US and Israel Must Stop Apologizing

[Annie]

If someone is, please provide he

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's not that I want to see Israel destroyed, it's just that I really don't care either way. I don't consider the jews to be particulary good allies, or even good citizens, especially. I think they look at america as a resource to be used for their own global designs. I know it's a nuanced point.

 

[dilloduck]

No one here is calling for the destruction of Israel.

You are claiming someome HERE advocates the destruction of Israel--produce him/her !

 

[KarlMarx]

Damascus and Tehran - a couple of million people

Two hydrogen bombs - a couple of million dollars each

The sudden change in the Arab attitude towards Israel when the aforementioned cities are flattened by the aforementioned H-bombs, priceless!!!!!

 

[Annie]

Damascus and Tehran - a couple of million people

Two hydrogen bombs - a couple of million dollars each

The sudden change in the Arab attitude towards Israel when the aforementioned cities are flattened by the aforementioned H-bombs, priceless!!!!!

Israel is worth how many US interests? Funny how so many get concerned when the end is emminent. It is. If not today, tomorrow. Bottom line, for as small as israel is, it's to big to exist.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Damascus and Tehran - a couple of million people

Two hydrogen bombs - a couple of million dollars each

The sudden change in the Arab attitude towards Israel when the aforementioned cities are flattened by the aforementioned H-bombs, priceless!!!!!

I find this preferable to putting americans in there, actually. And let Israel hit the button too. If they want this so bad, it has to be on them. Or they could just move to america. A light unto the world, that will melt your face off in nanoseconds.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Israel is worth how many US interests

Very few.

 

[Annie]

I find this preferable to putting americans in there, actually. And let Israel hit the button too. If they want this so bad, it has to be on them. Or they could just move to america. A light unto the world, that will melt your face off in nanoseconds.

Well that clears it up for RWA and the Nochicinhides.
On the other hand...

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Iraq wasn't part of the attackers. Different times, different scenarios. In any case, those that have been hoping for destruction of Israel are in all probabilities about to be fulfilled.

Israel has the most powerful and advanced military in the mideast, I don't see how their destruction is imminent, considering who they're fighting against.

 

[KarlMarx]

I think you'll find that Israel is kicking butt... I wonder who's end is really near? I'd like to see Hamas and Hezzbollah and their sponsoring nations' resources exhausted fighting the Israelis. That would make the war on terror easier for us to win.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well that clears it up for RWA and the Nochicinhides.
On the other hand...

What do you mean? I don't really care what happens over there. I just don't want US to do it. I admit, I'm very apathetic concerning the whole ordeal.

 

[Annie]

What do you mean? I don't really care what happens over there. I just don't want US to do it. I admit, I'm very apathetic concerning the whole ordeal.

You 'win'. I'm out of.

 

[bobn]

Many civilians would have stayed because they didn't want to leave, and many would have stayed because they couldn't leave. There were still people in new orleans once the hurricane arrived despite the warnings. Many people feel safer in their homes than travelling in dangerous situations.

Clearly hezbollah are in the wrong for initiating this war and that is what they should be held accountable for. Their method of warefare is on more slippery moral footing than the israelis but the differences seem very slight when examined closely.

For example it has been argued that because Israel warned lebanon civilians to leave the area before they bombed, this made them less culpable for civilian deaths, or even totally unresponsible for them.

But following this logic wouldn't it mean that if Hezbollah warned all israeli civilians of a certain town to leave because they were about to launch rockets at it, it would make them less culpable, or totally non-culpable, for any civilian casualties that occured?

Another one: It is argued that civilians will be inevitably killed when bombing targets. But as long as those civilians weren't being targetted deliberately then it isn't morally wrong.

Again following this logic what if Hezbollah announced that they were only trying to destory israeli infrastructure and any civilians casualties their rockets caused were unfortunate but unavoidable? Would that suddenly let them off the moral hook?

It is interesting that in both cases above the only difference between Hezbollah being morally wrong or not morally wrong seems to be down to whether they say something or not. Just words.

