You know, one of things that's forgotten in all of this is that Israel & the Palestinians go through this hell every single day of having civilians bombed or shot at random. Thus far, everyone (the US government included) has asked both of these groups not to retaliate because it simply escalates the violence. It will be interesting to see, now that the US will likely retaliate on someone, whether those policies change and in what way. It would be hypocritical now to ask either of these parties not to retaliate for acts against their civilians.
Not really. The scale here is so vastlly different. It is a long-range strike which indicates long-term planning and thinking, not just parking a car on the street loaded with explosives. It seems like there are very many valid differences which make our decision to wipe Afghanistan's a$$ with Bin Lauden carcass justifiable!
Long-range strikes or planning aside, it is the exact same thing. It is retaliation on a terroristic threat. We had to face it once or twice, they have to face it everyday.
It's also a single act. Israel deals with these acts weekly. If we had a small car bomb every week somewhere in the US, I'm betting our response would be identical -- it strikes at the feeling of security here, and we would insist on those responsible being stopped. We ask Israel to simply accept it. In terms of loss-of-life / injuries, the totals in the middle east are far worse on a percentage basis. In a country of 100, a loss of 10 lives just as bad (if not worse) than the loss of 100 lives in a country of 1,000,000.
Come on Shanna, numbers don't mean squat. Even one life is too much. We have to act, the world is under attack by the lunatic fringe. The thing that most people miss, is that Israel was going to give the West Bank to the Palestinian people. Then the Prime minister was executed, I think by a lunatic fringe of the Jewish side. This lead to even hieghtened tensions. What we can not allow to happen, is that this little RELIGIOUS war get out of hand and become a global one. We can no longer treat each nation as our equal...they aren't. Treat each nation with respect, but be very firm, that we know who we are. DaDakota
<B>We have to act, the world is under attack by the lunatic fringe. </B> This has nothing to do with us acting -- of course we will act and rightfully so. The question is how we will treat terrorism around the world in the future. When the IRA conducts its next bombing, will we tell England not to act? When Israel gets its next bomb, will we tell them to not retaliate to further the peace process? When Palestine gets retaliated on, will we ask them to just accept it? We've had a very "oh just ignore it" attitude toward terrorism up until now. I'm sure other countries are saying "now you know what it's like". This could completely change our attitude towards Middle East peace, Irish peace, and on and on.
My hope is that our government takes the opportunity to help end the MidEast conflict. We may be in a new position to broker a deal. Shanna, Maybe from a nationalistic standpoint, but from a human standpoint, you cannot convince me that 50 deaths ever equals 5000.
But there could very possibly be a difference in intent when thinking of the retaliation in question. US, at least as they are telling us (let's assume they aren't lying), plans on bringing whoever is responsible to justice. Hopefully this will not involve going to war with an entire country, but it might. When the US asked the Israel/Palestine victims not to retaliate, was it meaning "do nothing" or "don't randomly start killing innocents"? If it is the former, then yes, this seems hypocritical, but if it is the latter, I don't see how us seeking justice is hypocritical.
Shanna, On this we agree, we have to combat terrorism EVERYWHERE, even in Ireland. Whipe it out, make people realize this is NOT the way to negotiate peace. Terrorists should be afraid for their lives EVERYWHERE, not just the middle east. DaDakota
Isn't that kinda hypocritical? We kill terrorists , and most likely innocent people, to create peace because we want people to know that killing terrorists and innocent people is no way to broker peace. Just cause we're the biggest doesn't make us right.
Rocketman, I am not for killing innocents, but killing Terrorists and those that harbour them is OK in my book. DaDakota
But a lot of times that's impossible. When we bomb countries like Iraq or, possibly, Afghanistan, we will kill innocent people...all in the name of wiping out terrorism. Which is just what they do.
Who said anything about bombing anyone? I am in favor of a more personal type attack, surgical strike teams etc. DaDakota
You guys need to shelve the nationalistic/patriotitic arguments and answer the question because it's a good one. The US has asked the Israeli's not to retaliate for a while now so that peace can have a chance. All the while, they're still being attacked. The US has now been attacked and obviously has stated they will retaliate with force. From this point on does the US continue its "just give peace a chance" stand? Is it hypocritical for the US to have asked the Israelis to stand fire when we're about to blow our adversaries to Kingdom Come? What is our stance from this point on now that we aren't necessarily practicing what we preached?
D.O.D, A very, very good question. I concur with your implied suggestion. I think the difference is that Israel did not have the complete cooperation to retaliate, nor was it in a position to get that cooperation. The USA is in a position to get it, and will make the appropriate policy change necessary in order to achieve its stated objectives. I don't think Israel has or had the resources necessary to totally stamp out terrorism, and we might not either, but we have FAR more chance of getting a strong coalition together with an edict to destroy terrorism then Israel ever had. DaDakota
I see no problem or hypocracy in the US stance on these 2 issues. The Israelis and the Palestinians are two seperate peoples that, for better or worse, live next to each other. Millions of people on each side. Completely eradicating the other would be impossible and genocidal: therefore they need to find a way to live together in peace. Also, most of them are innocent civilians, not involved in active combat. We do not and need not live together, even on the same planet, as these terrorists. They are a group united by a purpose, not ethnicity or national origin. All are participants by definition. Wiping out a group of hundreds or even thousands of them would be easy for the US to do, once we find them. And doing so would save countless more lives. So no, I don't see the corrolation.
Rocketman and Dakota- I agree with you both. It would be hypocritical to put innocent civilian lives at risk in the name of serving a greater cause. The population of Afghanistan is not made of death-lust religious fanatics; the men who carried this out are of a very small, fanatical, militant minority. It would be my worst nightmare for the US to declare full war on the nation of Afghanistan, when it is the terrorists themselves and the government officials who protected him that should be brought to justice. The innocent people of that country have suffered a decade of horrible civil war. If the terrorist groups embed themselves in cities and populated areas, I pray that instead of bombing the US will execute small commando-type surgical operations to find the bastards. We have the men and equipment capable of doing it. If we uncover a lot of proof pointing to Bin Laden, and we may, it's very possible that international pressure alone may be enough to get cooperation from the Afgani government. Let's all pray that it goes that way.
