POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
TF, I meant to say that it is fantasy to assume that Arafat did not sponser terrorism.
Candle, I think it naive to beleive that Arafat is no longer aiding and abetting Terrorism.
There are lots of Jews everywhere with various beleifs and practices TF. Jews against Zionism, Jews for Jesus. Al Goldstein is a Jew for chrissakes, and decorum prevents me from explicitly listing his affiliation.
I am not a zionist, I have never set foot in a temple. But it is clear that you believe the Palestinian "resistance" and the terror tactics employed thereby is justified while the Israeli response to the tactics is not.
You have not been able to articulate the Palestinian solution the the conflict.
Candle, I think it naive to beleive that Arafat is no longer aiding and abetting Terrorism.
There are lots of Jews everywhere with various beleifs and practices TF. Jews against Zionism, Jews for Jesus. Al Goldstein is a Jew for chrissakes, and decorum prevents me from explicitly listing his affiliation.
I am not a zionist, I have never set foot in a temple. But it is clear that you believe the Palestinian "resistance" and the terror tactics employed thereby is justified while the Israeli response to the tactics is not.
You have not been able to articulate the Palestinian solution the the conflict.
Really Dgabriel???
I said it several times I am for peace and the only way to achieve it is a palestinian state.
Concerning Palestine they have a right for dignity like any human being on this planet and like any human they have a right for a land their land. Not in my name is one of the numerous jewish groups that has the courage to say NO to the terrorist activity of Israel.
I said it several times I am for peace and the only way to achieve it is a palestinian state.
Concerning Palestine they have a right for dignity like any human being on this planet and like any human they have a right for a land their land. Not in my name is one of the numerous jewish groups that has the courage to say NO to the terrorist activity of Israel.
Yes, there must be a Palestinian state.
Yes, some of the activities of the Israeli military are unacceptable by civilized norms.
But also Hamas and Hezbollah et al. are not doing much to further the Palestinian cause.
Neither side is clean... elements on both sides need to revise their strategies and, better still, control the extremeist elements, if there is to be any progress.
I suggest that we move back to the thrust of the thread, namely US policy vis-a-vis Iraq...
Candle,
This whole issue has gotten kind of muddied for sure. But understandably so for obvious reasons.
If the US were to attack Iraq (a mistake IMO at this time), certainly it is very unlikely that Israel will not be drawn into the fray.
Last time ('91) Israel showed "restraint" as requested by America and the "coalition". This time, it is highly unlikely there will be a coalition, nor will Israel show restraint. So Israel becomes an integral part of any equation involving an attack on Iraq.
The Palestinian cause has been used conveniently for virtually all acts of terror, aggression and even outright war (other than the Kuwaiti incident) in the middle east for the past 55 years. And even after the incursion in Kuwait, Israel got drawn in. But thankfully in a limited way, and thankfully cooperated with the requests of the coalition, and did not retaliate (which must have been a hell of a hard thing to do...they were struck and just took their blows without taking action to retaliate...not an easy thing for an individual, let alone a small nation surrounded by hostile enemies on all sides).
Osama bin Laden needs a justification....Israel is persecuting the Palestinians (among other "justifications like US troops in Arabia, etc.). Everyone love to use Israel as an "excuse" for their fighting. Very popular scapegoat. But the jews have been convenient scapegoats for thousands of years, so no surprises there.
Four real wars were fought against Israel by their "friendly" neighbors since 1948. Not including these more recent wars of terror. I am talking about full scale wars like in '48, '54, '67 and '73. In each of these wars, Israel prevailed. And what exactly was the outcome?
Historically, land conquered in war is captured and retained by the victors. As did happen. But instead of being "imperialistic" as has been implied by TF and others, Israel attempted to return the lands it conquered. And did to a great degree. Wanted to return more, but the PA did not like the terms (what does the PA have to do with speaking for Syria about the Golan anyway?). In any event, the West Bank is now the touchy issue. And a peace plan with a very complex partition of the West Bank was drawn up.
Israel would indeed keep some of the land outside the "green line" (pre-'67 borders). But, contrary to the stated moronic ramblings posted here about Dick Army's "move them out" solution, the Palestinians would have had a homeland...their own state, on "real" palestinian land. The West Bank.
Jerusalem would be divided (IMO not a great idea, but better than nothing), and Jews and Muslims and Christians would have free access to their holy sites. What would be a better solution would be an independent city state with no affiliation to any country. Just a city of religious significance and peace. Like the Vatican. With a government consisting of representative of all religions and beliefs. But without allegiance to other nations (like Israel,or Palestine).
