World War III

[Boerseun]

You bet! We Americans have been too long giving more technology & aid to the world than any other country. Let's just turn over that job to the developing countries who are taking it.:) Good grief.:)

I can see where you're coming from, but then you should also keep in mind that the US is simply the last in a long line of 'Empires', who've got a lot from the previous ones.

 

For instance, the US received a lot of technology, investment and people from Europe during the US' early years. This was in the days when Britain and the Netherlands ruled global trade.

 

Rome received almost all its cultural influence from Greece, and invented very little on their own. They were excellent administrators, but not nearly as inventive or culturally advanced as ancient Greece was at the time. Greece was already in decline when Rome came to the fore as the major player in Europe.

 

Empires come and go. And there will never be a situation where everybody in the world will like the current Empire. Globalization is simply another term for 'Americanizing' economies around the world. And those that won't agree with it, cannot take the US on in a conventional military scenario. Hence terrorism. Think about it.

[IDMclean]

Secondly, there are no policemen who can sort out the mess afterwoods. If you do not fight back in the face of delibarate and unprovoked aggression, no court is going to give Israel back the lives it lost or take any action to stop Israel suffering further losses.

 

I disagree with violence, fundamentally. In oppression there are three ways to deal with it. One is Aquiecence, two is Violent Resistence and three is Non-Violent Resistance. Out of those, only one is moral. This is not to say that they do not have the right to resist, only that Aggressive Resistence, AKA Violent Resistence, is one of the oppitions which is not moral. Violence begets Violence. Only death will come of it.

 

I disagree. Despair does not necessarily lead to violence and violence does not necessary come from despair. Every now and then they overlap, but, for example, Hezbollah had no despair and many rich memebers of Al Quaeda are from the wealthiest families.

 

I think violence is instead caused either by brainwashing and hate which are formed independantly of despair or by those defending themselves from being attacked by brainwashed and hate filled people.

 

I would disagree with this unless you have an unconventional definition of "brainwashing". Brainwashing indicates external suggestions implanted, though influential will fail always when the mind has other ideas. That is, The idea/motivation/urge of violence, of aggression must already be in place for external influence to arouse such actions/motives.

 

I would not call Violence the language of despair, but rather the language of Anger, and of Depression.

 

Anger is an emotional response to a grievance; real or imagined; past, present or future. Rage refers to an extreme degree of anger associated with a loss of calmness or discipline (in the case of human conduct).

 

Often based in a sensation or perception of threat, anger can be considered an emotional component in the increased threat response (part of the broader "stress response") whereby the charged emotional state produces physiological effects (increased epinephrine, cortisol), thereby producing behavioural effect of heightened stress and aggression.

 

Anger is an active emotion, as opposed to sadness and disappointment which are inactive. In other words, when one becomes angry it is usually with an intended purpose (whether feasible or not) of attacking the cause of the problem. In arguments, anger is often 'used' to supress opposition.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger

 

Now, you know why Isreal has the fourth largest? It's really simple answer.

[paigetheoracle]

Hydrogen Bond - I like the misspelling of Israel, is this subliminal? (Is-real)

 

I remember a program on fundamentalism worldwide, by I think it was Richard Dawkins or Jon Ronson, where the host wrote in a preview that he'd been talking 'off-camera' to this radical muslim cleric who was talking about everything in a reasonable, calm, balanced manner but once the camera was on him; he went off in a tyrranical rant that wouldn't allow for interruption or reasoned argument. To me this is attention addiction or politics (egotism) and has nothing at all to do with religion.

 

By the way, in the same show a ranting baptist minister from the South played the same kind of trick. Should we in the rest of the World equate all Americans with this kind of behaviour as some of the people posting here are doing with regards to arab clerics? Common humanity is suffering here (Lebanese, Israeli, Palestinian) - to tar a whole country with the same brush is to slip into defensive self-righteousness, ignoring the plight of those who just want to get on with ordinary everyday living, instead of having their legs blown off or heads filled with bullet holes. Like someone said about politicians "Don't vote, it only encourages them".:)

[sebbysteiny]

Boerseun, with the greatest of respect you have some scary ideas.

