GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Georgi:
<STRONG>
@CE remind me never to ask you for a detailed explanation...! </STRONG>

"In brief" was my aim when I started writing *sigh* academicians disease

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG> "In brief" was my aim when I started writing *sigh* academicians disease</STRONG>

I hope it's not contagious!

Well, I've been lurking in this thread all along, and the last thing I need to do is get involved in the carnage, but I just want to say: "I agree with C Elegans" She said it better than I could ever hope to anyway.

I think the military commanders/president and cabinet have been reluctant to send in the ground troops because they are so afraid of casualties - getting American soldiers killed is seen as political suicide ever since Vietnam, so the bombing has continued even though it has obviously run its logical course.

As far as "US support for Israel" goes, CE hit it pretty much on the head. America has definitely poured money and weapons into Israel since day one, and it's no surprise that other countries in the region who have not been the beneficiaries of this kind of support would look at it the way they do. I think the american citizenry's support for Israels actions has waned over the last 20 years, and in recent times I have even heard some more liberal jewish groups expressing disapproval of the way Israel has been handling things, which if you remember what it was like here 20 years ago is absolutely unbelievable.

I think the incredible amount of support for Israel goes back to the early days, Israel was seen as the US's only friend in the middle east. disclaimer: *I am no history expert*

I would like to say one thing about Iraq, and if anyone feels different, go ahead and tell me. Obviously what has happened there is an incredible screw-up, I don't think anyone can deny that. It's not all G. Bush Sr.'s fault, either - Clinton was in office from '92 to '00 and did NOTHING about Hussein except continue the sanctions - if anyone is to blame for the deaths and suffering of Iraqi citizens it's him. At the time that the Iraqi forces were driven out of Kuwait, I think the UN decided not to go in and get Hussein, it was probably felt that crossing the Iraqi border and killing him or capturing him would look like Yankee Imperialism. Well, it would have, but obviously it was a mistake to not do it. He should have been captured and tried. As it is he could probably be tried for what he is doing to his people now.

In any case, we'd probably all be in the same mess we are now, but hopefully we can all learn from what's going on and do things better in the future.

by Georgi:
<STRONG>I hope it's not contagious!

</STRONG>

Hehehe...you never know - I might transfer it to you by brain-waves

Originally posted by THE JAKER:
<STRONG>Well, I've been lurking in this thread all along, and the last thing I need to do is get involved in the carnage, but I just want to say: "I agree with C Elegans" She said it better than I could ever hope to anyway. </STRONG>

Thanks a lot Jaker

Fas, just to recap:
-You believe that Muslims view the US as not having done enough for the Palestinians, but also admit that the Muslim nations themselves have done little. I’d like to see an end to the conflict, with or without US involvement, but why would you view negotiating this peace as the sole responsibility of the US? You then go on to criticize Israel, which right or wrong is a non-sequitur, unless you have some reason to believe Israel is an agent of the US.
-You agree that Iraq acted unjustly.
-UN sanctions, those that ostracize a nation unilaterally, are those that cripple a nation and make it difficult for it to provide for it’ people. The US does chooses to impose trade sanctions on a lengthy list [ <A HREF="http://"http://www.usaengage.org/studies/crs/ecosanc3.html" TARGET=_blank>http://"http://www.usaengage.org/studies/crs/ecosanc3.html</A> ]of nations (even some allies), but these are measures designed to protect US interests, and do not prevent the nation in question from feeding its population. If you believe otherwise, please provide some evidence.
-You don’t seem to comment on the Saudis freely allowing US forces in their country, other than to suggest that is merely another piece of the puzzle.
-Your media reference confuses me. Do you accuse the US government of being more concerned with media coverage than adequately protecting its citizens? If so please support this accusation with a bit more than “Bush and the govt may lose face.”
-Again, I’m not sure what your opinion of the evidence has to do with this. If you mistrust the US, would at least the experts of her allies carry some weight? If not, please explain what does motivate them. Include some proof.

And with all this, I’m still unaware of any demands, gripes, or negotiations coming from Al Queda (who of course have no authority to negotiate with legitimate governments anyway). All I see is unspeakable violence and the potential for those with preconceived notions about US to interpret it’s foreign policy in such a way so as to justify the erroneous notion that it must share culpability.

CE:
Nice to see you. I’d be happy to discuss this, but I’m unclear on your reasoning. I don’t think it’s necessary to debate the actions of Israel here. Their record is far from perfect, though I do believe they normally act as if they were in a desperate mode of self preservation; not surprising for a nation without a friendly border. Still, my point is that their actions are their own, unless you have some support for thinking otherwise.