Here's another one. It's morally wrong to target civilians. But hezbollah are not capable of targetting civilians. Their rockets aren't that accurate. So when we say they are targetting civilians surely we really mean that they are firing at civilian areas and want to kill civilians. The israelis on the otherhand are firing at civilian areas but don't want to kill civilians. Both sides actually do kill civilians and both sides know it is inevitable. So the moral difference here seems to only be down to intent and has nothing to do with the action. So this suggests that if hezbollah fired exactly the same rockets in exactly the same way but in their heads they didn't want to kill civilians that would turn their actions from morally wrong to morally okay. That seems absurd but on what other basis can it be morally wrong while leaving israel morally unculpable?

I think a more consistant view would be to say that all such war is morally bad. If you are forced to fight such a war then you have been dragged down a moral peg by your enemy. The fact you do so unwillingly does not make it morally right. Either that or you say war is war and there are really no rules just sides and morality is largely subjective depending on which side you are on.

 

[Bonnie]

The apologies amount to an admission of guilt. That is how both the Islamics and the UN will play it. Not to mention Chirac.

And capitulation and victory for the terrorists

Sadly Israel is figthing this war with one hand, and in the process losing it's momentum to win..

 

[dilloduck]

Many civilians would have stayed because they didn't want to leave, and many would have stayed because they couldn't leave. There were still people in new orleans once the hurricane arrived despite the warnings. Many people feel safer in their homes than travelling in dangerous situations.

Clearly hezbollah are in the wrong for initiating this war and that is what they should be held accountable for. Their method of warefare is on more slippery moral footing than the israelis but the differences seem very slight when examined closely.

For example it has been argued that because Israel warned lebanon civilians to leave the area before they bombed, this made them less culpable for civilian deaths, or even totally unresponsible for them.

But following this logic wouldn't it mean that if Hezbollah warned all israeli civilians of a certain town to leave because they were about to launch rockets at it, it would make them less culpable, or totally non-culpable, for any civilian casualties that occured?

Another one: It is argued that civilians will be inevitably killed when bombing targets. But as long as those civilians weren't being targetted deliberately then it isn't morally wrong.

Again following this logic what if Hezbollah announced that they were only trying to destory israeli infrastructure and any civilians casualties their rockets caused were unfortunate but unavoidable? Would that suddenly let them off the moral hook?

It is interesting that in both cases above the only difference between Hezbollah being morally wrong or not morally wrong seems to be down to whether they say something or not. Just words.

Here's another one. It's morally wrong to target civilians. But hezbollah are not capable of targetting civilians. Their rockets aren't that accurate. So when we say they are targetting civilians surely we really mean that they are firing at civilian areas and want to kill civilians. The israelis on the otherhand are firing at civilian areas but don't want to kill civilians. Both sides actually do kill civilians and both sides know it is inevitable. So the moral difference here seems to only be down to intent and has nothing to do with the action. So this suggests that if hezbollah fired exactly the same rockets in exactly the same way but in their heads they didn't want to kill civilians that would turn their actions from morally wrong to morally okay. That seems absurd but on what other basis can it be morally wrong while leaving israel morally unculpable?

I think a more consistant view would be to say that all such war is morally bad. If you are forced to fight such a war then you have been dragged down a moral peg by your enemy. The fact you do so unwillingly does not make it morally right. Either that or you say war is war and there are really no rules just sides and morality is largely subjective depending on which side you are on.

If you choose to ignore the history of both sides and look at this situation as one isolated incident in time , I would say a weaker country tried to kidnap members of a stronger country to ransom them and the stronger country kicked thier asses instead of giving in to blackmail. Kidnapping is immoral--is trying to get your citizen back immoral?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You 'win'. I'm out of.

Yes, I 'know'.

 

[bobn]

If you choose to ignore the history of both sides and look at this situation as one isolated incident in time , I would say a weaker country tried to kidnap members of a stronger country to ransom them and the stronger country kicked thier asses instead of giving in to blackmail. Kidnapping is immoral--is trying to get your citizen back immoral?