 

Israel do have the right to defend themselves. But then, so does anybody else. Problem is, the Israel army is the fourth biggest army in the world, and they are armed to the teeth with modern American military hardware. Expecting guys like the Lebanon or pissed off Palestinians, or Syrians, or even Egyptians, or basically anybody in the Middle East who don't like the Israelis too much to take them on in a conventional war, is asking a bit much.

 

The scale is unbalanced.

 

The right of self defence applies to all nations and people. No doubt. But you have gone beyond this and argued that disgusting crimes against humanity are justified against a people simply because their military is stronger.

 

It is true that self defence need not be symetrical. The vietnamese for example were great gorlilla fighters yet one cannot possibly call them terrorists. The Palestinians and Hizbollah has not elected to defend themselves. They elect to slaughter as many innocent people as possible. Nobody can argue that creating a bloodbath in a University Campus in Tel Aviv can possibly ever be justified by self defence. Attacking tanks and planes and other objects that pose a threat is one thing: attacking innocent people who's life never posed a threat is another. Thus having a smaller army can never be a free moral licence to commit as many disgusting crimes against humanity as possible againt the innocent civilians which that larger force is protecting.

 

So the main point is you have to do some more thinking about what you believe can possibly be justified under the guise of 'asymetrical self defence'.

 

Also, Israel has only the 14th biggest Military in the World, but it fights like the 4th.

 

This, also, in a big way, contribute to terrorist attacks against the US. NOBODY can take them on militarily. So, what to do? Terrorism is a symptom of people not happy with a unipolar American world. We desperately need another superpower to keep the US in check.

Go, China/India/Europe!!!

The most dangerous of your suggestions. Have you ever noticed that all periods of living in a bipolar world have been the most unstable and dangerous periods in history? Nazi Germany and the West was a Bi polar world as you are pleading for leading to WW2. The soviet Union and US was a bi polar world as you are pleading for leading to the cold war and almost the destruction of humanity.

Contrast that with periods of a unipolar world. Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire and now the US where peace and prosperity in the effected regions blossemed. As long as the worlds only superpower is also a, if not the, world leader in democracy and human rights, Nothing scares me more than a bipolar world particularly against the Chinese.

 

Lesson: be careful what you wish for.

 

I disagree with violence, fundamentally. In oppression there are three ways to deal with it. One is Aquiecence, two is Violent Resistence and three is Non-Violent Resistance. Out of those, only one is moral. This is not to say that they do not have the right to resist, only that Aggressive Resistence, AKA Violent Resistence, is one of the oppitions which is not moral. Violence begets Violence. Only death will come of it.

 

Your a Pascifist. Fair enough. Respect to you. However, what would you do if Britain was attacked by Iran? Would you also plead with 1938 Britain to surrender to Nazi Germany?

 

I disagree. Despair does not necessarily lead to violence and violence does not necessary come from despair.

 

I think violence is instead caused either by brainwashing and hate which are formed independantly of despair or by those defending themselves from being attacked by brainwashed and hate filled people.

 

I would disagree with this unless you have an unconventional definition of "brainwashing". Brainwashing indicates external suggestions implanted, though influential will fail always when the mind has other ideas. That is, The idea/motivation/urge of violence, of aggression must already be in place for external influence to arouse such actions/motives.

 

I would not call Violence the language of despair, but rather the language of Anger, and of Depression.

 

Never underestimate hate. Demonisation, brainwashing and hate will work on anyone, anywhere, any time and against any group as long as that person is not aware of the hate tactics and sometimes not even that is enough. It is widespread amongst the Arab states and the first stage of hate is love so you don't even notice the hate being fed into you even at boiling point. If you are brainwashed into hatred correctly, you should be thinking you are making world a better place for those you love. However the truth is your mind has become as warped as the deeds you commit. Luckily, just as you can distort an undistored mind, one can undistort a distorted mind, but it's almost impossible on a mass scale without massive regional occupation and re-education.

