PDA

View Full Version : The Law of Land Warfare, FM 27-10



greglondon
11-22-2006, 02:27 AM
for entertainment purposes only.
I don't expect any serious discussions to emerge out of this.
At least, I don't expect anyone to actually change their mind around this.

"The Law of Land Warfare", FM 27-10

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

greglondon
11-22-2006, 02:38 AM
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch2.htm#s4

Unnecessary Killing and Devastation

Particularly in the circumstances referred to in the preceding paragraph, loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Those who plan or decide upon an attack, therefore, must take all reasonable steps to ensure not only that the objectives are identified as military objectives or defended places within the meaning of the preceding paragraph but also that these objectives may be attacked without probable losses in lives and damage to property disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated.


In sieges and bombardments all necessary measures must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 02:46 AM
What's your point, Greg? The author admittedly made significant changes to the original Field Manual. Is everything related to military law or conventions subject to civilian interpretation? I'm just curious to understand your motivations since I've learned you do have an agenda to everything posted here so far...




1. I changed the font to make it easier to read.
2. I added color as background to the title.
3. I amended the note beneath the title to be more understandable.
4. I deleted a lengthy document before the foreword which required certain amendments to the 1956 version, doing so because I deemed it unnecessary since the revisions are contained in the manual itself and are specifically indicated.
5. I deleted a brief "authorization" note at the end as being superfluous.
6. I corrected several obvious spelling and/or typographical errors.
7. I corrected innumerable intra-document links which would not work in order to, with hope, make them work properly.
8. I added a few hyperlinks to the text, without altering the text itself.

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 02:50 AM
Well gee...I didn't have to wait long after all.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 02:59 AM
what is your point ... you do have an agenda to everything posted here so far...

current events and political theory

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 03:17 AM
That's not a point, but a title to this forum. Sorry, but I fell for this trick last week. Toodles...

whistlelock
11-22-2006, 04:39 AM
Yeah, Greg. I really don't see your point. The Army Field Manual says, "try to avoid blowing too much crap up and killing too many people."


What's your issue with that?

Kentuk
11-22-2006, 04:56 AM
You're using mighty skinny bait Greg.

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 05:03 AM
The field manual is only a guide and not an authoritative document that would be used in an international court of law. Many field manuals, FM's, are issued to military personal not unlike policy and procedures you would find in a corporation.

Besides, the sited manual would not be issued to enlisted personal so it has no direct bearing on how they'd behave in combat. The enlisted personal are issued or given instructions on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and a Geneva conventions card (which I happen to have issued to me when stationed overseas).

greglondon
11-22-2006, 06:25 AM
It isn't bait. It was an older discussion from some thread between myself and one of the regulars about Israel's strategic bombing of Lebanon in the 35-day war. At the time, I had to drop it because I couldn't find the specific clause of the geneva convention that applied. So I asked a friend of mine in the military who has to know the rules inside and out for his job. So, there it is. Israel's bombing of Lebanon violated the Geneva Convention. 2.5 billion dollars of damage to the civilian infrastructure, including thousands of civilian homes destroyed, ten thousand tons of oil polluting the coast, schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, and a UN base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Locations_bombed_Aug13.jpg

1,100 Lebanese killed, mostly civilians, 300 children killed.

This is a disproportionate loss of life and damage to property for two military prisoners.

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 06:28 AM
And what has the war (conflict) between Israel and Lebanon got to do with U.S. military field manuals?

I think you stretched so far that the rope burned before it snapped.

William Haskins
11-22-2006, 06:28 AM
and what does the geneva convention say about fighting out of uniform, stockpiling weapons and artillery in residential neighborhoods and coordinating attacks from civilian areas?

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 06:33 AM
and what does the Geneva convention say about fighting out of uniform, stockpiling weapons and artillery in residential neighborhoods and coordinating attacks from civilian areas?It's perfectly acceptable for American gang-bangers to utilize similar tactics. So, I'm sure if we did declare war on these misguided youths that the international community would quickly send in the Red Cross to check on their incarceration.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 06:43 AM
and what does the geneva convention say about fighting out of uniform, stockpiling weapons and artillery in residential neighborhoods and coordinating attacks from civilian areas?

Fighting makes you a target, in or out of uniform. Whether you fight out in the open in formation wearing the Union Jack uniform of the british solders during the revolutionary war, or whether you wear blue jeans and a T shirt and fight from a heavily populated civlian area, you are a valid target.

