U.S. middle east policy, pros and cons: discuss

@Irishk,

Quote:

Morsi is a thug and a creep.

How many Iraqi, Afghan, Nicaraguan, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Korean, Guatemalan children has he murdered, Irish? How many millions has he slaughtered around the world? How many innocent lives has he destroyed?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

Considering the above, I do think that the below description is a rather biased perspective of the matter. I certainly can't blame Israel for hunting down terrorists that killed their athletes at the Munich Olympics...and the agents were under the obvious belief they had found the leader of the organisation.

That's not a very rule of lawish opinion, Vikorr. What is the point of encouraging Israeli terrorism while decrying other terrorism?

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

the dullness of this year's World Series might be lessened.

Which is more dull, watching baseball or watching paint dry?

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

Then it should make one wonder why many of the 2-billion cannot stop hating 13.3 million. Sounds strange?

That hatred hasn't translated into the deaths of millions of Americans or Israelis, Foof.

What really should make one wonder is why Americans allow trumped up hatreds to be used as bludgeons to kill innocents far and wide. That really sounds strange especially considering how Americans love to bleat fa and wide about how kind, benevolent and caring they are of the world's poor and downtrodden.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Oh yes, and there are a great number of Maypole Dancers who believe that if only we discard our crass materialism, we can replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources as the engine of our economy. And hey, if wind and solar isn't quite up to the task we can all just wear sweaters, and stop watching so much TV.

There certainly is something to be said, for thinking people anyway, Finn, for not wanting to be the greediest fucks on the planet.

Quote:

Why must the US change it's[sic] approach to the Middle East?

Indeed!!!!

Why would anyone ever, for a moment, think that the US should stop murdering people, should stop stealing others wealth, should stop invading sovereign nations, should stop murdering ME children, should stop providing ME children with cluster bomb toys and depleted uranium to breathe and ingest.

Why indeed, Finn?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Americans do know the truth. And we are not biased at all.

Uncle Sam is not going to be happy with you constantly allowing this dribble off your chin, Oralboy.

Swallow swallow swallow dat jism.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

Just like the U.S. was created for the benefit of Protestants that did not fit into the religious beliefs of Europe.

More propaganda, Foof. The US was created by a group of people that wanted to grab some wealth for themselves. These god fearing people had no problem committing genocide against Native Americans in order to garner that wealth.

Quote:

And now the U.S. is a very diverse society that the world thinks of as a diverse society (and so many people of diverse backgrounds want to come to the U.S.).

Of course they do. People are always attracted to shiny baubles. Better to be sitting in the US than back in their own countries when the US decides to bomb the crap out of another country.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Quote:

Code for unleash the mob!!!

And how well you know that particular drill, right, Irish?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

and gets to keep our billions.

Why you keep bragging about the US buying a place just so it can operate its hidden torture chambers is beyond me, Finn.

But I will note that you think this should be par for the course, a given, what's to be expected of the benevolent giant. I think you have a friend in Irishk.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Quote:

Kind of like they're huge advocates for freedom of expression.

And they're the bomb on women's rights dontchaknow.

How come these guys only turn into bad guys, replete with all the buzz phrases, when they aren't a solid bought and paid for brutal dictator?

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Code for unleash the mob!!!

And how well you know that particular drill, right, Irish?

It's a bit short sighted to think the only sanctions Morsi has are violent ones. There's all the business of cooperating with Israel, and allowing oil/gas piplines to supply Israel, and there's the Suez canal.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

It's a bit short sighted to think the only sanctions Morsi has are violent ones.

Isn't "short sighted" the highly successful modus operandi of the US - successful in the sense of driving the population into a frenzy by pointing to another boogeyman?

0 Replies

@JTT,

vikorr wrote:

Considering the above, I do think that the below description is a rather biased perspective of the matter. I certainly can't blame Israel for hunting down terrorists that killed their athletes at the Munich Olympics...and the agents were under the obvious belief they had found the leader of the organisation.

JTT wrote:

That's not a very rule of lawish opinion, Vikorr. What is the point of encouraging Israeli terrorism while decrying other terrorism?

Whose laws are we talking about?

What is the purpose of law? (would consistency, justice, and protection be correct?) And what if laws fail those purposes? (you could say 'change the laws' - but then we come back to 'whose laws')

And what do you define as terrorism - the definition of which I think these days has been completely made useless by the US' behaviour since 9-11 (you'll notice that almost every govt around the world in civil war started labelling opposition forces 'terrorists' etc...that rarely if ever occurred before 9-11)

And is it terrorism to hunt down and kill only terrorists?

And on prosecuting 'terrorists' - why do you think the US tried the Guantanemo prisoners before a Military Court, and not Civilian Courts?

I'm glad you have the opinion and made the statement - because rule of law is important....and while on laws being important...are other countries laws more important than matters of survival, and protecting your people - and did/does hunting down the Munich Terrorists protect the Israeli people in any way?...did it serve justice in any way? Would there ever have been justice if they didn't?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

Whose laws are we talking about?

We obviously are speaking of the very ones that these people - Israel, the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, ... pretend they are following. We are following the rule of law that these same countries regularly use in their propaganda to explain how "the terrorists" aren't following the rule of law.

Quote:

What is the purpose of law? (would consistency, justice, and protection be correct?)

We both know that so there's no need to head off on some theoretical tangents.

Quote:

And what if laws fail those purposes? (you could say 'change the laws' - but then we come back to 'whose laws')[/quote

Those laws fail when we allow "I certainly can't blame Israel for hunting down terrorists that killed their athletes at the Munich Olympics...and the agents were under the obvious belief they had found the leader of the organisation" is an example of the rule of law.

