What if the US were to act like Israel?

[mykpart]

What if we invaded a country and killed a bunch of people there and . . . oh wait . . . . . Never mind.

[CuteNFuzzy]

1. how would we justify it?

maybe we could say we're defending ourselves against terrorism?

Think anybody would buy it?

[fat dad]

62. maybe we could say we're defending ourselves against terrorism?

They hate us for our freedoms. It is a holy war. It is anti-semit.., err, anti-Americanism.

[babylonsister]

2. Get out! The US would NEVER do that!

:eyes:

[Erika]

3. Exactly. Great post.

[TomInTib]

4. What if Israel followed the US lead?

or vise-versa...?

'round and 'round...

[everythingsxen]

5. Well....

If you mean "Were the US to be attacked by an adjacent country like Mexico or Canada" and we then counter-attacked, it would be perfectly legitimate.

Please don't try to add more fuel to the fire by comparing the Iraq war to the Israeli - Lebanese conflict; the attack on Iraq was wholly unjustified and Israel's attack on Lebanon, however you may feel about it, has at least some validity to it.

[CuteNFuzzy]

6. There is no validity in murdering hundreds of civilians

none whatsoever

[everythingsxen]

21. I find it interesting...

That Israel is, in your eyes, murdering innocent civilians, yet you seem to say little about Darfur, or any of the other hundred spots in the world where civilians are being butchered.

Yes, the deaths of civilians is bad. Is it murder? No. Murder requires premeditation or at least intent. You specifically have repeatedly accused Israel of intentionally targeting civilians, yet you have 0 evidence to back up that claim. If you want to call it manslaughter, call it that, but not murder. Unless you are a member of the IDF or IAF or the Knesset or you are the Prime Minister or any other high enough placed person in Israel to actually know that it is an intentional killing of civilians you have no right to say that.

Honestly, if you want the "murder" of civilians, Israel could, I am sure accommodate. They could not warn civilians when they are about to bomb, they could also bomb much more severely. The fact that on a few hundred have died indicates to me a lot of restraint.

War is messy, messy business. Once again though, it could have been avoided years ago if the Lebanese government had disarmed Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, in war, civilians who have nothing to do with battles always suffer the worst. Especially when the enemy is a guerrilla force who is hidden within the civilian population.

[reichstag911]

31. And if only...

...the US hadn't armed Israel.... Hezbollah is a big part of what was sustaining Labanon's democracy, just like the Palestinian street voted for Hamas. Soon, it's going to be US/Israel vs. pretty-much-every-fucking-body-else-in-the-entire-fucking-world. I wonder how that'll turn out in the long run, ya know, if we "just wait."

[Zhade]

69. Indeed. There is a LOT of hypocrisy on this issue.

Maybe a little bit of racism, too.

[mykpart]

17. You're right of course.

My subject line was kind of a copycat thread with some real truth inside. My point is the same as the one you make - that Israel has some justification, and the Iraq war was totally unjustified - but I intended to show the irony of the fact that no one was supposed to question our invading Iraq, but many feel that it's totally acceptable to criticize Israel.

My personal feeling about Israel is that it is the only country in that part of the world that has always and consistently been our ally; yet they never depend on help from us - they can pretty much take care of themselves. All they want from us is that we sit back and let them solve their own problems. Rather be their friend than Syria's.

[Autonomy]

22. I must have missed the Lebanese attack on Israel

that started this conflict. I heard they captured two soldiers. That hardly qualifies as an attack. So the Lebanese army actually attacked Israel? Oh, that's right. No. Not until after Israel fired missiles into Lebanon.

[MADem]

59. The Lebanese Army did nothing, they were no where near there

The Hizb'Allah shi'a militia (an arm of the Iranian ayatullahs) crossed the Israeli border, killed eight reservists, captured two, and then started firing rockets into Haifa, trying to hit the petrochemical plant. Israel retailated against them subsequent to these events.

[Autonomy]

65. So Hezbollah militia attacked Israeli soldiers

and Israel responded by attacking Lebanese civilians. Who exactly are the "terrorists" in this situation, again?