But civlians around the combatant (whether the combatant is legal or illegal) are still covered by the GC. If you attack someone in a civilian area, you must protect civilian non combatants. You cannot inflict a disproportionate amount of killing and damage on a civilian area no matter what. and 2.5 billion dollars and a thousand dead civilians is disproportionate to what started off as an attack on an Israeli military unit that resulted in four deaths and two prisoners intended for prisoner exchange.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207478.stm



UN's Jan Egeland has condemned the devastation caused by Israeli air strikes in Beirut, saying it is a violation of humanitarian law.

He said the "disproportionate response" by Israel was a "violation of international humanitarian law".


Lebanon: 1,100 dead, mostly civilian. 1/3rd children.
Israel: 150 dead, mostly military

MacAllister
11-22-2006, 07:01 AM
Keep it civil. No personal attacks, folks.

Or personal jabs, for that matter.

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 07:09 AM
Keep it civil. No personal attacks, folks.

Or personal jabs, for that matter.Was someone being rude? Not me, I hope?

whistlelock
11-22-2006, 07:29 AM
Greg, part of that "keep casualties down" bit is fighting in uniform.

Can't fight in civies, hide amoung civies, stockpile arms and ammo amoung civies, and then complaing about civilian deaths.

how many of those lives could have been spared if Hezebolah dressed in uniform, maintained seperate quarters and posts, and had not hidden behind women and children?

And while you're finger pointing at Isreal, how many of the Geneva convetions is Hezbolah/Lebenon breaking? Did they even sign them?

It takes two to fight a war.

robeiae
11-22-2006, 07:33 AM
"Civilian" infrastructure is not civilian if it is being used for carrying out hostile actions. Roads, bridges, railways, and the like are all legitimate targets. To whit:

Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28: The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Actually, I think Israel could have inflicted a great deal more damage and killed many more civilians than it actually did. At what point did the damage and death toll become "disproportionate"?

Cav Guy
11-22-2006, 07:35 AM
And signing the Geneva Conventions doesn't guarantee that a country is going to follow them. North Vietnam signed them, and then ignored them unless there was political gain to be made. Nazi Germany had signed them, and only followed them when they saw fit. I also seem to recall that there are provisions exempting anti-partisan and guerilla operations from GC guidelines, since that's considered combatting bandits and not an actual military conflict. There are also, if memory serves, provisions requiring forces not to hide in churches, schools, and other essentially civilian areas.

robeiae
11-22-2006, 07:40 AM
And while you're finger pointing at Isreal, how many of the Geneva convetions is Hezbolah/Lebenon breaking? Did they even sign them?Lebanon is a signatory to the Geneva conventions. But the claim is that the attacks against Israel were not authorized by the Lebanese government, so Lebanon could not be said to have broken any of the Conventions.

William Haskins
11-22-2006, 07:55 AM
our friend greg is basically saying that when hamas, hezbollah and other militant groups in the region fire rockets indiscriminately into israeli civilian neighborhoods, only two things can potentially happen that he could agree with:

one is that israel takes no action and, indeed, gives in to whatever demands are made.

the other is sit there and die.

logic does not drive such thinking; nor does any clear-thinking notion of justice. the only thing that can possibly explain it is a persistent and inflexible hostility toward israel.

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 10:11 AM
I'm going to bed. I still don't see what this has to do with field manuals issued to U.S. Army officers. Pffftt....

whistlelock
11-22-2006, 10:13 AM
OOooooOoooohhhh. gotcha.

Isreal is a big meanie because they responded to attack on their soldiers with superior force.

They probably should have just filed a greivence with the local sheriffs office or county baliff.

oswann
11-22-2006, 10:14 AM
our friend greg is basically saying that when hamas, hezbollah and other militant groups in the region fire rockets indiscriminately into israeli civilian neighborhoods, only two things can potentially happen that he could agree with...

And I figure if you democratically vote into power a terrorist group you must prepare yourself for, well, terror.


Os.

Birol
11-22-2006, 10:24 AM
The full text states "disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated." This provides a lot of leeway and excludes a simple direct ratio of loss of life/loss of life.

Military advantage is about more than ground gained, hostages freed, and combatants and non-combatants killed or wounded.

oswann
11-22-2006, 10:35 AM
The full text states "disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated."


Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki slip through?


Os.

Birol
11-22-2006, 10:54 AM
I am not making a case for or against Israel, but seeking to clarify what I understand to be the point of contention.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at the time, the individuals in power believed that a quick and decisive display of overwhelming force would prompt a quick surrender, eliminating the need for an expensive (in terms of equipment, finances, and lives) and prolonged fight for Japan's main island(s).