Most importantly, there could have been peace. But, of course, this solution will be unacceptable to the "palestinians" because, as we know, the reality is they want no resolution short of the elimination of Israel.
So if we attack Saddam, and Iraq, here will be another wonderful excuse for the arab world to again attack Israel. What is the relationship between one issue and the other? Never seemed to really matter. Any excuse for an arab nation to attack Israel is a good excuse.
So Candle, I don't see how to really separate these two issues. (Iraq and Palestine vs. Israel). Because any fighting will spread. Israel is the only true ally of America in that region. Or at least the only "trusted" ally (and even so, Israel and the US do not share all their "secrets" and "intelligence"). So the likelihood of any attack on Iraq not drawing Israel in seems quite remote.
And the likelihood of Israel not getting aggressive if attacked more remote still. This would serve to most likely escalate things far more than the US is willing to see happen. NO WAY is Iraq a threat to the existence of America now. But Israel could, and most likely will face extinction if they do not retaliate this time. And that would be a disaster of unimaginable magnitude (potentially).
I don't think any of us want to see a world war start EVER again. And to start over a conflict that is, as far as we understand Bush and Company now, a "preemptive" attack is ludicrous. preemptive.....how many of us have already conceded that the potential dangers of Iraq are less than those of N. Korea? Here comes the oil issue again. So essentially this is a war scenario that can end the world all because of what? A family grudge between the Bush family and Saddam? Oil interests? Certainly not (at this time) because of any real threat from Iraq against the American people.
And then the Israeli factor. If Israel is attacked with Scud missiles like last time, yeah, maybe they can be shot down and not cause much damage. But 11 years is a long time. Iraq may have figured out how to make their Scud attacks more devastating. More accurate. And then there is the issue of chemical or biological payloads? Perhaps "dirty" nuclear (if not thermonuclear) payloads. Bottom line is if Israel is pinned to the wall of their very existence, they have and may well use (and will use if it means the difference between perishing and not) real, honest to goodness (bad word) nuclear weapons. What is the upside of that scenario? Obviously none!
So there is very little, to my way of thinking, that would permit a discussion on the effects of a strike on Iraq to not include the possibilities and consequences of drawing Israel into the mess.
How do you separate two issues that assuredly will come together in a way that is going to do absolutely no good for any parties involved.
What is the level of Saddam's insanity? Look how he left Kuwait. He lost the war, retreated, but on his way out set fire to the whole country and caused more pollution than could have been imagined. Fires that burned (limited resources) for a year. And polluted the entire planet. And this was his way of "gracefully" accepting defeat. Imagine what he would do if he had more time? More weapons? And a chance to gather more arab support (in his mind) by inflicting as much damage as possible on Israel...always a popular achievement in the Arab world.
So enough said about WHY these subjects, IMO are intertwined.
As for the latest posts of my friend TF....As has been pointed out, there are "Jews for Jesus" and "Jews" for every cause. First off, they are most certainly not "real jews" any more than a Muslim who prays to the sun god Ra is a "real" muslim. So these groups are just named cleverly if there is anything to be said for them at all.
And TF...what on earth makes you think that those posts are in any way not propaganda for the Palestinian cause? I always say I will not cut and paste, because I am more interested in our own opinions. But I assure you I could find rebuttals to every cut and paste job you submit. I could find them authored by Arabs. And Palestinians. I can find articles written by Palestinian writers living both in Israel and in any other part of the world. And they would support Israel and decry the policies of Arafat and the PA. So don't take too seriously everything you see published. It is easy to find "facts" to suit your beliefs no matter what they are.
Dick Army is obviously an idiot, as is DeLay, as is Bush. These issues (palestine) and now, more importantly, our potential actions in Iraq are far too complex and dangerous to be left to the impulses of misinformed texas oilmen cowboys who only know war from afar. We need real leadership and real minds to step up. And this is why I feel that right now our only real source of proven perspective is Colin Powell. Let's hope he steps up to bat when a real player is called for to make real decisions the world will have to live with forever. I know he has the potential to save the day. Let's hope it isn't too late!
It is exactly this kind of thinking...this kind of acceptance of reality we need more of in order to achieve peace. Not the one sided rhetoric we so often hear. There are no clear elements of right and wrong. And calling one side or the other "nazis" or "fanatics" serves no purpose other than to further fuel the fires of ill will and further open the gorge between two sides that ultimately must come together for the good of each other. Otherwise, there can never be a peaceful resolution. No side is going to get 100% satisfaction from any compromise. Which by definition says it all.
