Most Sick & Shocking Video To Come Out Of Gaza Yet

[solitaria]

What you see as a overreaction, I don't... again if a bully punches my sister in the face, I put said bully in the hospital...to you that might be dissproportionate but to me it is incentive for that bully and any others not to punch my sister...you might not like it but when it comes down to it, it really is THAT SIMPLE.

Again no it is not. You respond to the bully punching your sister by killing him (a disproportionate response) you go to jail for life. You might feel that you are justified but society wouldn't and can't allow for people to act like that or it would degrade into chaos.

 

[solitaria]

Modern theories and systems of justice do not accept that sort of thinking at the ENFORCEMENT level. They may well accept that theory in some cases when it comes to PUNISHMENT.

Sure they do. Take TASERs as a case in point.

If it is punishment then arguably proportionality could be used as a concept, but it is not punishment that they are after--their stated goal is enforcement of the peace, and they have an absolute right to enforce that.

You can't stop the rockets. Bombing indiscriminately will only cause more hatred towards Israel. What part of that concept don't you understand?

I think Israel is morally and ethically far more advanced than Hamas is in applying a minimum force concept rather than an eye-for-eye concept in its responses.

What crap. I have said all along the problem with your position and philosophy is that you don't see the two sides as equal from a human value perspective.

Israel has done the same shit Hamas has done in its past. Now that is has what it wants and is in the position of power it doesn't have to resort to terrorism.

 

[basketcase]

...
I would actually be sympathetic to the Israeli cause if they fought honourably and with courage against Hamas instead of this chicken shit bombing from the sky because the Hamas shot 70 firecrackers over the Israeli border.

So I guess you have your wish and now are sympathetic to Israel.

 

[Angela@Mirage]

-
This is what Canada's and the USA's allies are doing in Palestine; video shot 2 minutes after a 500-lb bomb was dropped on a crowd of civilians in Gaza by Israeli planes today January/01/2008.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b3_1230864719

War is dispicable. It is nothing more than a viscious circle that mutilates the precious lives of children. Stop the fighting.

 

[solitaria]

So I guess you have your wish and now are sympathetic to Israel.

If they severely limit human collateral damage which would mean Israeli soldiers would have to die, then yes I will be sympathetic to Israel. Somehow I doubt that will be the case, as Israel in recent times has shown that it would rather sacrifice many innocent lives on the other side to preserve the life of one Jewish soldier.

I am okay with target killings with very little human collateral damage. I have no problem with Israelis killing the people in charge of the rocket attacks. As I said my main problem is with Israel trying to diffuse the threat of rockets, which kills relatively few people and hardly constitutes a threat to the average Israeli citizen, by killing many more magnitudes higher of innocent people in the process.

 

[fuji]

What the Al-Queda did was several orders of magnitude higher than what Hamas firing their firecrackers have done. There were around 3000 Civilians that died on 9/11 compared to 23 Israelis that died in 7 years from Hamas rockets. Your brain just doesn't understand proportionality does it?

Spare me the patronizing bullshit, please. What Al Qaeda did was a few hundred thousand times less force than what was used in the invasion of an entire country. Plainly proportionality has NOTHING to do with it.

You simply fail in your intellectual abilities if you can't grok the concept "minimum force necessary".

Even still, and responding to your Afghanistan comparison, how successful has the USA been in minimizing the threat of terrorism?

Highly successful. Al Qaeda's operational capability has been degraded so severely since 9/11 that they have not been able to launch a SINGLE follow-on attack on US soil, and their few attacks in other countries have been essentially non-events.

Many things done in the name of the "war on terror" were retarded and much was done especially in the United States in that guise that in reality stripped people of civil rights--but despite all that some of what was done in the "war on terror" was highly effective as evidenced by Al Qaeda's virtual impotence since 9/11.

The whole problem with your prospective is that you aren't a very compassionate person and you only understand rules/semantics and not naunces.

So you've switched to personal attacks, I guess that means you are conceding the rational argument? Thanks.

