Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Carrying bombs to Israel


Guest Warwick Green

Recommended Posts

Guest Warwick Green

We may see more of this. Israel's popularity is not exactly going up.

The British government is to complain formally to the United States over its decision to use Prestwick Airport as a stopover point for at least two cargo aircraft carrying consignments of "bunker-buster" bombs to Israel for use in Lebanon.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/66727.html

And a comment

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...MC-new_27072006

Link to post
Share on other sites
And the US is all over with its media saying Lebanon is "unfairly" supported by Syria, and demanding that Syria withdraw its support, do they think people are that stupid to not know about the US support in Israel?

Oh hell no! Don't you know better! :lol:

The USA has given Israel about 85 billion US in direct aid and support.

http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj2003/ane/il/

THE USAID PROGRAM: The United States, acting through the USAID, will provide $720,000,000 in FY 2002 funds to Israel as a cash transfer. These funds will be used by Israel primarily for repayment of debt to the United States, including re-financed Foreign Military Sales debt, and purchases of goods and services from the United States. The U.S. State Department will continue to encourage Israeli reform to reduce government spending and deficits, to improve tax and public wage structures, to increase privatization, to reform labor markets, and to continue to liberalize its trade regime.

Whut? OH i get it. Here is money so you can pay me back?? Or invest it back in us to buy things. This sounds familiar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And the US is all over with its media saying Lebanon is "unfairly" supported by Syria, and demanding that Syria withdraw its support, do they think people are that stupid to not know about the US support in Israel?

I don't suppose it might occur to people that supplying arms to a democratic nation and ally in order that it defend itself is several magnitudes of morality above supplying terrorists with weapons so they can deliberately murder civilians? No, of course not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the same military-industrial complex is in full charge of both countries foreign affairs. thus the recent escalation to improve sales.

Israel's actions have nothing to do with a "military-industrial complex" and everything to do with defending itself from agression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We may see more of this. Israel's popularity is not exactly going up
What are you still in highschool? Worrying about being popular is not nearly as important as doing the right thing.
And the US is all over with its media saying Lebanon is "unfairly" supported by Syria
Absolute nonsense. I've heard people accurately state that Hezbollah, not Lebanon is being supported by Syria and Iran, never heard "unfairly"or Lebanon.
The USA has given Israel about 85 billion US in direct aid and support
Good. They should give more. We should give more. Anyone interested in human rights, democracy and Liberalism should give more.
I don't suppose it might occur to people that supplying arms to a democratic nation and ally in order that it defend itself is several magnitudes of morality above supplying terrorists with weapons so they can deliberately murder civilians?
Don't go all logic and reason on our asses now. You're talking crazy.
Israel's actions have nothing to do with a "military-industrial complex" and everything to do with defending itself from agression
Yes, it's amazing how some people can ignore 60 years of history, 7 Arab armies, attack after attack. And that's before the so-called "occupied territories" by Israel.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Warwick Green
We may see more of this. Israel's popularity is not exactly going up
What are you still in highschool? Worrying about being popular is not nearly as important as doing the right thing.

Did I say that Israel is doing the wrong thing? In fact I support Israel and they should not stop their action against Hezbollah until the last terrorist has been killed. And they should continue to do that even though international support for Israel's actions is declining.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I say that Israel is doing the wrong thing? In fact I support Israel and they should not stop their action against Hezbollah until the last terrorist has been killed. And they should continue to do that even though international support for Israel's actions is declining.

But I thought you would be a proponent of democracy. If the majority of people percieve Israel's conduct as wrong, is that not a democratic expression of opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the US is all over with its media saying Lebanon is "unfairly" supported by Syria, and demanding that Syria withdraw its support, do they think people are that stupid to not know about the US support in Israel?

I don't suppose it might occur to people that supplying arms to a democratic nation and ally in order that it defend itself is several magnitudes of morality above supplying terrorists with weapons so they can deliberately murder civilians? No, of course not.

Because murdering civilians with jetfighters is A-OK with Argus, its just those 'A-rabs' firing homemade rockets that get him worked up. In his mind a criminal organization is equivalent to a state actor, and Israel is justified in using the full brunt of it's military against civilian population centers.