 

Your word 'anger' and my word 'hate' seem similar except your choice gives the terrorists a level of logical legitimacy that they absolutely do not deserve.

 

The old testament says an eye for an eye. This is retail justice and Isreal appears to be going for wholesale justice, ten eyes for one. This would be OK on the battle field but is harder to justify with civilians who may be just expendable pawns to the terrorists.

 

A military operation is judged not by the amount of collateral damage it causes but by its military effectiveness and military necessity. If it is both militarily necessary and effective, then it is proportionate as long as attempts to minimise callateral damage. You are right that in a battlefield it is okay but it is also okay where the battlefield IS DELIBERATELY CHOSEN TO BE a civilian area. By that analysis, Israel has a squeaky clean bill of moral health for its actions in the Lebanon.

 

An intersting tid bit. The Palastinians are originally from Syria. They were driven from that land by genocide and settled in the area of Isreal. Maybe Isreal should take some land from Syria, while they are at it, and give it to the Palestinians. This would allow more land for Isreal and the Palestians would be able to return to their real homeland.

Good point. But it's different from what the sources I've read say. They say that the Palestinians were from syria, Iran, Africa and many other different Arab nations. They all emigrated there between about 1850 and 1967 at first for the prosperity the Jewish communities (many of whome were also emigrating/seeking asylem) brought and later to try to eliminate the Jewish nature of the land. Yasser Arafat himself was an Egyptian and people only begun talking about the Palestians as a serious collective people during the 1970's after the rise in popularity of the PLO united only by geographical area and their hatred of Israel.

[Barry Scott]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Israel do have the right to defend themselves. But then, so does anybody else. Problem is, the Israel army is the fourth biggest army in the world, and they are armed to the teeth with modern American military hardware.

 

Isreal have a very capable army, but i dont think its the 4th biggest :D Off the top of my head U.S, Canada, China, India, and Russia all have bigger armies. Correct me if im wrong.

[sebbysteiny]

Isreal have a very capable army, but i dont think its the 4th biggest Off the top of my head U.S, Canada, China, India, and Russia all have bigger armies. Correct me if im wrong.

 

Israel has only the 14th biggest Military in the World, but it fights like the 4th.

 

Hope this helps

[TheFaithfulStone]

By that analysis, Israel has a squeaky clean bill of moral health for its actions in the Lebanon.

 

Explain to me why it's okay to bomb the airport and Lebanese army bases.

 

TFS

[hallenrm]

Intersting read indeed, lots of food for thought!

[Racoon]

 

The scale is unbalanced.

 

This, also, in a big way, contribute to terrorist attacks against the US. NOBODY can take them on militarily. So, what to do? Terrorism is a symptom of people not happy with a unipolar American world. We desperately need another superpower to keep the US in check.

Go, China/India/Europe!!!

 

and why aren't they happy?

Why would America be the cause of ALL the worlds unhappiness?

Its like taking out all your frustrations on America.

(But I agree Bush has only exascerbated this :lol: )

 

So check your statement if you think the USA is the blanket cause for all the World's Ills.

Its a mixture of Resentment and Cultural influence.

 

I would really caution you to believe that a Communist China running the world to be a preferable thing.

But, you do have a valid point about balancing the worlds power. Europe has that potential, and perhaps India as well.

 

But back to WWIII , these attacks are merely an extention of Iran & Syria's hatred for Israel.

And its all very disturbing.

Israel has the right to go after these guys, but bombing the airport and civilian targets is terrible.

 

But realize that terrorists hide among the civilians, and therefore knowingly cause collateral damage.

 

Hopefully, they can just do the prisoner - soldier swap and call a cease fire.