Were they correct? Yes. Was a quick end to the war worth the loss of civilian lives? History has decided that no, it wasn't.

Tiger
11-22-2006, 11:58 AM
Were they correct? Yes. Was a quick end to the war worth the loss of civilian lives? History has decided that no, it wasn't.

Well, as an aside to that... This country's deployment of the only two A-bombs ever to be used in anger may just have spared Japan's later generations some consequences from their fathers' wartime actions.

I'm not defending the use of such horrors--I had relatives in Hiroshima who simply ceased to exist along with all local records of them.

billythrilly7th
11-22-2006, 01:29 PM
History has decided that no, it wasn't.

It has?

I'm gonna call history tomorrow to confirm, because he/she has always told me a different story. F'ing history, that two timing drunk, always has a different story depending on when you speak to him/her.

Thank you.

Cav Guy
11-22-2006, 05:59 PM
History hasn't decided anything. Revisionists, counter-revisionists, and those with agendas have decided things.

robeiae
11-22-2006, 06:17 PM
Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki slip through?


Os.That's nothing. Let's talk about the razing of Carthage and the salting of all the surrounding farmland. The anticipated military advantage was an end to all future threats from that empire. Did it work? Why, yes it did. It was also a bit of propaganda: mess with Rome and you get this. Of course, the level of effectiveness of such cannot be measured. But there it is.

And the anticpated advantage from dropping those two bombs extended further than the unconditional surrender of Japan to the point that Japan would never be a threat again (which appears to have worked). That advantage also had a propaganda angle. I'd say this worked for a good 30 years. But that's hardly a Pax Romana...

greglondon
11-22-2006, 07:20 PM
The same UN Chief who said Israel's bombardment of Lebanon was disproportionate and a war crime also said Hezbollah violated war crimes as well.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291989232&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

But apparently, the logical argument given is that two wrongs make a right. Israel violated the Geneva Convention because Hezbollah did too.

Funny how the GC doesn't actually contain an escape clause
that says you don't have to follow the rules if your enemy doesn't.
No, it just says you have to follow the rules of warfare no matter what.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 07:21 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197544.stm

There is an obligation on all parties to respect the "principle of proportionality",

SC Harrison
11-22-2006, 07:30 PM
mess with Rome and you get this...

I have a feeling the intense bombardment of facilities (i.e. "bomb you back twenty years") was meant to shake some sense into the Lebanese Parliament about allowing Hizbollah to grow in stature and influence, and I believe it partially worked.

They're back on track with the Hariri (sp?) investigation, but (unfortunately) they're also about to have their government dissolved. Six (Shia) ministers quit, one was just assassinated, and all they (Syria?) need to do is kill one more minister and 8 of the 24 will be missing, which meets the criteria for dissolution.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 07:32 PM
Amnesty International explains the GC requirements:


Deliberate destruction or "collateral damage"?

International humanitarian law governs the conduct of war, and seeks to protect civilians, others not participating in the hostilities, and civilian objects. In an armed conflict, military forces must distinguish between civilian objects, which may not be attacked, and military objectives, which, subject to certain conditions, may be.

While the use of civilians to shield a combatant from attack is a war crime, under international humanitarian law such use does not release the opposing party from its obligations towards the protection of the civilian population.

The GC allows for collateral damage if there is a military target being attacked and some civilians are hurt. But there must be a military target. And the damage to civilians must be proportional to the military target. You can't kill 100 civilians going after 1 guy with a rifle. Israel attacked Lebanon's infrastructure, not because it was any military value, but as general retaliation.



The Israeli Air Force launched more than 7,000 air attacks on about 7,000 targets in Lebanon between 12 July and 14 August, while the Navy conducted an additional 2,500 bombardments.

Amnesty International delegates in south Lebanon reported that in village after village the pattern was similar: the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length. In some cases cluster bomb impacts were identified.

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield".

However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage"

robeiae
11-22-2006, 07:35 PM
The same UN Chief who said Israel's bombardment of Lebanon was disproportionate and a war crime also said Hezbollah violated war crimes as well...

But apparently, the logical argument given is that two wrongs make a right. Israel violated the Geneva Convention because Hezbollah did too.That's his and your opinion of course, since "disproportionate" is subjective. Again, at what point did it become disproportionate? Is there a specific number of civilain deaths and a specific dollar figure for property damage?

greglondon
11-22-2006, 07:35 PM
Not that anyone should be surprised by accusations that
Israel violated the GC.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990211/1999021108.html

greglondon
11-22-2006, 07:37 PM
That's his and your opinion of course, since "disproportionate" is subjective.