In other words, moral equivalence. What complete nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Warwick Green

Did I say that Israel is doing the wrong thing? In fact I support Israel and they should not stop their action against Hezbollah until the last terrorist has been killed. And they should continue to do that even though international support for Israel's actions is declining.

But I thought you would be a proponent of democracy. If the majority of people percieve Israel's conduct as wrong, is that not a democratic expression of opinion?

As far as I can see the only democraccy in the whole region is Israel. And as such they have a natural mechanism to determine if what they are doing is supported by the public. If public opinion turns against the war against Hezbollah the Israeli government may rethink its tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say that Israel is doing the wrong thing? In fact I support Israel and they should not stop their action against Hezbollah until the last terrorist has been killed. And they should continue to do that even though international support for Israel's actions is declining.

But I thought you would be a proponent of democracy. If the majority of people percieve Israel's conduct as wrong, is that not a democratic expression of opinion?

As far as I can see the only democraccy in the whole region is Israel. And as such they have a natural mechanism to determine if what they are doing is supported by the public. If public opinion turns against the war against Hezbollah the Israeli government may rethink its tactics.

Last time I checked, Israel represented a very small proportion of the world population, so the principle of democracy does not lend support to making Israeli opinion the final arbiter of right and wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because murdering civilians with jetfighters is A-OK with Argus, its just those 'A-rabs' firing homemade rockets that get him worked up. In his mind a criminal organization is equivalent to a state actor, and Israel is justified in using the full brunt of it's military against civilian population centers.

In other words, moral equivalence. What complete nonsense.

Rockets that can carry a 400 lb payload over 40 miles and land close to where they are aimed, aren't home made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Warwick Green

Did I say that Israel is doing the wrong thing? In fact I support Israel and they should not stop their action against Hezbollah until the last terrorist has been killed. And they should continue to do that even though international support for Israel's actions is declining.

But I thought you would be a proponent of democracy. If the majority of people percieve Israel's conduct as wrong, is that not a democratic expression of opinion?

As far as I can see the only democraccy in the whole region is Israel. And as such they have a natural mechanism to determine if what they are doing is supported by the public. If public opinion turns against the war against Hezbollah the Israeli government may rethink its tactics.

Last time I checked, Israel represented a very small proportion of the world population, so the principle of democracy does not lend support to making Israeli opinion the final arbiter of right and wrong.

Before we have any war there should be a world-wide referendum? Is that what you are suggesting? Should there have been such a refendum before World War Two? Or after the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Remember it was Hezbollah who initiated the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, Israel represented a very small proportion of the world population, so the principle of democracy does not lend support to making Israeli opinion the final arbiter of right and wrong.

Before we have any war there should be a world-wide referendum?

Not a bad idea, really. Broadening the question to include a majority of people who are separate from the involved parties would likely help reduce conflict.

But my point was that IF we support the concept of democratic decisionmaking, then we presumably support the contention that larger numbers lead to better decisions. So, if the bulk of world opinion holds a certain viewpoint, the democratic principle suggests the majority is probably on to something.

Remember it was Hezbollah who initiated the war.

That depends on what you mean by 'initiated'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before we have any war there should be a world-wide referendum? Is that what you are suggesting? Should there have been such a refendum before World War Two? Or after the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Remember it was Hezbollah who initiated the war.

In Canada, prior to World War 2 there was a debate in September of 1939. I think there had to be given that Canada was not directly in the conflict.

In the United States, it was an attack that drew the U.S. into the war. I believe Roosevelt still had to go to Congress for a declaration of war though. A pretty easy task give the devastation at Pearl Harbor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Warwick Green

Before we have any war there should be a world-wide referendum? Is that what you are suggesting? Should there have been such a refendum before World War Two? Or after the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Remember it was Hezbollah who initiated the war.

In Canada, prior to World War 2 there was a debate in September of 1939. I think there had to be given that Canada was not directly in the conflict.

In the United States, it was an attack that drew the U.S. into the war. I believe Roosevelt still had to go to Congress for a declaration of war though. A pretty easy task give the devastation at Pearl Harbor.

And I believe that the Israeli Cabinet has a security commitee that makes the decisions with respect to the war - in other words, they are made by elected representatives, not appointed officials. But I can't speak with respect to Hezbollah - as to whether or not there was a democratic procedure in place that made the decision to capture the two Israeli soldiers that started the conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But my point was that IF we support the concept of democratic decisionmaking, then we presumably support the contention that larger numbers lead to better decisions. So, if the bulk of world opinion holds a certain viewpoint, the democratic principle suggests the majority is probably on to something.