[MADem]

70. No, the IDF responded by attacking militia

They leafleted before they bombed, they even auto-dialed the telephone numbers in the areas where they were planning to bomb and told people to get out. They gave lots of warning before they hit civilian areas. What more can they do? Sit there and let the militia shoot rockets at them from the roofs of "civilian" apartment buildings???

War sucks.

It's cruel.

Where is your outrage at the militia that gleefully use their neighbors as shields??? That delight in their dead, because they know it will upset people? That truly look at their dead as collateral damage and heartstring tuggers? Who exactly ARE the terrorists, here?

And I wonder how you would feel if you lived in Haifa? Would you be criticizing the IDF as rockets and missiles, filled with ball bearings and Christ knows what else, rain down on YOUR neighborhood??

Why are the Jews less worthy of protection from terror from the sky?

[blonndee]

7. Don't forget: Terra! Terra! Terra!

That justifies everything, apparently. If there's a terrorist or potential terrorist in their midst, all countries ought to be aware that they may be bombed back to the stone age. But it's okay, because no regular army would ever WANT to kill civilians. And anyone who is killed, well, they must have been terrorist themselves, or terrorist sympathizers, or should have kicked the "terrorists" out of their country. They had it coming.

[shance]

8. For the record, both the US and Israel are being used by rogue governments

This Administration and the Israeli governments are using our nation for their imperialistic desires.

We aren't doing it as much as we have allowed our government to be taken over by individuals who are extremist and racist and misogynistic in their agenda to take over and seize other people's land and assets.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

13. I call the folks in the US government the Corporatists.

When bombs are falling, business is booming. Such is the life of a war profiteer.

[CuteNFuzzy]

15. The government is the shadow

of big business cast over society

I guess I should quote that - from John Dewey, was once often cited by Noam Chomsky but I think he doesn't focus on that kind of discussion much these days

[rman]

60. Transnational crime syndicate

Elements from all kinds of nationalities are involved. See terror financing by wealthy Saudis, see historic ties of both SA and the US to the Nazis. See Operation Gladio; MI5, Italian Secret Service, etc.

[blonndee]

14. I tend to think that "racist and misogynistic"

are just products of the corporate imperative. That is, they're using extremism and racism to further their agenda.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Good post.

[Zhade]

71. I agree. I've said for years that Israelis deserve a better government.

NT!

[Celica Toyota]

9. kick

[Celica Toyota]

10. kick

[pitohui]

12. what if that country harbored terrorists who attacked us

the great analogy is afghanistan, mullah omar entertained osama bin laden in his country for five freakin years and took untold millions of dollars to harbor him and his people while they prepared for the attack on the wtc

did i oppose the war in afghanistan? did 90 % of america oppose it? damn skippy we did not, all we objected to is * giving omar and osama three weeks warning to get away w. the cash

if you harbor terrorists, you need to go down

people say "well germany," and then you point out, er, germany actually went out and immediately started hunting down and prosecuting those who helped the planners of 911, they did not tolerate their presence once it became known

not quite the situation in afghanistan or lebanon

[Tulum_Moon]

16. Great post OP

Funny but to the point.

[jayfish]

67. Not Really.

The oligarchical Taliban "harbored" AQ. The Lebanese government couldn't expel of Hezbollah on a bet.

Jay

[CuteNFuzzy]

18. I opposed bombing Afghanistan

[jerry611]

19. And how would you have handled it?

The Taliban said they wern't going to give Osama up. And 80% of America wanted to go kick some ass.

If you were prez, and you don't do anything, you will be thrown out of office...literally...

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jerry611]

25. So Osama didn't do it?

Even though he admitted to doing it? Even though all his top people have admitted to it?

[CuteNFuzzy]

30. I didn't say that

And besides it's not the point. The point is that bombing Afghanistan served no purpose other than showing off to the world that we can be more terrorist than those we claim we fight against

[jerry611]

40. Sorry to say that's how civilization works...

When one nation is attacked, there is always retaliation. That's the way it has always been. And it won't change.
Seriously, if you looked at the polls after 9/11...it was just way statistically way off the chart. Practically everyone favored attacking Afghanistan. We are talking about a 90% range. Every member of the Congress favored war. I believe the vote was 430-1 in the House and 100-0 in the Senate in favor of striking Afghanistan.