Peace,
rs7Quote from rs7:
It is exactly this kind of thinking...this kind of acceptance of reality we need more of in order to achieve peace. Not the one sided rhetoric we so often hear. There are no clear elements of right and wrong. And calling one side or the other "nazis" or "fanatics" serves no purpose other than to further fuel the fires of ill will and further open the gorge between two sides that ultimately must come together for the good of each other. Otherwise, there can never be a peaceful resolution. No side is going to get 100% satisfaction from any compromise. Which by definition says it all.
Peace,
And it is exactly this kind of thinking which will lead to the "patriotic blind" removing their blinkers in order to truly understand the tragedy that defines US foreign policy...
German lessons
It is a British habit to keep on mentioning the war, but there is very little to feel self-righteous about
AL Kennedy
Monday December 9, 2002
The Guardian
Where would we be without Germany? We'd have no summer headlines about lebensraum-appropriating beach towels, no TV documentaries on Hitler's pot plants/sock drawer/dental hygienists, in fact almost no programming left on the Hitler - sorry, the History - Channel. And, frankly, if we couldn't nip over to Munich whenever we wanted, get bladdered and make jokes about gas bills, then think how low our national self-esteem could get.
As a professional typist, I spend a fair amount of time in non-British places, including Germany. And, of course, if you actually go there - arriving in a clean, person-friendly airport and getting driven away by a reputable cab driver who speaks three languages - you immediately realise you're in main land Europe. Nowhere is perfect, naturally, but being in Europe does tend to mean that public transport both exists as a series of sensible networks and is functional; that public health care is not considered a dangerous pipe-dream; and that education is valued and still takes place.
I can go to Germany and read from a novel in English inside a variety of purpose-built literature centres to large and comprehending audiences. In Britain, if I were a German-speaking author, I'd be reading - if I was lucky - in a semi-derelict library to a dog and three students. Ditto for pretty much any other foreign writer.
Still, the second world war gives us the right to mock and revile Germans in perpetuity, right? They started it, they did terrible things; they were wrong and we were right. Never mind that our own glorious leaders weren't all that far from coming down on the pro-Nazi side and had let the (black) Ethiopians and the (communist) Spaniards get bombed to smithereens by the fascists, and were, in many cases, frankly suspicious or even abusive towards the (Jewish or other foreign) refugees who managed to escape murder by fleeing to the UK.
Never mind that we used concentration camps of our own both before and after the war (for foreigners and black people) and never mind that we - and, indeed, our blessed US allies - were falling over ourselves to forgive and pay sums of money to Nazi war criminals who could give us the political support or technical info we needed. (Like the good Dr Strughold, who went from Dachau torturer to CIA researcher in one easy step.) Never mind that we have never really apologised for our own 300-year empire and subsequent geopolitical nightmare hangover. Never mind our home-grown neo-Nazis and our government's decades-long flirtation with South American and Asian fascists, some of whom were also happy to exploit Nazi expertise.
I mean, if we thought about that, we'd get depressed and feel morally compromised. Which gives you a headache. So it's much wiser to concentrate on having been better than the Germans 60 years ago, and on areas where we can still beat the Europeans. Having no visible sporting prowess and a dwindling intellectual culture, we would of course have to plonk for reality TV.
They may have it, but they don't love it like we do. In only a few months' time, no British TV programme will not involve a phone-in vote. Mums and toddlers can decide which of the Teletubbies is decapitated live each Friday, and every day we'll all get to choose our All-time Top 400 British Sporting Moments Involving Buttocks (or power tools) and how many EastEnders characters get anthrax.
News broadcasts - which are dull and unimportant - will all be subject to voting. For instance: (a) Only one fully trained firefighter is needed to cover any metropolitan area; (b) Firefighting productivity can be increased through monthly (daytime) orphanage blazes; (c) All firefighters are in league with Satan and must be crushed.
Or: foreigners with dodgy passports. Are they (a) Always packed with viruses? (b) Always bastards intent on destroying "our way of life"? (c) Something we should load into canisters and fire at Iraq?
Or: US stealth bombers at Fairford air base. Are they: (a) Nothing we should bother about - they're supposed to be stealthy, you know; (b) An expression of peace and love to the world, and especially Muslims; (c) Something we might have been consulted about - we are the electorate, after all, and they're pretty easy to spot when they're parked, I mean we were bound to notice (the Channel 4 option).
Or perhaps: increased atomic weapons development at Aldermaston is: (a) A good thing and that non-proliferation treaty was silly anyway; (b) An expression of the Freedom Loving Peoples of the world's affection for weapons of mass destruction; (c) A bit cheeky really, we are the electorate, after all, we were bound to notice, blah, blah (the Channel 4 option).