Killing 400+ people in less than a week as a self-defense measure against 23 deaths in 7 years by Hamas rockets is insanity.

You can't win the argument by repeating that a million times.

You haven't come up with a single critique of my fundamental point: The appropriate concept to apply is MINIMUM FORCE not "proportionality".

Proportionality amounts to "eye for an eye" thinking and is morally primitive.

When I talk about a proportionate response I am not talking about the degree of force used but in the human collateral damage needed to destroy the threat in comparison to the actual danger of the threat

In other words primitive "eye for an eye" stuff. In the modern world we use the concept "minimum force" instead.

 

[Meister]

I don't understand what Hamas is trying to do. Obviously, they will never succeed against Israel militarily and by provoking them with rocket attacks they get their ass kicked. It makes no sense. And it pushes back the peace process by years.

If the Arab world can't get to grips with a few Jews living on about 0.01% of the vast middle east desert then I think they have a real problem.

 

[persis]

I don't understand what Hamas is trying to do. Obviously, they will never succeed against Israel militarily and by provoking them with rocket attacks they get their ass kicked. It makes no sense. And it pushes back the peace process by years.

If the Arab world can't get to grips with a few Jews living on about 0.01% of the vast middle east desert then I think they have a real problem.

This is not about Hamas shooting firecrackers... if it ever was!

Pal's after the 2006 [under the advice of Iran's mullahs] stop suicide bombing inside the Israel... because it was a PR disaster... for them!

Did the Israelis show any sign of gratitude or relief.... yeah...right!
Zionist found something else to complain about in order to continue with what they have been doing all alone, killing Pals civilian population slowly but surely..!

see the stat here (from Sep-2000 to Nov-2008)
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

Now Israel is massacring Pal's civilians under the pretax that they want Hamas to stop firing firecrackers at them....
Ok done, what next...?
oh I remember
they want Pals militia also to move away from the city into the open and lay upside down for them...!!!


So in my view all this is for show.... Israel intention is to simply pacify the Palestinians people in Gaza and then roll in and take over... how fast / slow, can they do it under the watchful eye of the people of the free world?... Well that is now under debate!

 

[solitaria]

Highly successful. Al Qaeda's operational capability has been degraded so severely since 9/11 that they have not been able to launch a SINGLE follow-on attack on US soil, and their few attacks in other countries have been essentially non-events.

Basically 9/11 was a single isolated event that should not have happened in the first place. It hasn't happened since because of domestic counter measures not because of a war in Afghanistan.

Many things done in the name of the "war on terror" were retarded and much was done especially in the United States in that guise that in reality stripped people of civil rights--but despite all that some of what was done in the "war on terror" was highly effective as evidenced by Al Qaeda's virtual impotence since 9/11.

The war on terror failed. The actual war waged was an economic one not a military one and the USA lost badly because of how paranoid people like you react to every and any perceived threat with the "minimal force necessary" concept.

So you've switched to personal attacks, I guess that means you are conceding the rational argument? Thanks.

Is that another one of your "rules" that you feel applies to every situation without context?

You can't win the argument by repeating that a million times.

You haven't come up with a single critique of my fundamental point: The appropriate concept to apply is MINIMUM FORCE not "proportionality".

The hypocrisy is too funny.

I have critiqued your point. I have said it amounts to insanity to try to neutralize every single threat no matter how small with force that would result in the deaths of innocents many magnitudes higher even if that was the "minimum force necessary". That would lead to absolute chaos and continual war in the world. As well, I have told you that retaliating on a disproportionate scale incites even greater hatred on the other side which is actually counter productive to peace and minimizing threats. I take it common sense is not a strong suit of yours?

Proportionality amounts to "eye for an eye" thinking and is morally primitive.

To say a response was disproportionate to the crime does not mean one believes in the "eye for an eye" moral concepts of Judaism or revenge. It has everything to do with common sense. If a threat is so minimal that it causes 23 civilian deaths in 7 years it doesn't make any sense from a humanitarian perspective to try to neutralize that force with more force that leads to exponentially higher deaths to civilians. The cure should never be worse than the disease. Like I said, you seem incapable of understanding things from a human/humanitarian perspective.

