General Chat / WWIII

Wow you bastards have been busy...
As mentioned earlier this is probably one of the best debates ive seen on ne in awhile...and I seem to have brough Ed and natelox out of hiding..must be fate..


Anyway. First thing. Clinton quite frankly was not as great as everyone seems to think he is. His so called peace proposal for Israel obviously failed miserably(and yet his wife benefited greatly by recieving donations from Arafat's bussiness partner.) Not to mention giving North Korea nuclear reactors..yay..good job there..


The problem with your philosophy Ed is that it assumes everyone wants to negotiate. If person a, b, c agree on something but d decides to say screw you, and in order to enforce his way of thinking takes b hostage, then what? D has already left the negotiating table. You are forced to act in a way to save C, this could mean D might have to die. Sad fact is when two sides are in conflict, more than likely there is not going to be a way to negotiate, particularly when both sides want the other completely anihilated.

Unfortunately in those cases, animal instinct kicks in, and the only way to solve a problem is by killing the other side. Thus a self perpetuating problem.


And cork, you forget Israel already agreed to an old peace proposal, whereby they withdrew from Lebanon, and Gaza. In return theyve only made it easier for weapons and manpower to be smuggled closer to their main towns.

If you were Israel would you listen to the UN?

I cant seem to find the article, but there was an ap report today detailing the massive support hezbollah is getting from Iran and Syria. So, again what would you do if you were Israel?

Its all well and good to say we should prevent conflict, but sometimes you've got to look at the reality of a situation. Sometimes you've got to stop living in an intellectual dream world and face facts.

Do I support what Israel is doing? Not really. Do I understad why they're doing it. Yes. A part of me wishes they would do more.

To me, it seems like this has a been a war thats just been only slightly pushed back and back. Whether we like it or not, there are forces in power whose ideologies want total and complete control (on both sides), were kinda caught in the middle.

And I hate to have to use this again, but I've got to bring up Germany again. When Hitler came to power and started making demands, the allies gave in, hoping to avert war. They basically got it shoved back in their face.

There is a reason that after every ceasefire, these groups have come back with stronger weapons. How many times are we going to have ceasefires before we say enough?

Edit: Oh and thanks Cork, now I'm gonna have freaking nightmares about that.

Edited by minnimee85, 21 July 2006 - 04:12 PM.

I don't understand what makes Israel think that this 'strategy' is going to work now when it didn't work before.

I don't understand what makes Israel think that this 'strategy' is going to work now when it didn't work before.

Mantis makes a good point. This is not the first time Israel has invaded Lebanon and probably won't be the last. Every 15 or 20 years tensions reach a boiling point, they go at it for a few months, and then it all settles back down after a lot of senseless deaths to the fact that Jews and Arabs STILL hate each other.

Let's pick up Israel with a gigantic crane and attach it to Canada.

Or maybe just out into the Mediterranean. Naw, wouldn't work. The Arabs would still say that it's their land no matter where it went to in the world.

^ Israel would take over Canada. Seriously. You think Canadians are prepared to wage war? They'd fold in an instant unless Britain sent troops to protect their commonwealth.

I don't understand what makes Israel think that this 'strategy' is going to work now when it didn't work before.

War never makes sense.

They think that this time, they'll wipe everyone out. That blowing things up will take care of things. That's the mentality that warhawks have always had, from the old days of empires to modern times.


Furthermore, when you're a leader and your people are clamoring for action because Hezbollah is firing missiles into your towns, the most effective way of showing you're acting is to bring the hammer down.

Like minimee, I don't like it, but I understand it. The problem is that not everyone (heck, few people, really) think like Ed or Nate. If they did, we probably would have world peace. Well, at least until aliens invaded Earth and enslaved us.

War never makes sense.