You disagree with the statement that the US merely supports Israel’s right to exist. Are you trying to show they have done something more? I’ll concede that Israel receives supplies and weapons from the US, but does that make the US an accomplice in anything this independent nation decides to do? By that logic the US is also responsible for the actions of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan – all Muslim nations in the Middle East, all also receiving military and economic support, and unlike Israel, all receiving military training. I’m not aware of the US insisting on anything more than Israel, like all her allies [including those mentioned above], be left in peace.

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Waverly ]

Waverly, you have a way with words. I'm impressed.

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>I?d be happy to discuss this, but I?m unclear on your reasoning. I don?t think it?s necessary to debate the actions of Israel here.

</STRONG>

Sorry my reasoning wasn't clear. I'm just going to bed, so I will get back to later if needed. This seems to be a question of where we choose to place the boundary of responsibility of action.

I do think it's necessary to include the actions of Israel in the discussion, since I think there is a difference between knowing v not knowing that you give or sell material that is going to be used for violating human rights and the Geneva convention.

If I give you a baseball bat, and you later hit T' in the head with it, it's not my responsibility since I had no way of knowing you would perform this act. But if you have a long criminal record of violence, and I know you are going to hit someone in the head with this baseball bat, I think it's immoral of me to give it to you.

IMO degree of responsibility is a question of ability to control or affect an event. You are an independent person ultimately responsible for you own acts yes, but I am partly and indirectly responsible for your violence against T' if I provide you with a bat knowing you are going to hit her.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>This place is like walking on hot coals, everything is taken seriously. At my dead forum we almost flat out insulted each other yet still no-one would take it personally. It's gotten to the point on this forum where I dig myself into a deeper hole just because I'm mad that someone could take offense at some things I say. </STRONG>

@Quark, surely you know how highly emotive this particular topic is, especially at this time? But you really can't say that's true about the SYM forum in general. There's plenty of humorous subjects available, and you're welcome to post in them--or here, for that matter. Just don't expect people to respond well in a serious subject when you respond in a fashion that may be fine on unmoderated, "flaming" boards. That doesn't cut it, here. We're civilized, although not over-civilized.

2 things I stumbled on and would like expanded

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Correct, but most muslims don't believe the US has done enough.
There has been a lot of fancy words and documents, but have the Palestinian people gotten any help from the US?
True the arab nations themselves don't do anything.
And they need to be lambasted for that.
But the US has taken upon itself to play the mediator.
And i do think it should be fair.

Israeli targetted assissnations continue.
Tanks are used to fight stones.
Innocent people are dying on both sides.
</STRONG>

So everything is up to Iseral and the US in this conflict.
The Muslim/Arab world needs not participate and put pressure on the palistinians/Arafa on getting violence stopped and getting somekind of peace worked out - it is the US that must force Isreal to do it?
Again IMO as with most anythings - this goes both ways.
I know that Isreal is not the "nicest" country on the block, but neither are the palisitians.
I don't claim to be into middel eastern FP, but IIRC some time ago, Arafat rejected a peacetreaty because even though most all demands were fulfilled, Isreal "only" allowed like 80-90% of palistian refugees to return to their native land.
If somebody wants violence stoped, why not stop it themself before expecting the other part to stop it. This goes both way. Sure Isreal "could" stop it, the US could stop Afgahnistan - but why couldn't the arab/Muslim nations stop it?

It always comes down to the US and the West to stop things.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>
Define try.
It tried in Kosovo and did a good job.
It took out Milosovic.
Which was a very good thing.
They did the right thing with Bosnia as well.
Those are 2 examples of when they did try and did a good job.
But in this case they were doing something with the moral high ground and protecting the rights of the people who lived there.
In the ME can they not do the same thing?
</STRONG>

And there the US/Nato/UN actually used pretty much the same tactics as the US is doing in Afgahnistan.
It was the people of Serbia that removed Millosovic, not the bombs, but the bombs halted the slaughter of civilians in the Croatia, Bosina - Serbia/Yugoslavic war and got them to make a peacetreaty.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG><snip>

I looked at Weasels link to MSNBC, and the article covered some proof linking Fallad or someone with the hijacking and osama.
Now i have seen no exact proof, as in data, phone conversation information, prints, phone taps etc.
I would love to see this if it does prove Osama guilty.
Then by all means get him.

I know i sound like a broken record - i have said this before - but people think that i am a fundementalist of some sort.

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Fas ]</STRONG>

Although I haven't got the page in english it has been taken from cnn.dk a danish subdivision of CNN, wich should have gotten them from The Times in UK/MI6:

(I'm translating so bear with me
Phonetabs and moneytransferes shows : Mohammed Atef (Bin Laden' second in command) gave the order for the hijacking of the planes crashing into WTC.
There is also a moneywise connecion between this Atef guy and the people(pakistani) that bombed the american ambasies in Kenya and Tanzania.

