Thank you board!

[SeattleUte]

You seem to be confusing proportional dispute settlements with proporitonal military response on the battlefield. Germany's capitulation was a proportioanl response to anything; it was the fruit of a battlefield defeat.

"Unconditional surrender"--Roosevelt and Churchill at Casablanca. They said what they meant and they meant what they said. One of history's great ironies is that Anglo-American resolve to require unconditional surrender is perhaps the greatest gift we have given to European and Asian peoples.

[Goatnapper'96]

"Unconditional surrender"--Roosevelt and Churchill at Casablanca. They said what they meant and they meant what they said. One of history's great ironies is that Anglo-American resolve to require unconditional surrender is perhaps the greatest gift we have given to European and Asian peoples.

I recall Clausewitz that military might is nothing more than an extension of political goals. The question at hand is Israel's political goal of not having rockets launched at their citizens a legitimate and fair in our fair lover of small tobasco bottles litmus test of "public opinion?" I would think the same fair and reasonable people who believe the higher death toll of Palestinians indicates Israel is using disproportionate force would agree that such a political goal is fair. From my perspective then Israel has the right to put enough bite behind that political goal to accomplish it. So far, it appears that Hamas has yet to be persuaded to stop doing it. So I could care less about proportionality as much I can whether or not they are being effective in their extension of political goals. Under Finderson's perspective Israel does not have the right to accomplish their political goal, which I think he would define as fair, if Hamas has the resolve to endure "proportional" losses as what Hamas can exact upon Israel. Effectively, the bleeding heart architechts are making sure that no country has a military advantage over an opponent. Harrison Bergeron?

[RobinFinderson]

I recall Clausewitz that military might is nothing more than an extension of political goals. The question at hand is Israel's political goal of not having rockets launched at their citizens a legitimate and fair in our fair lover of small tobasco bottles litmus test of "public opinion?" I would think the same fair and reasonable people who believe the higher death toll of Palestinians indicates Israel is using disproportionate force would agree that such a political goal is fair. From my perspective then Israel has the right to put enough bite behind that political goal to accomplish it. So far, it appears that Hamas has yet to be persuaded to stop doing it. So I could care less about proportionality as much I can whether or not they are being effective in their extension of political goals. Under Finderson's perspective Israel does not have the right to accomplish their political goal, which I think he would define as fair, if Hamas has the resolve to endure "proportional" losses as what Hamas can exact upon Israel. Effectively, the bleeding heart architechts are making sure that no country has a military advantage over an opponent. Harrison Bergeron?

Some day you will have to remind me (in a PM, please) what was said about small Tabasco bottles. I have a vague recollection (the size of man's primary unit of measure?), but I can't recall the details.

The question of 'proportionality' has everything to do with long-term goals. In the short term, I can not disagree that Israel's response to rocket fire is reasonable. But what does the response do to any long-term hopes for peace? It may be a matter of winning a battle only to lose the war.

Israel faces some impossible seeming long-term challenges. For one, they have hitched their longevity to American prosperity. That may have looked like a sure bet ten years ago, but no so much today. So the weight of world opinion regarding 'proportionality' will most likely matter more in the future than it does today.

Another seemingly impossible long-term challenge involves the relative Israel/Palestinian population growth rates. As the Palestinians get packed increasingly tighter into their sardine can, it becomes increasingly difficult for Israel to 'tread lightly' among the millions of innocents. Few things will radicalize a population faster than missile strikes in densely populated urban settings.

When I talk about 'proportionality' I'm not suggesting that strong nations be weak. I'm suggesting that long-term strength might look different than short-term strength.

[MindfulCoug]

I was impressed with the notion that deaths from hostile rockets are roughly equivalent to deaths from auto accidents. You know, you dirve and sometimes you have an accidcent. You live in Israel and sometimes Hamas launches rockets. This is just a necessary component of modern life. What's the big deal of a few rockets between neighbors?

Oh, Is that all? That is okay then.

I would never be insensitive toward Israeli casualties .I was just trying to figure out the "one for one" statement furnished by tooblue.

[MindfulCoug]

Yeah, this is great except it ignores one huge reality....the West likes Israel there to bully the Palestinians around/keep them subjugated/strategically kill people (terrorists). We want them on that wall....we NEED them on that wall.

Also, if Gaza goes back under Muslim control, then any terrorist activity becomes almost impossible to monitor...or at least substantially more difficult because Arab regimes do not rat out their own.

The Muslim Middle East has done itself a huge disservice by not cracking down on radical Islam. The net result is that most around the world truly don't trust Muslims and view them all as terrorists. So Israel is the local bodyguard doing the dirty work that the rest of the world wants done.