Which is why no one side can argue over who is right, who is wrong, and who is the terrorist. "We" as in America for me, are as much terrorists as the "terrorists" are themselves. The war in the Middle East is getting more and more out of hand, and we, the US, have just the president to be in this situation huh. I understand that no president will be comfortable in this situation but that asshole in office somehow seems comfortable, however ironic that may sound. Its only goin down from here. Its fucked up. All over oil too. And you can argue wether this is over oil for the US but the truth is, that we will do anything to get in control of the oil and that is exactly what Mr. BushyAsshole is trying to do. The government needs to stay the fuck outta other countries and focus on the people and problems that we face today such as Katrina, unemployment/poverty, medical attention, and just everyday problems. Not war in other countries, oil, and terrorists as we call em.

Its very, very fucked up. I was just kinda jotting down whatever was in my head so it might not be 100% clear.

Edited by RMM, 21 July 2006 - 08:12 PM.

How is America being terrorists again?

Also let me ask all of you who say this war is for oil(not saying it isnt), do you drive a car? Do you use publc transportation-ie:buses, trains, planes etc. Do you use rubber? Plastic?

Guess what those things are all made of oil..so you can bitch and moan all you want, but we need oil and they've got it..

Ed, you are a master debater. And I must say I agree with almost everything you said.

But, the point remains: people are stupid. Even better - most people prefer the simplicity that comes with ignorance, and therefore get rather agitated when you try to educate them.

-ACE

In others eyes we are terrorists. I am sure of that. We are invading countries and shit, but why? Why don't they just tell us?

I'm sure rubber and plastic aren't made from the same oil. I dont think they are. I agree with you partly. It just pisses me off that the government, THE GOVERNMENT!, cant even tell the truth. Instead they lie and attack our own people/minds to get what they want.

Edited by RMM, 21 July 2006 - 08:36 PM.

In others eyes we are terrorists. I am sure of that. We are invading countries and shit, but why? Why don't they just tell us?

I'm sure rubber and plastic aren't made from the same oil. I dont think they are. I agree with you partly. It just pisses me off that the government, THE GOVERNMENT!, cant even tell the truth. Instead they lie and attack our own people/minds to get what they want.

So, you think the government should tell you whatever you want to know, whenever you want to know it?


Ok, what happens when someone wants access to stuff like weapons research or tactical data?

The government has its own agenda. Perhaps they can't tell us precisely what that is. Perhaps you're just a conspiracy theorist and they're telling the truth. Regardless, the choice comes down to this: do you trust your government?

If you do, that's great. If you don't - vote for someone else.

-ACE

Perhaps you're just a conspiracy theorist and they're telling the truth.

What truth. They never gave a reason why we are at war. Its been asked forever and they wont say a thing. Theres been protests, speeches, and songs about why and all. But why no answer?

Why are we wasting thousands and thousands of lives for oil? FUCKING OIL.

Edited by RMM, 21 July 2006 - 08:54 PM.

Silly RMM, the war is for WMD's of course!

Yes, you can say there are those who don't like it, and you're probably right. But I meant it as a side comment. It is "good" then. Except that putting adjectives in quotation marks all the time would get pretty "annoying."

I only placed 'freedom' in quotation marks as I dislike the connotation of the term. Freedom itself is wonderful, but the word represents Americanism; something I prefer to differentiate myself from.

Also, I happen to believe that women and children should be allowed freedoms and liberties like getting an education and not being forced to shroud their faces in public should they not want to. Admittedly, that's my personal bias, but that only on a pure technical standpoint. I think we can go a discussion without having to notate our opinions in each and every instance, Nate. Don't take the philosophical argument past its useful parameters.

Clarification: don't be so technical about these things that you're making someone clarify what should be a statement that is accepted as inherently having personal biases.

Personal bias; fine. However, under this circumstance, I cannot understand why these Western ideals are forced onto countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan which may not want to live by these ideals. Bush has pushed democratic governments for both Afghanistan and Iraq. China isn't democratic, but there's no attempt to force them into this Western political atmosphere; and some people probably don't want to have one either (Mind you, the growing high-income demographic is eroding their principles. But that's for another discussion).