Just answer this question. Do you care how many innocent lives need to be taken to stop the threat of Hamas rockets that kill about 3 Israeli Jews a year as long as it can be shown that minimal force was used? People with extreme viewpoints like yours that can't put things to context and scale are very dangerous people. You seem to think rules and concepts are more important than people.

 

[wet_suit_one]

I find it remarkable...

The response from the folks here to this video. Everyone here should know that war is hell. Well this is what hell looks like. Get over it.

 

[fuji]

Basically 9/11 was a single isolated event that should not have happened in the first place. It hasn't happened since because of domestic counter measures not because of a war in Afghanistan.

It's really hard to nail down specifically what actions disabled Al Qaeda's ability to attack. I know I have no way of knowing what parts of the war on terror were key to that. I am pretty damn sure you don't know either.

The war on terror failed.

You have an odd definition of "failed". I would agree that in the name of the war on terror many wrong and inappropriate things were done--but given its objective, empirical success, it is very hard to say it failed!

I have said it amounts to insanity to try to neutralize every single threat no matter how small with force that would result in the deaths of innocents many magnitudes higher even if that was the "minimum force necessary".

No one is suggesting that nations should neutralize any threat no matter how small. What is being suggested here is that Israel is entirely within its rights to stop rocket attacks on its citizens.

I have told you that retaliating on a disproportionate scale incites even greater hatred on the other side which is actually counter productive to peace and minimizing threats. I take it common sense is not a strong suit of yours?

You have said that, but then again, you were wrong when you said that. Saying it again won't make you right.

From now on I am going to respond to your repetitive claims like this--you need to address the fundamental points:

(1) Nations have an absolute right to defend their citizens from external attack

(2) The appropriate principle to apply is that the minimum force necessary should be used in defending against those attacks

(3) "Proportionality" as a concept, AKA eye-for-an-eye, is only sensible in a punishment context and even there it's of questionable value as a moral guide

To say a response was disproportionate to the crime does not mean one believes in the "eye for an eye" moral concepts of Judaism or revenge.

Yes, it does. Common sense is plainly not your strong suit.

As soon as you talk about making a punishment proportional to the harm done you are essentially talking about an eye for an eye--or anyway something pretty similar to that. It is a primitive way of thinking about morality and it is plainly an inappropriate way to think about enforcement.

It MAY have some merit in the area of deciding what an appropriate punishment is for a crime, but that would be inappropriate here as well since Israel should not be considering punishments--the goal is enforcement, not punishment.

It has everything to do with common sense. If a threat is so minimal that it causes 23 civilian deaths in 7 years it doesn't make any sense from a humanitarian perspective to try to neutralize that force with more force

You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. Rocket attacks are qualitatively different than, say, traffic accidents. Traffic accidents don't lead to people hiding in their basements scared to go outside, unable to lead normal lives, and so on. Rocket attacks incite terror in addition to deaths in a way that traffic accidents do not.

Moreover the rocket attacks are fundamentally HOSTILE ACTS by a foreign entity and that is again qualitatively different than an accident.

Israel is well within its rights to respond with the minimum force necessary to stop the attacks.

Your lack of common sense does not entitle you to accuse others of lacking common sense, and your doing that simply makes you look petty, and incapable of real argument.

that leads to exponentially higher deaths to civilians

There is this separate argument here that Israel's response might lead to a worse situation in the future. That is always possible and ultimately it is something that I am sure the Israelis have considered long and hard.

Note that this is now a pragmatic question--if you are making this argument you have agreed that they have a RIGHT to use the minimum force necessary to launch the attack. The question then is whether they should exercise that right--whether it is in their own best interest or not to exercise that right.

So when it comes to whether the invastion is JUSTIFIED we can set aside this pragmatic question of whether or not it is going to be successful. The invasion IS justified. It may well be that, justified though it is, it is not the most sensible course of action.

