Welcome to PatsFans.com

If someone must suffer consequences, who should suffer most?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Jul 16, 2006.

?

If someone must suffer consequences, who should suffer most?

  1. Israel

    3 vote(s)
    15.8%
  2. Hezbollah/Hamas/Lebanon

    7 vote(s)
    36.8%
  3. United States/Great Britain

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%
  4. Iran/Syria

    8 vote(s)
    42.1%
  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    The reason I grouped Lebanon with Hezbollah is because if Hezbollah suffers, so will Lebanon. I don't think you can separate the two.
  2. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    [​IMG] :)
  4. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,650
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +566 / 1 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Exactly, Patters!!!!!!

    That's a guy who REALLY gets undue praise for his long bombs!
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    How stupid of me. Of course it's ...

    [​IMG]
  6. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,650
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +566 / 1 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Nah, Patters. NEM will tell ya that Charlie is very good at DISARMAMENT (of Brady).
  7. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No he didn't. He's got the United States in his list up there.
  8. Mainefan

    Mainefan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,255
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Patters, I do not agree that Lebanon will suffer if Hezbollah suffers--at least, not in the long run. If Hezbollah suffers enough, Lebanon will at last be free of terrorist bases and Syrian control.
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,311
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +387 / 6 / -9

    Here's where you and I part ways, NEM. A lot of progress has been made in the last sixty years, and the Egyptians, for example, are in a very different place from where they were, say, under Nasser. Jordan has always been very lukewarm about the pan-Arab cause, having had to fight off its own Palestinian uprising. Even in '48, Golda Meir and King Abdullah were friends on the eve of war, and there was a tacit agreement that Jordans Arab Legion would not cross the armistice line in the event of war (an agreement they kept.)

    Would they ever ally with Israel, particularly against other Arab states? Not in the foreseeable future, and maybe never. Any moderate Arab regime at present survives at the sufferance of the so-called "Arab Street," which is wholeheartedly anti-Israel and antisemitic (or anti-Jewish, if you want to pick the semantic nit about the word semitic.)

    To be sure, even the moderate Arab regimes have continued to teach hate in their official schools, although they are supposedly moving in the right direction toward more respect for Christians and Jews. I think back to my textbooks in elementary schools that talked about "wild indians" and "savages" -- in the 1960s and 70s -- because the post-World War II "new" books were not yet available. I don't even know if buying more "tolerant" books was even mandated -- I bet it wasn't, because books are usually a state and local issue, and the state of Virginia is something less that knee-jerk in its progressive tendencies. I can believe the moderate Arab nations will be past the need to vilify Jews in textbooks within the decade.

    All this to say, I don't block off hope for peace or progress, but we've just taken a step back into the 1980s, as promised. But its a backward step, not a forward step, as were the first halting steps toward Palestinian sovereignty (and mutual recognition) during that decade.

    This why I keep saying, Israel had the right to do what she did -- but I just question its wisdom.

    By the way, Israel announced today the intention of setting up a South Lebanon "buffer zone" again. This is like flying our guys back to Vietnam in, say, 1980, to start all over.

    Yeah, they have the right. I just question the wisdom.

    PFnV
  10. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,650
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +566 / 1 / -3

    #75 Jersey


    Such a great post all up until the 2nd to last paragraph where you showboated and dropped the ball on the one yard line - - oooh, you were soooo close.


    The Vietnam analogy would be somewhat accurate if :

    1) Vietnam was our NEIGHBOR

    2) Viet Cong were lobbing missiles into Buffalo, Syracuse and Chicago.

    3) The Viet Cong were espousing liquidating all our women and children because of our beliefs.

    Other than those nitpicking differences, the analogy is spot on.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2006
  11. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Excluding Syria and Iran from this poll, they are bit-part players really, it's really a question of who do you side with: Israel or Palestine? My thoughts...

    The Palestinians and Lebanese have been suffering for long enough, now it's Israel's turn.

    Hezbollah kidnaps two IDF so then Israel responds by bombing the **** out of Beirut, that makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

    This one rogue nation is causing hell for the entire West. It's a shame the West feels like they must defend them to no end because of events from the 1940's. **** em I say. They get what they deserve.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    Coincidentally, a neighbor of mine (a graduate student) returned from her home in Lebanon today. (I forgot to ask her how she got out.) She is a Lebanese Christian. She said that most of the people she talked with were sympathetic to Israel, but if Israel kills many more civilians that will change.
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,311
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +387 / 6 / -9

    Oh fine, split hairs then. (I do like this much more than "****em.") Okay - fine. That is a closer analogy... but I still put the cost and risk side higher than the benefit side in the "occupation equation." Up until Sharon's incapacitation, so did Kadima... in fact, I am still curious about the trigger for this action, beyond the three abductees. In a vacuum, it just seems strange that these three straws would break the camel's back.

