to think it is obvious that something would happen, when in reality it wasn't. 9/11 is a great example, it really wasn't that obvious, you get your black swans sometimes and you have to roll with them.
That and I really do believe that a country that is governed by a non-elected government is not a nation-state. For this reason in my mind neither Iraq or North Vietnam are nation-states. Even if you vote to have a non-representative government I still feel it is not a nation-state. Simply as that government is simply the will of the nation at one point in time, not necessarily the current point and time.
With this line of thinking, by deposing a non-representative government you are defending the nation. This is why I would say that the wars could possibly be just. Iraq is slowly turning around, but nothing is certain. Afghanistan will realistically probably continue to be a massive problem, but we can hope. Vietnam was obviously a debacle and we, America, have much to atone for there. From Agent Orange poisoning, massive loss, and more than can be quickly listed in this short post.
I also agree with you when you state that "Iraq" the nation did nothing, but Saddam did. I would also argue that there are multiple nations within Iraq. Specifically the Kurds and Arabs, with a real potential split between portions of the Shiite community and the Sunni community. As I have stated before I see the invasion of Iraq mainly being a war against Saddam and Bathist forces rather than a war against the nation(s) of Iraq.
That and under your definition are we allowed to defend a nation against itself?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I Will put it like this just so it is easy to see eye to eye with little room for distortion or error.
The actual war that was fought in Iraq to depose Saddam and the one in Vietnam were unjust.
However, I believe that their intent was just. Does that make sense?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I would say that the United States is morally obligated to defend nation-states and that any action to help a nation under duress from withing would be supererogatory.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Nah you know what, you ain't getting a rise out of me this time.
Well done. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
SHUDDUP I KEEWL YOU!
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I love Koreans!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: I would say that the United States is morally obligated to defend nation-states and that any action to help a nation under duress from within would be supererogatory.
Really? So you would have sent troops to suppress, for example, the Hungarian Risings of 1848 and 1956? The students rioting in France in 1969, or the unemployed Moslems doing so now? The Iranian students who protested earlier this spring, the color revolutions in former Soviet states, the Burmese riots?
Or perhaps you're actually saying that you would send troops to aid allied regimes, provided it didn't look like too much trouble. A perfectly reasonable stance, but I suggest that it shouldn't be dressed up in fancy language about moral obligations.
Edit: Also, I'm not convinced 'supererogatory' is a word, and if it is, it ought not to be.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Woah woah hold the phone I actually like the way that word looks, it jsut needs to be defined right.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Also, I'm not convinced 'supererogatory' is a word, and if it is, it ought not to be.
It's a word. Means "morally or ethically above and beyond the call of duty." Widely used in normative ethics.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Also, I'm not convinced 'supererogatory' is a word, and if it is, it ought not to be.
It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not at all sure how 'moral obligation' equates to 'sending more troops and resources than we actually have'.
Black Fox did not say that was the only moral obligation, after all, nor even the only supererogatory one. In fact, isn't one of the definitions of that word 'greater than is needed' or superfluous?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Rakessh: I don't think that sending more troops and reosources than we actually have would be obligated.
That and as far as sending troops to suppress the Hungarian uprisings I wouldn't say that it fits within what I was trying to say. To defend a nation from internal duress is not to defend the regime in the country, but to defend the people that make up the nation. So, it would be more fitting that instead of sending soldiers to suppress the Hungarian uprisings it would be more fitting that the troops could be sent to help the actual uprisings themselves or the defend the people who are protesting from being killed etc. Of course a country isn't obligated to do any of that, simply that it would be permissable to do so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakessh: I don't think that sending more troops and reosources than we actually have would be obligated.
Heh, of course. What I mean is, I would be surprised if you didn't also think along with these ideas that the United States has other, competing moral obligations. Some of those obligations might even outweigh the kind we're talking about here, and those obligations might be infringed on and made more difficult or even impossible to meet, if we met this one particular moral obligation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You are pretty much spot on Rakeesh, certainly so far as to what I think in regards to this. My mind can become a real moral battleground to say the least.
Sometimes I feel that the word moral obligation can be a bit too strong, read some of Peter Singer's thought and I believe that you will come to a conclusion similar to my own. Simply that there has to be some kind of moral level between the truly obligatory and the superogatory. Otherwise everything ends up being supererogatory, which would seem to make it too easy to say no to certain moral choices to which we should be saying yes.
I just really smack my head a lot when I see the ethics that most people live their life by. It is a kind of reverse extrapolation that really makes me grind my teeth. Such as: a law states that x is illegal therefore doing x is immoral as an act of itself, not the fact that doing things illegal is immoral. When they should be saying, what is the moral basis for the law that states x is illegal and that if the basis is weak then really you should be repealing the law. Not to mention not all immoral acts should be illegal. So simply being legal does not make an action acceptable.
I also have a hard time with utilitarian thought, as it tends to focus on the ends justifying the means. Morality is not simply a math equation where at the end of a moral action the net result has to be positive. That is as every moral action is really part of a greater moral chain where in a way we never have a net result as everything is in progess. However I live in a world that tends to be very utilitarian.