I think it's really hard to answer that question. You seem to think it is an easy question to answer, and I think that means you lack common sense.

In the end I think the Israelis are best placed to judge what is in their own best interests.

Just answer this question. Do you care how many innocent lives need to be taken to stop the threat of Hamas rockets that kill about 3 Israeli Jews a year as long as it can be shown that minimal force was used?

Whether I care or not is very separate from whether it is justified and necessary. Of course I care that people are being killed. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[solitaria]

It's really hard to nail down specifically what actions disabled Al Qaeda's ability to attack. I know I have no way of knowing what parts of the war on terror were key to that. I am pretty damn sure you don't know either.

Come on! 9/11 should not have happened in the first place and it was a failure of domestic intelligence and security measures.

You have an odd definition of "failed". I would agree that in the name of the war on terror many wrong and inappropriate things were done--but given its objective, empirical success, it is very hard to say it failed!

The USA economy has been absolutely destroyed because of how much debt they took on to fight the unseen enemy of hatred. They have burnt up almost all of their goodwill they had right after 9/11 and if you have traveled outside of N/A countries (or UK) and know more than one language to communicate with the locals you would know they are the most hated country in the world. That is most definitely a monumental failure of foreign policy.

Do you want to know the reason? The USA's reaction/response wasn't proportional to the threat. The pre-emptive attack on Iraq destroyed basically all the goodwill/sympathy they had with other countries.

No one is suggesting that nations should neutralize any threat no matter how small. What is being suggested here is that Israel is entirely within its rights to stop rocket attacks on its citizens.

Now you are skirting a line over to my side. You say no one is suggesting that nations should neutralize any threat no matter how small (like 23 Israeli deaths in 7 years) but that Israel is entirely within its rights to stop rocket attacks on its citizens.

Basically the world is entirely within their rights to stop an Israeli reaction that is disproportionate to the threat if we don't like it. Israeli loses their right to defense if the world doesn't like their response period. It doesn't fucking matter if Israel thinks it is the "minimal force necessary". Get it? The only reason Israel has gone as far as it has is because they own American public opinion from a media perspective. Like I said, no other major country (besides perhaps the UK) sides with them.

From now on I am going to respond to your repetitive claims like this--you need to address the fundamental points:

You love to make up absolute rules that everyone else has to abide by, don't you?

Okay, I'll jump through your hoops to prove my point this once.

(1) Nations have an absolute right to defend their citizens from external attack

Sure I have already agreed to this point. However it doesn't mean any response to the external attack is justified if it is disproportionate. Whether or not it is the "minimum response necessary" is a red herring and doesn't matter in the international court of public opinion where all things are tried in the end. Furthermore, every other country by extension has a right, not to mention an obligation, to put Israel in its place if its response is unreasonable ( I am hoping you understand that word better than you understand disproportionate) considering the threat and if it puts their interests at risk.

(2) The appropriate principle to apply is that the minimum force necessary should be used in defending against those attacks

Whether or not you think it is the appropriate principle to apply doesn't matter. All that matters is world opinion and whether they think the response is justified from the perspective they choose to see the situation from. Once Israel loses the backing of the USA it puts the kibosh on any more Israeli invasion.

(3) "Proportionality" as a concept, AKA eye-for-an-eye, is only sensible in a punishment context and even there it's of questionable value as a moral guide

I am not talking about proportionality from the standpoint of punishment. We are talking about minimizing threats because that is the best you can do in this life. How many times do I have to repeat that? I am talking about proportionality from the standpoint of whether it is worth it from a humanitarian/common sense perspective. To neutralize a threat of 23 deaths in 7 years by destroying 400 lives is not worth it from a humanitarian/common sense perspective and doesn't serve the intended purpose or eliminate the problem in any way. Of course Israel wants to win the public relations war with Hamas not destroy Hamas military and countless other innocent lives in the process.

Now you can address my fundamental point.

Does it matter how many people die in the process of self-defense? Is there any context to determining what is appropriate for measures of self-defense (in terms of judgment not a "minimum force necessary" rule) including the nature of the threat? How does this apply to the current situation in the Gaza strip?