And Afghanistan was a justified war. NATO and the UN both signed off on it. And not a single nation came to the Taliban's aide. Even Pakistan, their closest ally, turned on them.

If you were president after 9/11 and you refused to strike back hard, you'd be impeached and then replaced with someone who would. And your supporters would even jump off your ship. That's just how far in the minority you are on this.

[CuteNFuzzy]

46. It's a sad commentary that I'm in the minority then

I'm used to it though

And no, it wasn't a justified war.

[blonndee]

47. You are not in the minority

I assure you. At least not here.

[eridani]

54. I think the war was justified, but it;s conduct was not

We did it exactly assbackwards--kept the fucking with and interfering with the internal politics of Afghanistan in house, and outsourced going after OBL. Should have done it the other way around.

1000 anti-Taliban leaders meeting in Peshawar in October of 2001 begged us not to bomb their abused population, but to just give them some bribery money and let them pry the allies of convenience away from the small Taliban hard core. But, no, we had to go flatten the place, back a bunch of thugs not the slightest bit different from the Taliban, and stop the loya jirga from getting their ruler of choice, the former king. Meanwhile, outsourcing the OBL chase to the same unreliable thugs we backed militarily.

No, I don't approve.

[pitohui]

27. yes but go after the criminals like we went after noriega

i don't even remember any more what the dude did, i think it was sell cocaine, and crap! they invaded the country and said, it don't matter, you can be president of this country but if you're selling cocaine to our citizens and killing them you're going down

and they took him down and all is right with the world and panama is a prosperous (albeit bush-hating which just shows their inherent good sense) country to this day

the trouble w. afghanistan is we sat on our thumbs until we were SURE that omar had looted the bank of kabul and run off w. every dime of cash, it's almost as if someone in the bush administration were paid off, can you imagine kennedy, lbj, or nixon sitting on their thumbs for weeks letting the perps escape after 911?

i can't

i can't even quite imagine the new orleans pd doing it -- UNLESS they were paid off

[Clarkie1]

38. O.K....NOW I REALLY know there is no possibility to have a reasoned

discussion with you.

"WTC7 did not fall due to fire"

You need say no more.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CuteNFuzzy]

50. we're steeped in mythology my friend

steeped

[CuteNFuzzy]

53. where'd these posts go?

Did I say something wrong?

[CuteNFuzzy]

56. aha!

it seems a certain issue is wayyyy out of bounds here

I'm impressed that the mop up happened so fast!

It won't happen again, I've learned the lesson (learned it a little too well if I'm being honest)

[reichstag911]

34. You're right...

...better to protect your unearned sinecure than actually do the right thing.

[babylonsister]

20. Why? nt

[CuteNFuzzy]

26. because it wouldn't have solved a thing

(it didn't did it)

[babylonsister]

28. It might have if OBL had been captured at Tora Bora. nt

[CuteNFuzzy]

33. Look I'm all for bringing OBL to justice

Bring him before a court and let the thing work itself out that way

But punishing the people of Afghanistan was completely unjustified

[jerry611]

29. Actually it did

The Taliban is no longer in power...

Al-Queda is severely crippled and no longer has any training facilities...

[blonndee]

43. Oh yes it is! Have you been following the news?

Taliban is retaking areas quite quickly, according to even the corpmedia.

And from a personal account, one of my best friends is IN Afghanistan. I assure you, the Taliban is not only alive and well, but thriving.

[babylonsister]

45. I agree w/blonndee; nothing has been accomplished anywhere.

This admin sucks at everything they've ever tried to do or touch. They have no long-range concepts, they are inept, they do not speak for me, ever.