    Seymour93, you're entitled to your opinion, although you really should be more aware of history. In '48, the U.S. refused to aid Israel. In '56, the U.S. ordered back the British/French/Israeli advance across the Sinai. In 1967 the ambivalence stopped, though the U.S. provided no on-the-ground support to any side. The same in '73, and the same in Israel's occupations of Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, and, until '76, the Sinai Penninsula. As to arms sales, stop selling them and other suppliers will walk into that market.

    There is a good deal of American financial support to Israel, and IMO Israel's been earning her keep in this alliance. But as we've mentioned elsewhere, Israel does not dry up and blow away if American aid ceases; it's a modern, vibrant economy, even if mired in a garrison state. Furthermore nobody befriended Israel out of "sympathy" or "pity." There's a strategic relationship there that extends beyond the cold war -- in fact, I think it likely that the current actions of Israel in Lebanon are an outgrowth of that relationship, not a thorn in the side of Washington. Regardless, I'm not so certain there's a point to mentioning the suffering of Palestinians and Lebanese -- which could stop the moment either population recognized they could not lob missiles at weddings etc. -- while simultaneously dismissing "events in the 1940s," by which I believe you mean the Holocaust, a European experiment in extermination that took the lives of several thousand times the number of Jews, than the number of Arabs ever killed by the state of Israel.

    Enough of the soapbox. Suffering's not a contest, and all peoples should live in peace. These last few days have been a pretty troubling turn of events, from the point of view of a supporter of Israel; I would imagine it's no fun from the point of view of a detractor.

    But gilding the lily as you've done here, reeks of either idiocy or ignorance. If the former, be honest with yourself. If the latter, I hope you get the opportunity to read broadly and deeply on the subject soon.

    PFnV
  14. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    I hate to see our so called strategic relationship with Israel strengthen at the expense of thousands of dead Lebanese.

    In the first place, we no longer need a strategic relationship with Israel. The relationship only convinces Muslims that we are biased and against them. If we distanced ourselves from Israel, and took a fair approach, it would be much easier to win over the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi's but Muslims everywhere. We need to convince Arabs that we are not the crusaders and not Israel's lapdog either, this would further marginalize Al-Qaeda and their ilk in Muslim society.
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,311
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +387 / 6 / -9

    Agreed, although I'm not that certain that Israel's recent actions are not by prior agreement with the U.S... that is one of those "wait and sees," from where I'm sitting.

    It is quite possible that "all Muslims" will always reject the existence of Israel (I put that in quotes, because it's not even the case now, though a majority reject Israel's existence.) It is possible, but unlikely, that the U.S. is better off without a single stable ally in the Middle East. I personally would take issue with that from the point of view of American interests. But I suppose we have to predicate that we, Europe, and Japan could halve our energy use, and just buy from such bastions of pro-Americanism as Venezuela. Maybe we could burn sugar cane and corn, and see how the poorer bits of the world look at us, when we start burning food in our cars while they go to bed hungry every night... maybe that will raise America's status in the world.

    But no need to get sarcastic, my apologies there. Again, we disagree, though this is a very different statement from your first one, which hinged on Israel's "rogue" status, and Palestinian and Lebanese suffering.

    But be clear. You're not really talking about taking a fair approach. You're talking about taking an approach that achieves results that the Arab nations will prefer. These are two different arguments.

    To me, Israel is not a foreign policy liability to the U.S., because I do believe the U.S. has an interest in having a stable ally in the MidEast. But that discussion is certainly a logical one to have.

    The discussion I don't understand is the characterization of "fairness" as favoring the party that loses. I've said before, and I'll say again, the Arab/Israeli conflict (particularly the Palestinian/Israeli conflict) is the first war in history in which the winners sue for peace, and the losers demand unconditional surrender. The governments war on one another, and the people die because of their stances -- I understand that. But the stances of the Palestinian Arabs have vascilated between Nazi-allied and Nazi-style extermination theory, and terrorism, the first cousin of that theory.

    The Arabs are certainly more numerous than the Israelis, they certainly have more oil, and given these facts, you might even be able to debate that it's in our interests to side with them, as represented by their more radical factions. I disagree. What's much more difficult to press is the argument from justice, in the case of groups that routinely kill the innocent as a tactic, advocate the disappearance of a people from the face of the earth, and act on that rhetoric frequently.

    PFnV

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>