What if the bulk of voters are ignorant, racist or just plain bought out?

Let's say you put out a world referendum on whether all the Jews should be removed from Israel and confined to a small Island near the Arctic Circle. Well, if you vote by nation, there are 52 Muslim nations. There are about the same number of African/third world nations who can be easily bought by Arab oil money, and a scattering of nations who will gleefully vote for anything seen as damaging the US. So the vote passes.

Even if you vote as individuals, there are a billion Muslims who will rush to vote "aye", while most of the world won't really care much one way or another. So the vote passes again.

This your idea of a good, democratic decision? Because majority votes would probably do away with borders around western nations, allow the free flow of immigrants and migrants, and redistribute western wealth to third world nations while taking away womens and gay rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But my point was that IF we support the concept of democratic decisionmaking, then we presumably support the contention that larger numbers lead to better decisions. So, if the bulk of world opinion holds a certain viewpoint, the democratic principle suggests the majority is probably on to something.

What if the bulk of voters are ignorant, racist or just plain bought out?

Then you could use such claims to enter upon the the inherent conditional I built into my statement with the (capitalized) word 'IF'.

Let's say you put out a world referendum on whether all the Jews should be removed from Israel and confined to a small Island near the Arctic Circle. Well, if you vote by nation, there are 52 Muslim nations. There are about the same number of African/third world nations who can be easily bought by Arab oil money, and a scattering of nations who will gleefully vote for anything seen as damaging the US. So the vote passes. Even if you vote as individuals, there are a billion Muslims who will rush to vote "aye", while most of the world won't really care much one way or another. So the vote passes again.

I don't accept the premises that (a) poor nations will necessarily sell out or that the only source of buying their vote in the world is Arab oil. Last time I checked, the US had a lot of bargaining power; or (B) that the world majority would necessarily vote for extremist positions against Israel. If they could see that their votes would be taken seriously, they might readily consider making a serious and responsible decision.

This your idea of a good, democratic decision?

Just for clarity:

1-Be advised that on this point I am arguing somewhat hypothetically since I agree that some choices ought not to be available thru majority rule.

2-The enforcement of rights is one such type of choice. In this particular instance, international law gives the right of self-determination to national groups, and outlaws such things as conquests and expulsions. On the basis of this law, the idea of eradicating Israel is obviously impermissible. Despite any validity there may be in the Arab complaints about Israel's initial establishment, it now exists as a nation of people entitled to the protection of international law, even though its government persists in violating those rights in respect to others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I believe that the Israeli Cabinet has a security commitee that makes the decisions with respect to the war - in other words, they are made by elected representatives, not appointed officials. But I can't speak with respect to Hezbollah - as to whether or not there was a democratic procedure in place that made the decision to capture the two Israeli soldiers that started the conflict.

I believe you're right about the security committee.

It's funny that in one of the democratic forms of government in the world, Israel has the ability to wage war with little or no oversight from Parliament. And moreover, the security is such that they can throw you into the slammer for years with no trial and no outside contact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Warwick Green

And I believe that the Israeli Cabinet has a security commitee that makes the decisions with respect to the war - in other words, they are made by elected representatives, not appointed officials. But I can't speak with respect to Hezbollah - as to whether or not there was a democratic procedure in place that made the decision to capture the two Israeli soldiers that started the conflict.

I believe you're right about the security committee.

It's funny that in one of the democratic forms of government in the world, Israel has the ability to wage war with little or no oversight from Parliament. And moreover, the security is such that they can throw you into the slammer for years with no trial and no outside contact.

Good point but Israel has been effectively in a state of war for the last 60 years with a few truces here and there. I am sure the Knesset delegated authority to the Cabinet in terms of handling the war years ago.

As for being in prison without trial, try the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point but Israel has been effectively in a state of war for the last 60 years with a few truces here and there. I am sure the Knesset delegated authority to the Cabinet in terms of handling the war years ago.

As for being in prison without trial, try the US.

Or Canada. We have a few security certificate prisoners. I don't know if they'll ever be charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...