 

[fuji]

Come on! 9/11 should not have happened in the first place and it was a failure of domestic intelligence and security measures.

9/11 was the SECOND time that AQ attacked the WTC. The first time they tried with a truck bomb. They have no even been able to manage a truck bomb since 9/11.

Why?

Don't tell me that stronger cockpit doors and better airport screening has disrupted their ability to create truck bombs.

The USA economy has been absolutely destroyed because of how much debt they took on to fight the unseen enemy of hatred.

No. The USA economy is in trouble because Americans spent more money than they have individually. It was a housing crisis, and not a military/govt. spending crisis, which has damaged the economy.

If it were govt. debt that caused the problem you would see a crisis in govt. debt, meaning skyrocketing govt. debt interest rates making that debt increasingly expensive. Instead you see falling rates for govt. debt as people everywhere come to view it as the safest place to be.

Despite all the govt. spending at this moment the USA govt. still has less govt. debt per capita than Canada does, and less than many other nations do.

You are simply wrong on this point.

The debt problems in the United States related to private individuals and private corporations and while the USA govt. can't continue deficit spending forever they can continue it for a good long while before they get to a level of debt such as we have in Canada.

They have burnt up almost all of their goodwill they had right after 9/11

That's popular rhetoric, and no doubt in some ways it is true. On the other hand there is now closer co-operation between Muslim/Arab states and the United States on military and intelligence issues than there has been at any time in history.

Your claim of a "monumental failure of foreign policy" is thus questionable--operationally it's been a success, despite the polling data.

Now you are skirting a line over to my side. You say no one is suggesting that nations should neutralize any threat no matter how small (like 23 Israeli deaths in 7 years) but that Israel is entirely within its rights to stop rocket attacks on its citizens.

Nations do not have the resources to respond to every single threat and so they prioritize them and respond to the ones that matter most.

Basically the world is entirely within their rights to stop an Israeli reaction that is disproportionate to the threat if we don't like it.

Actually, no, not under the United Nations charter at least. I'd like you to clarify which theory of international law you are using to make this claim.

Israeli loses their right to defense if the world doesn't like their response period. It doesn't fucking matter if Israel thinks it is the "minimal force necessary". Get it? The only reason Israel has gone as far as it has is because they own American public opinion from a media perspective. Like I said, no other major country (besides perhaps the UK) sides with them.

What you are advocating now is essentially the morally primitive "might makes right" argument. Your claim here amounts to saying if a numerically larger/stronger group doesn't like what Israel is doing then they are within their rights to stop it, because they have the might.

I guess I am a little bit more advanced in my moral/ethical thinking than that. You might wish to reconsider this point.

Whether or not it is the "minimum response necessary" is a red herring and doesn't matter in the international court of public opinion where all things are tried in the end.

More "might makes right" thinking.

Furthermore, every other country by extension has a right, not to mention an obligation, to put Israel in its place if its response is unreasonable ( I am hoping you understand that word better than you understand disproportionate) considering the threat and if it puts their interests at risk.

Not true. A country does not have a right to proacively go out and attack another country just because it thinks that country is doing something "unreasonable".

This will lead to a long separate discussion of "causus belli" and international law which we can go into if you like but suffice to say that under international law there has to be clear evidence of some sort of an attack on a nation--such as a military blockade or a rocket attack--before the use of force is justified.

Whether or not you think it is the appropriate principle to apply doesn't matter. All that matters is world opinion and whether they think the response is justified from the perspective they choose to see the situation from. Once Israel loses the backing of the USA it puts the kibosh on any more Israeli invasion.

I reject your primitive "might makes right" thinking.

I am not talking about proportionality from the standpoint of punishment. We are talking about minimizing threats because that is the best you can do in this life. How many times do I have to repeat that?

You can repeat it as many times as you like, but until you substantiate it, it won't be convincing.

There are two separate issues here:

(1) Does Israel have a moral and legal right to attack?

(2) Is attacking in Israel's best interests?