Consider oppressed people in American history; African Americans and women (for example). African Americans were enslaved and rose out of that; surprisingly peacefully too. Women were long considered second class citizens and look at where they are now and where they are going. If change needs to occur, it will occur; internally. No countries tried to help the African Americans free themselves. No external aid broke down barriers for women. If Middle Eastern women and children don't like the way their lives go, they will free themselves. Perhaps that's a little much to ask, however if they can get their message out there loud and clear that they're ready for change then Western groups could offer support. Keep in mind that the media is guiding your opinions. You only really know what's going on based on what you watch on TV, read in the newspaper or on the internet.

But it is not justified (this attack on Lebanon is not justified) and it makes me sick that the US and UK are using their military forces to evacuate their own citizens instead of doing something to actually stop this ridiculousness.

Your intentions are noble, but how realistic is it to end a war (with a military) without more war. As you said, which I agree with, even one death in a war makes for failure.

I would never fight in a war because that's what I believe. How could I possibly say that and support someone else fighting in a war? Are there reasons that would make me fight? I suppose there might be. My family and friends are under attack and need to be defended perhaps. But that's certainly not the case here.

But isn't that the case? Two members of Isreal's family were taken hostage. I used to think that I would never fight in a war because I could never, and would never want to inflict harm on any human. However, one teacher in high school posed a question: What happens if someone invades your country? The soilders are comming for you. They don't care how great of an individual you may be (or how caring of their family they may be); it is their job to kill you. There's no way I would let them run me over. Retaliation is out of the quesiton, but holding down the fort is of greatest importance.

Israel would take over Canada. Seriously. You think Canadians are prepared to wage war? They'd fold in an instant unless Britain sent troops to protect their commonwealth.

Correct. However, while we would call Britain, we would also give the Americans a call. That's about the only reason we joined in with Afghanistan; America was 'under attack' so we had to help in order to be in the good books.

Which is why no one side can argue over who is right, who is wrong, and who is the terrorist. "We" as in America for me, are as much terrorists as the "terrorists" are themselves.

Well said.

The Israel taking over Canada part was a joke, btw. For the record.

I cannot understand why these Western ideals are forced onto countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan which may not want to live by these ideals.

I was referring more to lifestyle as opposed to government type. But you definitely have a point with that. To force "democracy" onto another country isn't right. Although frankly, I believe that the people simply want peace and stability. They don't care what type of government gives it to them, as long as they have it.

That's not to say Saddam was better, since he terrorized his own citizens at times too. Just a general statement.

Ed, Corky, Nate, you all seem to be forgetting that middle easterners are the devil and must be eliminated from our terrorist-free world. And I thought you guys were smart.

> The Israel taking over Canada part was a joke, btw. For the record.

For the record, Canadians have been on the front line of every American offensive since we burned the White House and it would be normal if Canadians were providing communication control and intelligence from Lebanon three weeks ago.

This nation is as duplicitous as any other, just look at natelox urban mindfuck consumption thievery in the light of destroying education and healthcare for rural kids - my neighbours would love to silence him.

So, what is war? A choice of television channels?

Ed there is a key difference between the Middle East and here, when our women spoke out for freedom, they werent publicly stoned.

And it took a war to free the slaves..

George Bush is stupid but I don't think hes actually stupid enough to think that he can spread democracy and freedom halfway around the world to countries that have nothing going for them but their oil. The whole "Iraqi Freedom" and giving them democracy is just a cover up for why we are really over there, so whenever this war is over for us and our troops come home, the government can say "We tried to give freedom but we failed". (or lets say they even were successful) And after that speech on CNN it heads right over to a story about prices at the pump. After every single story about the war, the next clip they show is about gas prices.

^Also the Civil War did free the slaves somewhat, that was inside our own country and it didn't affect ones halfway around the world. I say somewhat because there was more to the Civil War than slavery. I had to say something about that. Just goin on and on for me. Babbleing. Whatever.

Ed there is a key difference between the Middle East and here, when our women spoke out for freedom, they werent publicly stoned.

Metaphorically speaking, when women first spoke out for freedom here they were stoned. We just had a different way of going about it.