Like I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people wouldn't mind if the Middle East were wiped off the map. Years of terrorism has resulted in the loss of major goodwill.

I am not concerned ,knowing where your "world" begins and where it ends. Nice try though.

[TripletDaddy]

I am not concerned ,knowing where your "world" begins and where it ends. Nice try though.

I live in reality. White guy, Asian guy, Arab guy walk through an airport........who is perceived to be the biggest threat? Pretty easy to answer that one. A world coalition fighting a war against terrorism, not against Judaism.

I would be more interested in hearing your case as to how Muslims are NOT perceived this way by the world at large.

I honestly think that of all major world religions, no group has a worse public perception right now than Islam. And the negativity is all associated with violence, terrorism, and fundamentalist extremism.

The refusal to recognize this will continue to be the biggest hinderance to progress in the Middle East. get the world on your side first, then proceed. that would be my strategy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So Israel is the local bodyguard doing the dirty work that the rest of the world wants done.

WTF? You are way off base here. First of all, rest of the world does NOT unilaterally support Israel like the US does. Not even close.

Second, your post implies that Israel somehow keeps a lid on the boiling pot of fanatical Islamic militants and keeps the rest of us safe. You couldn't be more wrong. The plight of the Palestinians is a powerful current that runs through the entire Mideast and is used as a justification for anti-US sentiment. It is certainly not the sole issue in the region, but it is arguably the foundation for the hatred.

This is all shaking out precisely as predicted by Truman's state dept back in 1948. Israel is our only ally in the region. But prior to Israel, we had no enemies.

[MindfulCoug]

Mindful, I know that there are many intelligent, open-minded Iranians, many of whom are also devout Muslims. I work with some Iranian doctors who have come to America since the Iranian Revolution and have a lot of respect for the greatness of Iranian history and culture, and for the role of properly applied Islam within Iran. But many Americans like President Bush seem to think that a democratically elected government (in Iraq for example) would suddenly decide to offer its people all of the same freedoms people enjoy in Western Europe and that would produce a government that would embrace the US and Israel.

Am I wrong to believe that a majority of Iranians and residents of other countries around the Middle East (obviously outside of Israel) want to live in an Islamic theocracy? One that denies the right of women to drive a car, own property, and have their own job and income? One that requires women to cover their heads and bodies? One that would require the death penalty for Muslims who reject Islamic teachings? One that would favor the annihilation of Israel by any means possible?.

Its not difficult to agree with the statement of " people ought to achieve " rather than "been given" democracy ,but its difficult to agree with the statement of "gifting democracy" is the mere goal of the US present in the region considering Iraq brutal dictator and US government's friendly ties as recently as some years ago.

Since there is a remarkable democratic superiority in your post i would like to remind you the latest US democracy product :
** Georg ,W Bush **
An absolute mess and a total failure . So middle easterns arenot alone in electing crappy leaders.

I have no idea what kind of theocracy you are talking about ,but as an Iranian woman ,i do have the right to vote ,the right to own my property ,the right to educate ,the right to vote since the first day under Islamic revolution.

But obviously the US government has NO problem dealing with those countries which ban their women from their basic rights.

[Goatnapper'96]

I have no idea what kind of theocracy you are talking about ,but as an Iranian woman ,i do have the right to vote ,the right to own my property ,the right to educate ,the right to vote since the first day under Islamic revolution.

But do you have the right to be gay?

If you say yes I just don't know how my system is going to handle Selma Hayak and Jenna J scroggin on a Persian rug!

This board is the bomb. An Iranian chick advocating the depth and breadth of her liberties. Only in America, I tell ya!

[TripletDaddy]

WTF? You are way off base here. First of all, rest of the world does NOT unilaterally support Israel like the US does. Not even close.

Second, your post implies that Israel somehow keeps a lid on the boiling pot of fanatical Islamic militants and keeps the rest of us safe. You couldn't be more wrong. The plight of the Palestinians is a powerful current that runs through the entire Mideast and is used as a justification for anti-US sentiment. It is certainly not the sole issue in the region, but it is arguably the foundation for the hatred.

This is all shaking out precisely as predicted by Truman's state dept back in 1948. Israel is our only ally in the region. But prior to Israel, we had no enemies.

I wasn't trying to imply that everyone unilaterally supports Israel. I agree with you. I am posting about chosing the lesser of two evils.

But I do feel that if you had to put it on a scale, the West's distrust of the Middle East (terrorism) far outweighs its dismay at Israel's behavior. Americans and Brits can live with Israel killing Palestinian settlers. Americans and Brits do NOT like fearing terrorist attacks in the UK, USA, etc.