That is why I have been playing around with the idea of moral competition on a trinagular basis similar to Clausewitz's, except of course his has to do with war. That is that morality is a competition both between society and between particular contexts, for me those contexts are the individual, the close social group, and a higher order ( nation, god, etc. ). However, there is no true balance between these three, that is simply sitting at the middle. Instead the demands of reality, that is simply surviving, causes a continous shift of the moral focal point that would be represented by a z axis. This focal point for me would be as close to an objective morality as there can be. However, as the point is a particular moment in time it creates a kind of moral stack through time. Whenever our choices fall away from this focal point the demands of survival pull us back. When we don't go back we suffer more or simply cease to survive.
Basically, moral today is not moral tomorrow and neither does it mean moral yesterday.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
UN human rights commission report on this is in. I actually found some of it surprising.
quote:Principally, the action of the Israel Defense Force in intercepting the Mavi Marmara on the high seas in the circumstances and for the reasons given was clearly unlawful. Specifically, the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
quote:The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted a grave violation of human rights law and international humanitarian law.
This is the surprising part:
quote:However, there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Wilful killing; Torture or inhuman treatment; Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
In particular, it sounds as if the Turkish-born US citizen who died was (a) shot while video taping the altercation from a distance and (b) then later shot dead from close range, possibly while lying incapacitated.
quote:Furkan Doğan, a 19-year-old with dual Turkish and United States citizenship, was on the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious, state for some time. In total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back thorax, left leg and foot. All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body, except for the face wound which entered to the right of his nose. According to forensic analysis, tattooing around the wound in his face indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range. Furthermore, the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back. The other wounds were not the result of firing in contact, near contact or close range, but it is not otherwise possible to determine the exact firing range. The wounds to the leg and foot were most likely received in a standing position.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, they conclude that the Israelis fired first:
quote:The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope. However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
One other tidbit:
quote:The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution. Furkan Doğan and İbrahim Bilgen were shot at near range while the victims were lying injured on the top deck. Cevdet Kiliçlar, Cengiz Akyüz, Cengiz Songür and Çetin Topçuoğlu were shot on the bridge deck while not participating in activities that represented a threat to any Israeli soldier. In these instances and possibly other killings on the Mavi Marmara, Israeli forces carried out extralegal, arbitrary and summary executions prohibited by international human rights law, specifically article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
(awaiting the shooting of the UN messenger )
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Also, they conclude that the Israelis fired first:
quote:The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope. However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.
Right... and Greedo shot first, too.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It isn't a matter of shooting the UN messenger. Anyone who isn't aware of the virulently anti-Israel sentiment of that body hasn't been paying attention. This report has about the same validity as a similar one being issued by the Saudis would have.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It isn't a matter of shooting the UN messenger. Anyone who isn't aware of the virulently anti-Israel sentiment of that body hasn't been paying attention.
Of course I'm aware of the double standard whereby the UN often condemns Israeli transgressions while letting worse offenses on the part of Islamic nations go without comment. In that sense the UN is certainly "anti-Israel."
But if the UN has a record of falsifying evidence against Israel, I'm not aware of it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I mean, these investigators would have to be not just misinterpreting evidence but lying through their teeth if the Israeli account of the boarding is at all accurate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It must be the global anti-Zionist conspiracy Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course I'm aware of the double standard whereby the UN often condemns Israeli transgressions while letting worse offenses on the part of Islamic nations go without comment. In that sense the UN is certainly "anti-Israel."
I don't understand the quote-marks there, Destineer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Just signifying that the term is hers, not mine. Omitting the quotes wouldn't have made much difference to my meaning.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
For instance, if the UN were to hold a representative democracy like the US to a higher standard of behavior than third-world dictatorships, I wouldn't consider that "anti-American," per se.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Gotcha, Destineer.
quote:For instance, if the UN were to hold a representative democracy like the US to a higher standard of behavior than third-world dictatorships, I wouldn't consider that "anti-American," per se.
I can dig that. Though frankly the UN's standard-holding seems to be...well, problematic at best, shall we say, and very inconsistent and indecisive even at the best of times.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I would say that the United States is morally obligated to defend nation-states and that any action to help a nation under duress from withing would be supererogatory.
I would say that actions to help nations under "duress from within" are wrong, as the outsider nation doesn't have the authority to determine which of the two opposed elements are the "proper" national government. Logic justifying such acts are like the logic the Soviet Union used in its invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
I suggest that only defending nations and peoples from outside threats justifies intervention. In some cases, mind you, there exists such peoples without their own borders: e.g. a nation of enslaved blacks in pre-Civil War America, and a Jewish people in pre-WWII Germany. Protecting *them* would have justified external intervention too.
But when the "duress" is just a matter of political differences, not really separates peoples abusing each other, then the proper thing is to let each nation find its own way.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
sorry - I love both of you. I just thought it was funny bc I saw your exchange in the other post.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)