There have been phonecalls a short time prior to 11.09.01 between Bin Laden and peope in Pakistan mentioning "Actions in the US"

Also prior to 11.09.01 phonecalls have been made between Bin Laden and people in Afganistan discussing a the scope of "a mission in the US".

A short time before the 11.09.01 money have been transfered from the hijackers to an account in the UAE(sp? Uniated Arabic Emirats or what it's name is in english (I don't know )) belonging to: Mustafa Ahmad whom have been linked to OBL more than once.

Unfortunally I can't find and english link of this page, and since it has been leaked from the MI6 it is I guess as untrustworthy as stateleaders saying that they have seen enough proof - and for Nato to have seen enough proof to invoke article 5, and even muslim nations to "go with the US".

One must remember that as anything - everything can be made up.
But one also has to take into account, that since so many stateleaders have supported the US in its actions, that unless this is a big conspericy to rid the world of Islam (as many fundamentalictic muslims seems to belive) then it might be that theese people see things not discloused to the public for a lot of reasons.

I want to pose the question about "proof" - if you don't attend a court of law, get to see the evidence toward a suspect and the court convicts this suspect - do your still want to see the evidence yourself before you are centain of his guilt.

Somewhere it was said that seeing is beliving - well do you think/belive that Milosovic is guilty of war crimes, that Iseral is - have you seen the evidence.

This to me is a lot like the question:
If a tree falls in the forrest and you(/no-one) is there to hear it does it make a sound.

(Note: this is not directed only against Fas, I only used his quote as a stepping stone )

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

CE: So is it also true using your logic that the US ‘does more than merely support the right to exist’ of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey? If there is some misguided belief that the US supports Israel to the exclusion of all others, how does this fit?

Your analogy makes some incorrect assumptions. It seems to present the premise that once Israel is armed, the only thing that is done with the armaments is assault innocent bystanders. If that were the case, then I’d agree with you, but it most certainly is not. The weapons are normally used in defense, and hopefully they also act as a deterrent. Would you agree that an unarmed Israel is overrun in short order? And if you believe that the US is not critical of Israeli actions, you are incorrect. Follow this link: [url="http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010828/2001082831.html"]http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010828/2001082831.html[/url] , also note the previous stories linked at the bottom.

Xandax and Waverly, i am off to a party right now, and will be out for the next day as well.
I can not post until sunday.
Then i will answer your queries and points.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Xandax and Waverly, i am off to a party right now, and will be out for the next day as well.
I can not post until sunday.
Then i will answer your queries and points.</STRONG>

Already - you're in the same timezone as me (AFAIK ) - well enjoy your party

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>CE: So is it also true using your logic that the US ?does more than merely support the right to exist? of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey? If there is some misguided belief that the US supports Israel to the exclusion of all others, how does this fit?

</STRONG>

You argue against a different point that I am making, I'm sorry I did not express myself clearly enough. Military support in form of selling or giving arms, offering military training and giving financial support for development of weapons and military operations, to a country that is consistently violating human rights and the Geneva convention with those weapons, is IMO immoral.

I have no idea whether some people think the US is supporting Israel exclusively. However, the are two major factors that makes the US aid to Israel different: the proportion of aid and the fact that it is unconditional.

The US is the worlds largest provider of arms, seeling more than double the amount that the no 2 weapon provider (the UK, I belive). More than 1/5 goes to Israel.

Apart from arms sales, the US provide Israel with an unproportionally large aid. The US give US give $3.3 billion annually in aid to Israel - 1/3 is economic, 2/3 military. Since WWII, Israel has received more than $90 billions in aid. Between 1962-95, 30% of all overseas Military aid the US gave, was to Israel. (There is not even an entire continent that equals the amount of aid Israel has receieved from the US - Latin America and Asia together match the sum.) Please compare this to Egypt (15% Military aid 1962-95, $2 billion annually presently), Turkey (8%: $0.1), Jordan (1%: $0.25 billion) and Saudi Arabia (0.1%: $0).

Govermental statistics for US overseas aid: [url="http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/index.html"]http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/index.html[/url] An article with some of the figures, but much shorter: [url="http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html"]http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html[/url]
Sure Israel must be able to defend itself against possible attacks, but is Israels need so many times larger that other war-ridden areas on this earth where people fight for the right to a land or for indepence?

Quantity aside, there is an important qualitative distinction: All the other contries who receive US military aid, does this under stated conditions from the US. Israel is the sole state that receive military and finacial aid with the only condition that they have to spend 75% of the finacial aid for buying weapons, at buying US weapons.