Also, I don't think Israel keeps us safe. I just think that they are the first line of attack. When stuff goes down, Israel gets the brunt of it first. I think the West likes having that buffer in there.

My point boils down to this.....if the world had to choose, they would choose to wipe the Middle East out and save Israel. Why? Because the terrorist approach is viewed as cowardly and hypocritical.

Do you disagree with my bottom line point? Or do you feel that the majority of the world would choose the Middle East over Israel? I know it is not a simple solution, I am just asking for your impression.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wasn't trying to imply that everyone unilaterally supports Israel. I agree with you. I am posting about chosing the lesser of two evils.

But I do feel that if you had to put it on a scale, the West's distrust of the Middle East (terrorism) far outweighs its dismay at Israel's behavior. Americans and Brits can live with Israel killing Palestinian settlers. Americans and Brits do NOT like fearing terrorist attacks in the UK, USA, etc.

Also, I don't think Israel keeps us safe. I just think that they are the first line of attack. When stuff goes down, Israel gets the brunt of it first. I think the West likes having that buffer in there.

My point boils down to this.....if the world had to choose, they would choose to wipe the Middle East out and save Israel. Why? Because the terrorist approach is viewed as cowardly and hypocritical.

Do you disagree with my bottom line point? Or do you feel that the majority of the world would choose the Middle East over Israel? I know it is not a simple solution, I am just asking for your impression.

That makes more sense. Thanks.

[MindfulCoug]

I live in reality. White guy, Asian guy, Arab guy walk through an airport........who is perceived to be the biggest threat? Pretty easy to answer that one. A world coalition fighting a war against terrorism, not against Judaism.

I would be more interested in hearing your case as to how Muslims are NOT perceived this way by the world at large.

I honestly think that of all major world religions, no group has a worse public perception right now than Islam. And the negativity is all associated with violence, terrorism, and fundamentalist extremism.

The refusal to recognize this will continue to be the biggest hinderance to progress in the Middle East. get the world on your side first, then proceed. that would be my strategy.

It mostly has to do with "easy answer" system ,you know .

Lay people are in hurry to receive easy answers as soon as possible and get back to their lives when it comes to complicated issues. And the media is where you can always find "easy answers" without any need to go to the core of the stories .

watching these very people spending hours and hours digging about "special's "lives and habit has never stopped to amaze me though.

[MindfulCoug]

I wasn't trying to imply that everyone unilaterally supports Israel. I agree with you. I am posting about chosing the lesser of two evils.

But I do feel that if you had to put it on a scale, the West's distrust of the Middle East (terrorism) far outweighs its dismay at Israel's behavior. Americans and Brits can live with Israel killing Palestinian settlers. Americans and Brits do NOT like fearing terrorist attacks in the UK, USA, etc.

Also, I don't think Israel keeps us safe. I just think that they are the first line of attack. When stuff goes down, Israel gets the brunt of it first. I think the West likes having that buffer in there.

My point boils down to this.....if the world had to choose, they would choose to wipe the Middle East out and save Israel. Why? Because the terrorist approach is viewed as cowardly and hypocritical.

Do you disagree with my bottom line point? Or do you feel that the majority of the world would choose the Middle East over Israel? I know it is not a simple solution, I am just asking for your impression.

I remember talking with a Jewish guy a devout Zionist once who believed the US present is what has brought Israel nothing but damage .He was smart and respectful.Should i contact him and ask him to join ? I am not a friend of him or any thing though.

Here is his profile in case the administrator would like to have a contact.

http://360.yahoo.com/profile-rZP8W0Y8dLRHPHZ25Pv9

[Jeff Lebowski]

I remember talking with a Jewish guy a devout Zionist once who believed the US present is what has brought Israel nothing but damage .He was smart and respectful.Should i contact him and ask him to join ? I am not a friend of him or any thing though.

Here is his profile in case the administrator would like to have a contact.

http://360.yahoo.com/profile-rZP8W0Y8dLRHPHZ25Pv9

That would be great. It would be better coming from you as opposed to a complete stranger like one of us.

[TripletDaddy]

I remember talking with a Jewish guy a devout Zionist once who believed the US present is what has brought Israel nothing but damage .He was smart and respectful.Should i contact him and ask him to join ? I am not a friend of him or any thing though.

Here is his profile in case the administrator would like to have a contact.

http://360.yahoo.com/profile-rZP8W0Y8dLRHPHZ25Pv9

I didnt look, but is it Noam Chomsky?.....

The more the merrier on CUF. Invite your contact, by all means.