Which leads me to this weird thing I've noticed lately - the Germans are scared of us. Two generations ago, they allowed themselves to let racist pride, paranoia and greed force them into appalling crimes on a worldwide scale. Now they're looking at the UK and the US and recognising all the symptoms of the same disease.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,856540,00.html
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html
It is a British habit to keep on mentioning the war, but there is very little to feel self-righteous about
AL Kennedy
Monday December 9, 2002
The Guardian
Where would we be without Germany? We'd have no summer headlines about lebensraum-appropriating beach towels, no TV documentaries on Hitler's pot plants/sock drawer/dental hygienists, in fact almost no programming left on the Hitler - sorry, the History - Channel. And, frankly, if we couldn't nip over to Munich whenever we wanted, get bladdered and make jokes about gas bills, then think how low our national self-esteem could get.
As a professional typist, I spend a fair amount of time in non-British places, including Germany. And, of course, if you actually go there - arriving in a clean, person-friendly airport and getting driven away by a reputable cab driver who speaks three languages - you immediately realise you're in main land Europe. Nowhere is perfect, naturally, but being in Europe does tend to mean that public transport both exists as a series of sensible networks and is functional; that public health care is not considered a dangerous pipe-dream; and that education is valued and still takes place.
I can go to Germany and read from a novel in English inside a variety of purpose-built literature centres to large and comprehending audiences. In Britain, if I were a German-speaking author, I'd be reading - if I was lucky - in a semi-derelict library to a dog and three students. Ditto for pretty much any other foreign writer.
Still, the second world war gives us the right to mock and revile Germans in perpetuity, right? They started it, they did terrible things; they were wrong and we were right. Never mind that our own glorious leaders weren't all that far from coming down on the pro-Nazi side and had let the (black) Ethiopians and the (communist) Spaniards get bombed to smithereens by the fascists, and were, in many cases, frankly suspicious or even abusive towards the (Jewish or other foreign) refugees who managed to escape murder by fleeing to the UK.
Never mind that we used concentration camps of our own both before and after the war (for foreigners and black people) and never mind that we - and, indeed, our blessed US allies - were falling over ourselves to forgive and pay sums of money to Nazi war criminals who could give us the political support or technical info we needed. (Like the good Dr Strughold, who went from Dachau torturer to CIA researcher in one easy step.) Never mind that we have never really apologised for our own 300-year empire and subsequent geopolitical nightmare hangover. Never mind our home-grown neo-Nazis and our government's decades-long flirtation with South American and Asian fascists, some of whom were also happy to exploit Nazi expertise.
I mean, if we thought about that, we'd get depressed and feel morally compromised. Which gives you a headache. So it's much wiser to concentrate on having been better than the Germans 60 years ago, and on areas where we can still beat the Europeans. Having no visible sporting prowess and a dwindling intellectual culture, we would of course have to plonk for reality TV.
They may have it, but they don't love it like we do. In only a few months' time, no British TV programme will not involve a phone-in vote. Mums and toddlers can decide which of the Teletubbies is decapitated live each Friday, and every day we'll all get to choose our All-time Top 400 British Sporting Moments Involving Buttocks (or power tools) and how many EastEnders characters get anthrax.
News broadcasts - which are dull and unimportant - will all be subject to voting. For instance: (a) Only one fully trained firefighter is needed to cover any metropolitan area; (b) Firefighting productivity can be increased through monthly (daytime) orphanage blazes; (c) All firefighters are in league with Satan and must be crushed.
Or: foreigners with dodgy passports. Are they (a) Always packed with viruses? (b) Always bastards intent on destroying "our way of life"? (c) Something we should load into canisters and fire at Iraq?
Or: US stealth bombers at Fairford air base. Are they: (a) Nothing we should bother about - they're supposed to be stealthy, you know; (b) An expression of peace and love to the world, and especially Muslims; (c) Something we might have been consulted about - we are the electorate, after all, and they're pretty easy to spot when they're parked, I mean we were bound to notice (the Channel 4 option).
Or perhaps: increased atomic weapons development at Aldermaston is: (a) A good thing and that non-proliferation treaty was silly anyway; (b) An expression of the Freedom Loving Peoples of the world's affection for weapons of mass destruction; (c) A bit cheeky really, we are the electorate, after all, we were bound to notice, blah, blah (the Channel 4 option).
Which leads me to this weird thing I've noticed lately - the Germans are scared of us. Two generations ago, they allowed themselves to let racist pride, paranoia and greed force them into appalling crimes on a worldwide scale. Now they're looking at the UK and the US and recognising all the symptoms of the same disease.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,856540,00.html
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html