Rumsfeld Warns Syria - Page 4

Az · March 29, 2003, 14:24

Quote:

Well, if Israel gets a disporportionate amount of blame, it also gets a disporportionate amount of attention. Far more people have died in sri Lanka from suicide attacks (the Tamil tigers may still hold the title of the organization to conduct the most suicide attacks) than in Israel, and the number of conflicts that have killed vastly more people than the ME conflict are very numerous. Israel is like a celebrity: in the spotlight, both in its own choosing amd made a "cause celebre" by outsiders form all sides. Like any celebrity, far more scrutiny will befall Israel than say Sri Lanka, The Central African Republic (anyone hear of the recent coup?) or the ongoing wars in Central Africa.

But this situation is wrong, won't you agree?

Quote:

But there is also a slight difference between the relation between Israelis and Palestinians. Take chechnia. chechens and russians may agree they are different peoples but chechnia continues to be considered part of Russia.

If we annexed the territories, and treated the arabs as second class citizens, would it be better?

Quote:

whereas the Arab regims abbuse their own people, Israel is abusing someone who is not "their own people" and has never been though as being so. Unlike in the rest of the ME, this can't be viewed as simply an issue more dmeocracy and liberalism and free trade will fix, since it is not an "internal" matter. That difference does matter, and it does call for a different frame of reference. In many cases there is a double standard, but in other, it is a different standard, and for some reason

This is not correct. when one arab country invades another one, no reaction is being voiced as well, by noone of the players of the elusive "international public opinion".

GePap · March 29, 2003, 14:37

Quote:

But this situation is wrong, won't you agree?

Well, should Israel get less attention, or these other places as much? This situation just is, and will continue to be. not many countries are though by fundies to be the beginning of the end of the world, now are there?

Quote:

If we annexed the territories, and treated the arabs as second class citizens, would it be better?

It would not be better, but it would be different, no? The issue then would become about democratic reforms within the state of Israel to make Arabs euqal citizens, and would no longer be about military occupations and so forth.... Because things are different does not mean some sort of relevant moral difference. Apples and oranges, as they say.

Quote:

This is not correct. when one arab country invades another one, no reaction is being voiced as well, by noone of the players of the elusive "international public opinion".

Examples? Last time one arab country invaded another was in 1990, and as far as I remember, that arab leader that did so was called "same as Hitler" and a huge army was formed to kick him out. Before that, I can think of no Arab state openly invading a neighbor. What we do have are interventions into civil wars within the arab neighbor, such as Egypts intervention in Yemen, or Syria's in Lebanon. If I remember, when the Syrians intervened in Lebanon (mainly against the palestinains, if I remember), they didnt bombs villages indescriminatly or besiege the capitol, now did they?

Of course there is a double standard that arabs will give israeli. Lets put it this way: Would Israel have reacted the same if Rabin had been shot not by a Jew but by a Palestinian? Would that not be some sort of double standard? Of course the arabs will treat you different from fellow arabs, specially if israel continues to defiene itself in sharp contrast with Arabs, as opposed to claiming some sort of semite solidarity.

Az · March 29, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

If I remember, when the Syrians intervened in Lebanon (mainly against the palestinains, if I remember), they didnt bombs villages indescriminatly or besiege the capitol, now did they?

yes they did.

GePap · March 29, 2003, 14:56

Besiege Beirut?

Nah..I will not get into some technical argument.

My point remains this: Israel is viewed as soem sort of 'special state" by both soem people in it and outside of it. Greater then normal attention will thus be heaped on it.

Second: there are always double standards: everyone has them. I can tell you, for example, that in most plaxces in Latin America the press alternates, depending on the latest violent act, and if it has a little tilt towards Plaestinaisn, it i moreof an "underdog" syndrome. I have no diea how that conflict plays out in the rpess of Asia, or africa. surely not as it odes in the US or Europe.

Third: there are some double standards, but some issue are different, and different issues call for different standards.

Az · March 29, 2003, 15:13

Syrians behaved much worse than Israelis in Lebanon. http://www.clhrf.com/
http://www.kdp-lebanon.com/

almost every arab, or muslim link I found talked about Israel being guilty, but somehow, many people in lebanon itself, think differently.

In any case, just because "everyone has them", doesn't mean that it should be that way.

"these are different issues" is a nice reply, but the amount of anti-Israeli rethoric is not a bit disproportionate, not somewhat disproportionate, it's overwhelmingly disproportionate.

You say that things like the cruelty and opperssion of arab regimes are not better, but are different, and can be solved by democratization. What steps are being taken in that direction by the intl. community? very little. The ironic thing is that the war against Iraq may be the biggest step lately.

GePap · March 29, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

almost every arab, or muslim link I found talked about Israel being guilty, but somehow, many people in lebanon itself, think differently.

Depends which lebanese you ask, no? There were lebanese who wanted Israel to come in, an some who wanted Syria to come in, and some who wanted neither, and some who wanted both. Saying "many" people does not somehow porve either yours or mine assertions, now does it?

Quote:

In any case, just because "everyone has them", doesn't mean that it should be that way.