We only have to look at Iraq or Afghanistan to see how these "obvious beliefs" are not at all obvious. And those are hardly the only examples.

[quote]And what do you define as terrorism - the definition of which I think these days has been completely made useless by the US' behaviour since 9-11 (you'll notice that almost every govt around the world in civil war started labelling opposition forces 'terrorists' etc...that rarely if ever occurred before 9-11)

The definition is clear. It has been preempted by the US [and the UK et al] in its relentless propaganda. Failures Art, quite some time ago here at A2K, wrote how the US sought to define an agreed upon definition. They couldn't, actually wouldn't do it because it was pointed out that the US's past behavior fit all the definitions of terrorism that were being bandied around.

But we know what terrorism is and we all know that it is being perpetrated by the "good guys" and the "bad guys". The good guys just have oodles and oodles more military power and an infinitely bigger, much much much more effective propaganda machine. This is how they get to be the "good guys".

But I'm not telling you, or anyone but the hopelessly naive/ignorant anything new.

This,

U.S. imperialism in Nicaragua and Latin America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d_J-fUG_b0

describes the terrorism that has been overwhelmingly the purview of the USA for almost two centuries.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

The definition is clear.

Actually, the definition isn't clear. Anytime people try to define it after 9-11, the definition started including a lot of activities that people considered legitimate. There was quite a lot of debate about this in the aftermath of 9-11.

As an obvious example - you consider hunting down and killing known terrorists (who have gone into hiding in other countries) as terrorism, while I don't consider that to be so. And I daresay that any definition you tried to come up with - that is generally accepted as an accurate definition of terrorism - wouldn't consider it terrorism either.

Quote:

We obviously are speaking of the very ones that these people - Israel, the US, the UK, Australia, Canada,

Really? What about Israeli law, who are the subject of your comments about not being 'very rule of lawish', or the laws of the countries in which the terrorists were assassinated? Or international law? I would have thought US, UK etc law would be the last mentioned here.

Quote:

We both know that so there's no need to head off on some theoretical tangents.

We both know that was asked because of the following question :

Quote:

And what if laws fail those purposes? (you could say 'change the laws' - but then we come back to 'whose laws')

Your answer :

Quote:

Those laws fail when we allow "I certainly can't blame Israel for hunting down terrorists that killed their athletes at the Munich Olympics...and the agents were under the obvious belief they had found the leader of the organisation" is an example of the rule of law.

doesn't answer the question at all - what do you do when those laws fail. Your statement is disagreement with my 'I can't blame them view'...but not an answer to 'what do you do when those laws fail'

You didn't answer - how do you protect your people.

We all know why certain countries never acceded to the demands of Airline Hijackers back in the 70's and 80's. I don't think anyone ever denied that if you gave in, you only openned yourself up for more terrorism. So how do you protect your people?

You also didn't answer - how do you obtain justice?

If you were the Israeli govt faced with this incident - what would you do?

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

As an obvious example - you consider hunting down and killing known terrorists (who have gone into hiding in other countries) as terrorism, while I don't consider that to be so.

The US is full of known terrorists. Every president has committed terrorist actions hence terrorists. The CIA is the world's largest terrorist group - consider how many thousands sit on their duffs collecting pensions. Australia has to have many terrorists of its own considering how long it has been in league with the US.

By your reasoning it's perfectly alright to hunt down Australia's known terrorists, those in the UK, France, Israel, ... .

But the point of the rule of law is to follow the rule of law. That precludes killing people without following the fundamental rules that are entailed within the rule of law.

The point of the rule of law is to hold criminals like Blair, Howard, Bush, ... responsible for their crimes against humanity, terrorist actions.

A fundamental rule of law is to not abuse the sovereignty of other nations. There is no rule of law contained within the actions of assassination squads. That is the very antithesis of the rule of law.

1 Reply

@JTT,

All of which I agree with, and all of which still doesn't answer the questions I asked. It's fine to be idealistic - so long as you can come up with solutions. So far you have avoided providing any solution/response...and likely any answer you provide will have negative consequences, and be debatable as to the right of it.

It's very easy to throw stones when you don't have to make the decision, and face the consequences of it.

So what would you do if you were the president of Israel, faced with ongoing terrorism, culminating in terrorists killing your athletes at an Olympic Games?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

So what would you do if you were the president of Israel, faced with ongoing terrorism, culminating in terrorists killing your athletes at an Olympic Games?

Which brings us right back to the rule of law. Stop the ongoing Israeli terrorism. Ask those countries where you feel there are criminals that need to be arrested to be arrested. That would be a rule of law action.

Then go thru the normal procedures that everyone knows, intuitively, follow the rule of law.

The rule of law is idealistic in nature. It's terribly hypocritical, not to mention, counterproductive, to mouth that you are a rule of law country and then turn around and act like a terrorist.

Which is exactly what you suggested was a good thing, a normal thing to do - for the "good guys" of course.

2 Replies

@JTT,

And if the criminals went to a country that Israel didn't have an extradition treaty with?

And if you knew who did it (eg you had intel that they did it, and they admitted it), but can't prove it to the criminal prosecution standard (eg they could just say 'hey I didn't do it, I just wanted to be famous', and intel is not necessarily proof)?

Would your answer then be, (effectively) do nothing?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Which is exactly what you suggested was a good thing, a normal thing to do - for the "good guys" of course.

Why would you think I would be one sided about what I consider understandable actions?

That's a bit of an assumption on your part isn't it. Do you often presume people who disagree with you are naturally hypocrites?

Did I mention that the agents that were caught also deserved to face prosecution?

0 Replies

U.S. middle east policy, pros and cons: discuss

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know