What you are talking about here really is point #2. Sometimes even though you have a right to attack it is not in your best interests to attack.

I happen to think the Israelis are best placed to judge what is in their own interests, but if you ask me I think wiping out Hamas is probably in their best interest. I suspect there is more going on here than you and I are privy to, for example, it would not shock me to see Fatah take over Gaza after this is over. There are likely deals being made in backrooms that change the equation here.

To neutralize a threat of 23 deaths in 7 years by destroying 400 lives is not worth it from a humanitarian/common sense perspective and doesn't serve the intended purpose or eliminate the problem in any way.

Yes it does. Those deaths (and many thousands of injuries) disrupt the Israeli economy in those areas, cause people to live in fear, and moreover are the result of hostile actions by an external enemy. If not responded to the hostile enemy will continue to escalate the threat: The only reason why Hamas doesn't have deadlier rockets to fire is the Israeli blockade.

It is unfair to the people of Gaza to live under that blockade forever and it is unfair to the people of Israel to live under rocket fire forever. The current situation really isn't sustainable--something has to be done about it.

Now you can address my fundamental point.

Does it matter how many people die in the process of self-defense?

From a rights/justification/moral perspective: No.

Is there any context to determining what is appropriate for measures of self-defense (in terms of judgment not a "minimum force necessary" rule) including the nature of the threat? How does this apply to the current situation in the Gaza strip?

The minimum force necessary rule is indeed the one that applies. If there are two equally viable methods of achieving a justified military objective and one costs fewer lives then the military should choose the method that costs fewer lives.

Israel appears to be doing that.

 

[basketcase]

Pal's after the 2006 [under the advice of Iran's mullahs] stop suicide bombing inside the Israel... because it was a PR disaster... for them!
...

Wait, are you saying that Hamas is being controlled by Iran? Fox news would love to know your source.

 

[persis]

Wait, are you saying that Hamas is being controlled by Iran? Fox news would love to know your source.

I believe [hard line mullahs] took over in 2006... by trying to help Pal's to become more organized fighting force like Hezbollah....at least in a long term!

However, they are not providing them with weapons as doing so is not in there best of interest.. nor part of there overall strategic goals

I think Pals are sending a small group of there best people to Lebanon and Syria to get training in asymmetric warfare so they can come back later and train there own volunteers better...

I also think hard line mullahs have strongly advised Pals to rethink and change direction by abandoning suicide bombing against civilians.. but it is up to Pals leadership to pick & fight there own war....or how they going to fight it ..Pals leadership knows that very well..

In reality hard line mullahs care only about looking better on the eye of Arab world... and also have a reason to keep the population of Iran sympathetic to there cause... the last thing they care about is fighting wars for Arabs....IMO
As I have said many time before... these mullahs are very smart & agile on the diplomatic front ... unfortunately, they have some very great Persian minds on there general staff ....IMO

 

[solitaria]

9/11 was the SECOND time that AQ attacked the WTC. The first time they tried with a truck bomb. They have no even been able to manage a truck bomb since 9/11.

Why?

Don't tell me that stronger cockpit doors and better airport screening has disrupted their ability to create truck bombs.

The time between the first and second AQ attack on the WTC was over 8 years. Just because the USA hasn't been attacked in 7 years and counting might not really mean anything if you view it from that context.

No. The USA economy is in trouble because Americans spent more money than they have individually. It was a housing crisis, and not a military/govt. spending crisis, which has damaged the economy.

The two are interlinked. Individuals have to pay off government debt. How much can a government do about a crisis if it owes 10 trillion dollars or $35,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the country? The housing crisis wouldn't have become as big as it did if the economy was fundamentally strong and housing prices didn't go down, since debt is only a real problem if it is not matched by an asset of equivalent worth.

Despite all the govt. spending at this moment the USA govt. still has less govt. debt per capita than Canada does, and less than many other nations do.

You are simply wrong on this point.

The debt problems in the United States related to private individuals and private corporations and while the USA govt. can't continue deficit spending forever they can continue it for a good long while before they get to a level of debt such as we have in Canada.