So, what I argue is:
1. No country should give military aid to a country that consistatly use the weapons to violate human rights and the Geneva convention.
2. Israel has violated the above consistanly for many years.
3. Even so, Israel has received huge amouts of aid from the US, IMO unproportianlly much.
4. Other states that recieve US aid has to meet certain conditions.

So yes, IMO the US has been acting immorally in the Israel/Palestine conflict. MPO aside, I think it is of importance to understand that the statistics I have presented here, have induced some rightful anger in many Arab states and among Arab people (as well as worldwide - not only Arabs and I are dissatisfied with the US acting in this question). But - apart from rightful anger, the US support of Israel has also induced hatred, and this, however wrong it is, is important to understand.

My solution? Very simple: Start conditioning the military aid. Not only critise, condition it the same way as for all other countries.

<STRONG>It seems to present the premise that once Israel is armed, the only thing that is done with the armaments is assault innocent bystanders. If that were the case, then I?d agree with you, but it most certainly is not. The weapons are normally used in defense, and hopefully they also act as a deterrent. Would you agree that an unarmed Israel is overrun in short order?

</STRONG>

The problem IMO is that Israel is using it's weapons both for necessary defence and occupation and conquering of other countries land - as well as assaults of innocents. Sure Israel would have been wiped out from the start with no defence at all - that's why my suggestion is conditioned military aid. Like "take this money and buy bulldozers, but if you use it for eradication of the 701:th Palestinian home, you won't get any more money next year".

<STRONG>And if you believe that the US is not critical of Israeli actions, you are incorrect.

</STRONG>

I read the link, good one, and no, I certainly have not said I believe the US is not critical to many of Israels actions. But as I stated above, being critical is good, but setting up conditions for the aid would be even better.

Again, sorry for the length of this

PS: You previously said Israel does not recieve military training? According to the articles I've read, Israel sometimes participate in US exercises. Is this incorrect?

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

You know better than that DP.

Referential so editing

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

I do, but my immaturity came busting out.

Sorry Sleep, I thought it was just an ironic joke...

To be honest, I don’t see the relevance in discussing the magnitude of the aid. Your figures are interesting, and I’m sure they are accurate, but why would the amount of aid upset you? Surely we aren’t going to get into the international version of ‘so and so got more than me!’. If you object to a particular type of aid, I think you should object to any amount of it.

The aid is unconditional? I’m not sure how you arrived at this decision. I know that in some cases some conditions have been publicized, but in general I think these conditions are not public record, particularly when the aid is going to an ally and not a nation with whom there has been some conflict and the conditions are more obvious. Altruism is fine, but I hardly think it is the only motivation in international politics. I submit that the aid is conditional. At a minimum there is the [url="http://www.aaiusa.org/capitalwatch/countdown2001/083101.html"]Arms Export Control Act[/url], which always applies. I’m surprised you missed items like this in the news:

Following the use of American weapons by the Israelis in a “targeted assassination” on Monday, reports have been surfacing that the US is investigating possible violations of the Arms Export Control Act. On Wednesday, ABC World News reported that a US Department of Defense official told them that the US had told the Israelis that there were concerns about the targeted killings and the use of US weapons, and that a report to Congress may be made.

CE:
So yes, IMO the US has been acting immorally in the Israel/Palestine conflict. MPO aside, I think it is of importance to understand that the statistics I have presented here, have induced some rightful anger in many Arab states and among Arab people (as well as worldwide - not only Arabs and I are dissatisfied with the US acting in this question). But - apart from rightful anger, the US support of Israel has also induced hatred, and this, however wrong it is, is important to understand.
My solution? Very simple: Start conditioning the military aid. Not only critise, condition it the same way as for all other countries.

From my viewpoint, your solution is already in place. I’ll reiterate that Israel is responsible for her own actions, and my belief that the US does desire peace in the Palestinian conflict. It would be much easier for the US concentrate on this worthy goal if the Palestinian state curtailed their own terrorism, which is the catalyst for Israel’s overreactions, and there wasn’t a threat of terrorism in the US, which has become a higher priority for the moment.

I disagree that that it is important to understand that support of Israel has produced hatred. At least not in the way I believe you mean. If it is the terrorist’s goal to force the US to take a critical look at it’s policies by some means other than diplomatic, it isn’t going to happen. Nor should it. There should be no efficacy in mass murder. In fact, while the terrorist threat looms, there is even less resources to be given to the Israeli situation. How does this anger spread from Palestine, where the source is more clear, to Egyptian and Saudi ex-patriots and the recesses of Afghanistan? I humbly submit that the hatred is real, but not rational.

CE:
PS: You previously said Israel does not recieve military training? According to the articles I've read, Israel sometimes participate in US exercises. Is this incorrect?

I would imagine so, the same would be true for NATO allies, but these exercises differ from assisting in the training of another countries military.