[pitohui]

49. i agree the taliban needs to be more aggressively prosecuted

see my posts upthread

i have to presume the BFEE is being paid not to pursue this, nonetheless, the right thing to do was to throw the taliban and the drug sellers in prison not to let them walk

we PRETENDED to invade afghanistan, that's what peeves me off, we have a skeleton crew there doing nothing to maintain the rule of law and that's why

your argument is not an argument that we shouldn't have invaded, it's an argument that we shouldn't have had an obviously fake and pretend invasion while allowing the miscreants to roam free to this day

oh, * is in on it, his family is cashing in on, no doubt abt it

if you doubt what i am saying, investigate the statistics and see how many of our soldiers are in iraq, which didn't attack us, and how many are in afghanistan

sorry, someone is getting paid off BIG TIME some where

i live in louisiana, i know a pay off when i see it

[blonndee]

51. On this I agree with you

my friend even recognizes this. He is a career army guy and is PISSED OFF about all the contracts he sees on a daily basis, just on the BASE. He sees this profiteering shit for what it is, and the thing is, he USED to be a conservative, and he supported this war when it began. He also spent almost a year in Iraq, but that's a different issue altogether. When he told me that even he and his guys knew this was a big fucking farce, that's when I knew the "war for hearts and minds" in Afghanistan was lost. He knows it, his "guys" know it, and we all know it.

I'm glad he's come around, but it's disgusting that all of this is a goddamned political, profiteering game to the chickenhawk neocons. Are they not human?

[eridani]

55. Sure they are. They just left the cities.

Afghanistan is 70% rural. And Al Qaeda is now a franchise rather than a group with a chain of command.

[pitohui]

24. i understand but you were in the minority

i didn't and don't oppose it, the only thing i oppose about it was that it was fucked up so that omar and osama made off with the cash and are still hollywood stars making videotapes to this day

[Clarkie1]

36. O.K....now I understand where you are coming from and why I will never

agree with you on this.

The world is not a cute and fuzzy place.

[CuteNFuzzy]

37. Ha!

unfortunately you're right, it is not a cute and fuzzy place

[Clarkie1]

32. It's rather like what we did in Afghanistan...which was a just war. nt

[CuteNFuzzy]

35. There is nothing just about either

Were the attacks on Sept 11th "just" in your mind?

[Clarkie1]

41. You have proven yourself an unresonable person

with a closed mind based on your posts. I realize there is no way to change your mind, because your views are based in belief, not reality.

I have nothing further to say to you because the dialogue will get us nowhere closer to the truth, which you have predetermined.

I wish you well.

[CuteNFuzzy]

44. ok whatever

open up a bit and maybe we can both learn something from the other

[reichstag911]

42. Bullshit.

Killing Afghan civilians, who've known more privation than we ever will (I hope), was not just. The Taliban government, and OBL's al-Qaeda operations, had very little interaction with the Afghan people. We bombed 'em forward to the Stone Age. And guess what, the Taliban is now resurgent.

[CuteNFuzzy]

52. dare we mention that pipeline

so long desired for that Hamid Karzai gladly delivered

[blonndee]

57. Yuppers. I can

tell you (collective you) a whole fucking lot about Afghanistan, by proxy, from one of my oldest friends who is there right now. But the armchair warriors would likely never believe it.

[cali]

66. WTF???

"The Taliban government, and OBL's al-Qaeda operations, had very little interaction with the Afghan people."

You couldn't be more wrong. Do some reading. Life under the Taleban was life under a terror regime. And for women, it was particularly horrifying.

I didn't support going into Afghanistan under Bush; I knew he'd screw it up, but had somebody competent been President, like Gore, it could have been far better done. We should have poured money into Afghanistan and rebuilt a shattered country, and I think we could have done it.

[cynatnite]

73. Well, I guess it wasn't the taliban that was doing this...

They weren't executing people in a soccer stadium, either. :sarcasm:

The Taliban is evil and should be destroyed for their crimes against humanity.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. If Bush were running Israel they would be attacking Costa Rica right now.

Iraq never attacked us.

[eppur_se_muova]

61. That's crazy talk! We'd never invade Mexico and take their land.

:sarcasm: *SIGH*

[bdamomma]

63. oh yes, the United States has already done that

shameful, we have never been so lower, our image to ourselves and the world are tarnished, and still we have this moron in office, what is wrong with people?

[AngryAmish]

64. Lookout Canada

all your stupid donut shops and back bacon...

[eppur_se_muova]

72. It's already begun ... Wendy's now owns Tim Horton's. nt

[AngryAmish]

74. All your donuts now belong to us?