Canada's debt is at a half a trillion dollars (20 times less than the US) and our population is around 9 times less. It is wrong to state that we have more debt per capita.

Canada : http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/English/economy/index.cfm

US: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Regardless, even though you are wrong on the point of per capita debt, it is not the main point. The USA's power to respond to its own economic issues has been severely compromised in recent years due to its debt load (i.e. it won't be able to save its own auto industry now).

Your claim of a "monumental failure of foreign policy" is thus questionable--operationally it's been a success, despite the polling data.

How can you say that? How do you define success?

Actually, no, not under the United Nations charter at least. I'd like you to clarify which theory of international law you are using to make this claim.

Why is the United Nations charter so important to you? International law doesn't matter when it runs counter to the national interests of the majority of countries.

What you are advocating now is essentially the morally primitive "might makes right" argument. Your claim here amounts to saying if a numerically larger/stronger group doesn't like what Israel is doing then they are within their rights to stop it, because they have the might.

There is a difference between larger and stronger yet you try and lump them into the same category. Laws in the end are for the majority and can be changed. If events are decided by the will of the majority that is a democratic concept not a "might makes right" argument. BTW, International law is a "might makes right" standard.

I guess I am a little bit more advanced in my moral/ethical thinking than that. You might wish to reconsider this point.

No you are confused. Morality is about numbers and nothing more in the end. That is entirely different than "might makes right" so don't confuse the concepts.

Not true. A country does not have a right to proacively go out and attack another country just because it thinks that country is doing something "unreasonable".

Didn't you say the USA was justified in its foreign policy?

There are two separate issues here:

(1) Does Israel have a moral and legal right to attack?

(2) Is attacking in Israel's best interests?

No there is a more important 3rd issue. Can Israel do whatever it wants even if it has international law on its side? The answer is no. If international law doesn't work for the majority of the global citizens it represents it will either become changed or irrelevant.

The only reason Israel has gotten away with what it has is because of the might of the USA. In terms of morality they are in the wrong since most people (in terms of all the citizens of the world not just NA) are opposed to what Israel is doing.

 

[fuji]

The time between the first and second AQ attack on the WTC was over 8 years. Just because the USA hasn't been attacked in 7 years and counting might not really mean anything if you view it from that context.

There were numerous other AQ attacks on American targets in the years leading up to the WTC, and a few other attacks after the WTC, and then nothing.

The two are interlinked. Individuals have to pay off government debt. How much can a government do about a crisis if it owes 10 trillion dollars or $35,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the country?

In the very long run they are interlinked but since the US has less debt than most nations do we are not in the very long run. The US Govt. has less debt and therefore more flexibility than most nations do--including Canada.

Your arugment just doesn't work, sorry.

The housing crisis wouldn't have become as big as it did if the economy was fundamentally strong and housing prices didn't go down, since debt is only a real problem if it is not matched by an asset of equivalent worth.

I agree with this but it's a private sector issue that has nothing whatever to do with military spending.

Canada's debt is at a half a trillion dollars (20 times less than the US) and our population is around 9 times less. It is wrong to state that we have more debt per capita.

You aren't counting all of Canada's public debt. Here is a list of countries by public debt as a percentage of GDP, you will note that the United States is furhter down the list than Canada, France, Germany, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Regardless, even though you are wrong on the point of per capita debt, it is not the main point. The USA's power to respond to its own economic issues has been severely compromised in recent years due to its debt load (i.e. it won't be able to save its own auto industry now).

Not true. US public debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher from 1940 through 1960 than it is now. Translation--World War II was much more expensive than the present wars. Even Vietnam was more expensive, in GDP terms.

How can you say that? How do you define success?

I specified it for you: There is closer co-operation now between the United States and Muslim countries than at any time previously. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, etc., are co-operating with the United States at levels never before seen.

Even relations with Iran are warmer than they've been in awhile (frosty as that relationship is).

So while you are correct that world public opinion has turned negative on the United States, world governments have increased their level of co-operation.