I was more focusing on the morality of how the war is fought on each side rather than the morality of the cause which I said that isreal had a more moral cause as they didn't start this war.

Many people have been coming down on hezbollah for how they fight the war while being fully supportive of how israel fight it. I was just trying to dissect the real differences between both sides actions. And the differences seem to be nothing more than words they use or thoughts they have. The actions themselves are quite equivelant in kind in that the actions inevitably will kill civilians. When hezbollah rocket attacks kill civilians this is seen as morally bad. When israeli bomb attacks kill civilians it is not seen as morally bad but as an unfortunate sideeffect of fighting.

The main difference seems to be that hezbollah hope their rockets will kill civilians while isreal hopes their bombs won't. I was suggesting that if hezbollah simply said "we don't want our rockets to kill civilians - we just want to destroy power plants and government buildings in israeli cities" would those words alone turn their rocket attacks from immoral to okay?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I was more focusing on the morality of how the war is fought on each side rather than the morality of the cause which I said that isreal had a more moral cause as they didn't start this war.

Many people have been coming down on hezbollah for how they fight the war while being fully supportive of how israel fight it. I was just trying to dissect the real differences between both sides actions. And the differences seem to be nothing more than words they use or thoughts they have. The actions themselves are quite equivelant in kind in that the actions inevitably will kill civilians. When hezbollah rocket attacks kill civilians this is seen as morally bad. When israeli bomb attacks kill civilians it is not seen as morally bad but as an unfortunate sideeffect of fighting.

The main difference seems to be that hezbollah hope their rockets will kill civilians while isreal hopes their bombs won't. I was suggesting that if hezbollah simply said "we don't want our rockets to kill civilians - we just want to destroy power plants and government buildings in israeli cities" would those words alone turn their rocket attacks from immoral to okay?

What you're ignoring is the overall justness of the World powers giving israel to the jews in the first place. That's what started this war. It's never ended since.

 

[Annie]

There is no sense of entering a war without the will to win:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjBkODIzNmE0M2ZkMGQxNzYyMTVkODRlZWNlYTIwZWU=

Gloom [Mona Charen]
Re John P's musings, I'm not exactly Mary Sunshine this morning either. I wonder about this: not just the question as to whether modern enlightened, liberal nations have the will to do what’s necessary to survive, but whether our people can transcend the Alice in Wonderland nature of the world we live in.

We (and this also includes Israelis, Brits, and a few others) would never dream of targeting civilians for any reason – not even in self-defense. In 2002, the Israelis used ground troops going house to house in Jenin rather than attack from the air — though it cost the lives of 23 of their men – in order to spare civilians.

Our enemies can not imagine not targeting civilians – ours – and when they can be used as human shields/propaganda fodder, theirs.

Our people are beheaded on videotape and the world ignores it. We fail to offer the full panoply of the Bill of Rights to the beheaders and the world groans at the inhumanity of it all.

The United Nations Security Council condemns Israel for defending herself from naked aggression and manages to overlook Chechnya, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, every terrorist attack against Israel, the massacre in Rwanda, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, Serbian acts in Bosnia, and pretty much the entire continent of Africa, which as Kofi Annan surely knows better than most, is a human rights cesspool. As Jeane Kirkpatrick put it: “What happens in the Security Council more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving.”

There are millions of Americans who are not deluded by this madness (and we draw our military recruits from their ranks), and yet you cannot escape the times you live in. Lack of self-confidence is eroding our civilization like dry rot. We are not as far gone as Europe – but the glide path is worrisome.

Posted at 9:24 AM

 

[dilloduck]

There is no sense of entering a war without the will to win:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjBkODIzNmE0M2ZkMGQxNzYyMTVkODRlZWNlYTIwZWU=

Time for " cowboy diplomacy ". The UN has had it's chance and failed. I would address the UN and ask for a timetable for thier disarmament of the Hezbullys in Lebanon and promise an "alternative" if they are unable to enforce anything they say.