But if everyone has them, how could it be any other way? Can you think of some method of education by which huyman beings will react to any other human being, stranger or friend, enemy or ally, similarly? The US today seems to have a vicious double standard for the French and the Russians: is it fundamentally wrong? It is one things to say "it is wrong". it is another to give an answer as to how i could, would, should change.

Quote:

You say that things like the cruelty and opperssion of arab regimes are not better, but are different, and can be solved by democratization. What steps are being taken in that direction by the intl. community? very little. The ironic thing is that the war against Iraq may be the biggest step lately.

Please tell me in which part of the world does the international community actively push for more democracy within states? Latin America? asia? Africa? States do not ussually care about the goings on of what happens within another state, no matter how bad. They do care about the goings on between states, or,as far as "nation" equals state in the modern mind, between nations. As for the war on Iraq being a stape to democratize the arab world, well the jury will be out on that for many years.

I would rephrase in the way pro-war people phrase thier arguments for the war in Iraq: just cause the international community does nothing about what is goign on within Syria, does that mean they should do nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? if its fine to have a double standard about Saddam Hussein an Kim Yong Il (or is it a double standard? aren't the situations different enough?) then why are they impermissible eslewhere?

Az · March 29, 2003, 15:57

Oh, fudge it. We've established that double standards are applied against Israel. I am rather tired of the discussion generally, So we'll call it quits, because in regards to solutions, I cannot be forced to think of something. Ok?

Sava · March 29, 2003, 16:11

Slowly inflaming a billion Muslims...

spiritof1202 · March 29, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Slowly inflaming a billion Muslims...

The muslims in the arab nations will never be happy, since their societies are, for the most part, failures comparitively to more secular western cultures.

el freako · March 30, 2003, 06:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
But that war is complicated.. to me, there are no good guys in that war. I'd like to see demonstrations against that, and people going there to stop the war. It does nothing good, only bad to both sides. There definitely are no winners there and it doesn't seem like it would stop in the next few years.

Which war are you talking about?

Chechnya or Palestine?

I'd say both qualify for your statement

Az · March 30, 2003, 06:33

then why do the demonstrators carry palestinian flags?

Urban Ranger · March 30, 2003, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by spiritof1202
The muslims in the arab nations will never be happy, since their societies are, for the most part, failures comparitively to more secular western cultures.

All thanks to these secular Western cultures that were screwing about in the region.

Az · March 30, 2003, 07:10

lots of places got screwed much more, and had much less of a head start, and are doing better.

March 30, 2003, 09:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

All thanks to these secular Western cultures that were screwing about in the region.

No, thanks to their corrupt thuggish leaders, that no one elected.

I refuse to take the blame for their lack of action to rectify the situation.

Try again!

MRT144 · March 30, 2003, 10:53

their corrupt thuggish leaders were put there by americans

Az · March 30, 2003, 11:07

that's not true for quite a large part of the region, and in some parts, the american/soviet propped leaders were quite better than the alternative: see Iran.

MRT144 · March 30, 2003, 11:09

the shah was better? in what ways

Az · March 30, 2003, 12:43

Ok, actually, I was mistaken, the shah was worse than the government BEFORE him, so, actually the US did **** THAT up.

BUT... The Shah is better than what there is there now. If only for the way his regime treated women. and people, generally speaking.

MRT144 · March 30, 2003, 12:46

saddam seems to treat the women in his country better than in iran... whodathunkit

Az · March 30, 2003, 12:53

If saddam didn't go genocidal on his population, I would consider him to be one of the better people in the region.( Though in this region, it's not much of a challenge )

MRT144 · March 30, 2003, 12:59

azazel, you seem like a good level-headed person...move to europe or at least america while you still can.

Az · March 30, 2003, 13:03

At least I don't live in San Francisco.

Seriously, I love it here, I love the place, I love the people, and I feel a part of this country. Why the heck should I leave?

MRT144 · March 30, 2003, 13:12

because i want you to live and while you may love where you live you have a better chance of surviving somewhere else...if this war expands

Oerdin · March 30, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
their corrupt thuggish leaders were put there by americans

BUZZ! Sorry wrong anwser...

MRT144 · March 30, 2003, 13:16

so the shah wasnt put there...really...

Az · March 30, 2003, 13:18

Not all of them, or even most of them were set up by the US. Hafez the 1st, "President" of Syria, Egypt's Nasser, they both rose by their own powers. I don't know about the rest.

MRT144 · March 30, 2003, 13:20

so why is america going after problems it didnt create

Az · March 30, 2003, 13:22

because it wants to spread peace justice and democracy in the world?

Oerdin · March 30, 2003, 13:23

The Shah was returned to power but he's been gone for darn near 25 years. To continue to blame the region's self made problems on the U.S. for restoring the Shah to power a third of a century ago is total B.S..

Without exception the Arab states (and Iran since we're speaking about them too) are autocratic & neo-totalitarian states which created there own messes. Their brutush leaders have repressed their own people, their high tarrifs & higher taxes have killed privite enterprise, and their lack of a uniform legal system is what has made these countries the failures that they are. The blame for this rests soully upon their own laps not upon the west.

Az · March 30, 2003, 13:25

ahh, yes IT WAS THE LACK OF FREE TRADE THAT MAKE THEM ****ED UP.