So is that a failure? It is at worst a mixed bag--in operational terms (ie: real co-operation) the situation has improved, while in public relations terms it has deteriorated.

Why is the United Nations charter so important to you? International law doesn't matter when it runs counter to the national interests of the majority of countries.

How else do you define rights if not versus international law, charters of human rights, etc? A "right" is a legalistic concept.

It is my view that Israel's action is not only justified under international law but also moral and ethical as well.

No you are confused. Morality is about numbers and nothing more in the end. That is entirely different than "might makes right" so don't confuse the concepts.

Morality has nothing whatever to do with numbers. You can take your utilitarian clap trap and stuff it.

Didn't you say the USA was justified in its foreign policy?

Nope. I think the USA is justified in some of its foreign policies, and unjustified in others.

No there is a more important 3rd issue. Can Israel do whatever it wants even if it has international law on its side? The answer is no. If international law doesn't work for the majority of the global citizens it represents it will either become changed or irrelevant.

Nope, that is not what will happen, not what has ever happened in the past, and not what will happen this time either.

 

[basketcase]

...

I think Pals are sending a small group of there best people to Lebanon and Syria to get training in asymmetric warfare so they can come back later and train there own volunteers better...
...

Instead of this, why don't they send their best and brightest for education learn how to develop infrastructure and work on negotiating instead of teaching them how to die?

 

[gryfin]

Instead of this, why don't they send their best and brightest for education learn how to develop infrastructure and work on negotiating instead of teaching them how to die?

You mean the infrastructure they had (but that Israel has just destroyed) and the lives they have just lost (because Israel has killed them).

You really need to get your projection under control.

 

[solitaria]

There were numerous other AQ attacks on American targets in the years leading up to the WTC, and a few other attacks after the WTC, and then nothing.

Could you list some examples of the numerous other AQ attacks please.

You aren't counting all of Canada's public debt. Here is a list of countries by public debt as a percentage of GDP, you will note that the United States is furhter down the list than Canada, France, Germany, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

The CIA source is wrong. See the OECD and IMF sources beside it which have Canada in a better position than the USA.

Check out the budget 2008 website for Canada.

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/plan/ann1-eng.asp

highlights: "To enable international comparisons, the OECD publishes National Accounts data for the total government sector. For Canada, the figures include the federal, provincial-territorial and local government sectors, as well as the Canada Pension Plan and the Québec Pension Plan. Based on OECD data, Canada’s fiscal position is stronger than that of the other G7 countries (United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and Italy).

The OECD expects Canada to record the largest budgetary surplus as a share of GDP in the G7 in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
It projects that Canada’s total government net debt-to-GDP ratio, which has been the lowest in the G7 since 2004, will continue to decline in future years.
Canada is on track to eliminate its total government net debt by 2021. By doing so, it will be able to count itself among the few OECD countries that are in a net asset position. "

Not true. US public debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher from 1940 through 1960 than it is now. Translation--World War II was much more expensive than the present wars. Even Vietnam was more expensive, in GDP terms.

The US is in a worse position now because they can't grow themselves out of debt like they did before. Regardless the war in Iraq crippled them very badly which was the point I was trying to make.

I specified it for you: There is closer co-operation now between the United States and Muslim countries than at any time previously. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, etc., are co-operating with the United States at levels never before seen.

Those are just words. The USA still hasn't caught Bin Laden for all the "never before seen closer co-operation".

How else do you define rights if not versus international law, charters of human rights, etc? A "right" is a legalistic concept.

Morality.

http://www.answers.com/topic/right

It is my view that Israel's action is not only justified under international law but also moral and ethical as well.

Yes I know.

Morality has nothing whatever to do with numbers. You can take your utilitarian clap trap and stuff it.

So how do you determine morality then? Is morality only the opinions of those you agree with? Should we just elect you God so you can give us a code of absolute morality that the majority can't disagree with?

Nope, that is not what will happen, not what has ever happened in the past, and not what will happen this time either.

It happened the last time Israel did a ground invasion.