But the feelings suggest that this could just keep escalating.

[Turtle]

Explain to me why it's okay to bomb the airport and Lebanese army bases.

 

TFS

 

I don't know about intentionally hitting the Lebonese Army as I haven't heard of any but accidental ; they bombed the airport to stop resupply of arms coming in from Iran or any other nation so inclined.

 

Empires come and go. And there will never be a situation where everybody in the world will like the current Empire. Globalization is simply another term for 'Americanizing' economies around the world. And those that won't agree with it, cannot take the US on in a conventional military scenario. Hence terrorism. Think about it.

I thought about it; the conclusion is not supported by the premises.

[Mercedes Benzene]

In response to the original post... I do not think we are on the brink of WWIII.

If you look at the other world wars, there are dictators and other stupid people making drastically harsh moves.

 

Israel invading Lebanon is by no means a very drastic move.

Yes, they are bombing major Lebanese cities, and yes, civilians are being harmed...

but its nothing like Hitler coming to power.

 

I also do not forsee Iran and Syria getting involved any more than they are now.

Let's wait to see what the world does about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Then we'll talk WWIII.

[paigetheoracle]

The most dangerous of your suggestions. Have you ever noticed that all periods of living in a bipolar world have been the most unstable and dangerous periods in history? Nazi Germany and the West was a Bi polar world as you are pleading for leading to WW2. The soviet Union and US was a bi polar world as you are pleading for leading to the cold war and almost the destruction of humanity.

Contrast that with periods of a unipolar world. Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire and now the US where peace and prosperity in the effected regions blossemed. As long as the worlds only superpower is also a, if not the, world leader in democracy and human rights, Nothing scares me more than a bipolar world particularly against the Chinese.

This is what I said elsewhere about dominance behaviour in animals. If there is a top dog, stability rules but when there is a struggle for power, violence breaks out as the contenders fight for position.

[sebbysteiny]

Explain to me why it's okay to bomb the airport and Lebanese army bases.

As Turtle says, the airports are a vital artery of resupplying Hezbollah and as long as the Lebanon allowed Hezbollar to use civilian airports for their army, they should not be surprised when the airport becomes a target.

 

Lebonese army radars were also involved in the missile attack against the Israeli warship. Thus all Lebonese army radar stations along the cost have been taken out.

 

And I'm not sure why the other Lebonese soldiers were killed but Israel says its fight is not with the Lebonese army. Perhaps they were using infrastructure to help Hezbollah.

 

However one thing is clear: Hezbollah's military capacity has reduced by about 50%. Without being a general myself, clearly Israel must be doing something right.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Okay, I'll count that as explained.

 

That said, I'm not sure Lebanon could really do a lot to stop Hezbollah, but they could do more than they're doing.

 

TFS

[Mercedes Benzene]

Okay, I'll count that as explained.

 

That said, I'm not sure Lebanon could really do a lot to stop Hezbollah, but they could do more than they're doing.

 

TFS

 

That's true.

I also want to know how much Syria is involved with Hezbollah and their actions.

[Edella]

I also want to know how much Syria is involved with Hezbollah and their actions.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think Syria is(was until recently) involved in all aspects of Hezbollah's day to day operations.Of course Syria admits to only moral support.

[sebbysteiny]

That's true.

I also want to know how much Syria is involved with Hezbollah and their actions.

 

It is no coincidence that on the way back from a meeting about Iran's nuclear weopons program, the Iranian flew direct to Syria. Then, a day later, Hezbollah committed its act of war on Israel.

 

Many of Hezbollah's weopons including many of their rockets are Syrian made, and they fund Hezballah extensively. Hezbollah in return gives Syria strong influence over the Lebanon. Syria have also refused to officially condemn Hezbollah instead opting for the unsurprising 'It's Israel's fault' response. Hezbollah also have offices in Syria and have made many weopons shipments to Hezbollah. So other than giving Hezbollah military, financial, logistical and political support, not much.