Except it is also his job as UN Humanitarian chief.
Did you question his "subjective opinion" when he also
condemned Hezbollah? Or is subjective opinion only invoked
when convenient?

greglondon
11-22-2006, 07:41 PM
More subjective opinion, this time from UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour:


Arbour called for Israel to obey the "principle of proportionality" and said, "Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians.…Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197544.stm


But this is all subjective ya know. she's probably an anti-semite too.

robeiae
11-22-2006, 07:42 PM
Except it is also his job as UN Humanitarian chief.
Did you question his "subjective opinion" when he also
condemned Hezbollah? Or is subjective opinion only invoked
when convenient?Intentionally targetting civilains alone, which is what Hezbollah does, doesn't have a subjective component to it. It's wrong and should always be condemned.

robeiae
11-22-2006, 07:44 PM
More subjective opinion, this time from UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour...
But this is all subjective ya know. she's probably an anti-semite too.Yet you are unable to define what "disproportionate" means, no matter how much googling you do. What does that tell you?

greglondon
11-22-2006, 07:48 PM
When the UN condemns Israel, the US vetoes.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

The vote column in the far right should tell you something.
The votes are consistently

14 to 1
13 to 1

or similar.

Of course, it's all subjective.

Bravo
11-22-2006, 07:48 PM
it's not israel's fault civilians were killed with US made cluster bombs and white phosphorous.

it's hezbollah's for not giving armor to every1 in the area.

Cav Guy
11-22-2006, 07:49 PM
People also seem to forget that the GC typically applies to formal combatants and NOT to irregulars (terrorists, bandits, freedom fighters, call 'em what you will). Formal combatants wear recognizable uniforms (not their enemy's uniforms) and can thus be identified on the battlefield. Combatants who do not wear uniforms are often classed as bandits or spies and thus do not benefit from GC protections. That's one reason why NVN continually referred to US pilots as "Yankee air pirates." It justified (to them, at least) ignoring the GC regarding their handling of the pilots as prisoners.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 07:53 PM
UN accuses Israel of a disproportionate use of force in lebanon.

10 of the 15 Security Council nations voted in favor,

Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia abstained,

US vetoed

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/07/13/287081-us-vetoes-un-condemnation-of-israel

Eight of the last nine vetoes in the council have been cast by the United States. Of those, seven concerned the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Of course, it's all subjective interpretation going on.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 08:00 PM
People also seem to forget that the GC typically applies to formal combatants and NOT to irregulars (terrorists, bandits, freedom fighters, call 'em what you will). Formal combatants wear recognizable uniforms (not their enemy's uniforms) and can thus be identified on the battlefield. Combatants who do not wear uniforms are often classed as bandits or spies and thus do not benefit from GC protections. .

And irrelevant to Israel's violations of the GC towards civilians.


That's one reason why NVN continually referred to US pilots as "Yankee air pirates." It justified (to them, at least) ignoring the GC regarding their handling of the pilots as prisoners.

Well, that's "subjective" interpretation for you.

robeiae
11-22-2006, 08:04 PM
The only thing I said was subjective was the use of the word "disproportionate." And you are obviously unable to address that point.

But feel free to misrepresent that ad nauseum. I understand that it's a good tactic.

Maybe you'll eventually try to answer the question: At what point did Israeli actions become disproportionate? Is there a specific number of civilain deaths and a specific dollar figure for property damage?

I'm happy to wait.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 08:16 PM
The only thing I said was subjective was the use of the word "disproportionate." And you are obviously unable to address that point.

I addressed it.
The UN humanitarian chief said it was disproportional.
The UN human rights chief said it was disproportionate.
The UN voted 10-1 that it was disproportionate, 1 veto by US.
Amnesty International said it was disproportionate.
Human Rights Watch said it was disproportionate.

The only group who said it was acceptable was the US,
and I already pointed out the link that shows a history
by the US of bias favoring Israel and vetoing anything
critical of Israel.

With 15 members of the security council,
and the US consistently vetoing 14-1 and 13-1 measures,
and with a lot of those members rotating over the years,
either the entire planet is unfairly biased against Israel,
or Israel deserved condemnation for some action but
the US is biased towards Israel and vetoed it.

Don't bother answering. I really don't need the gymnastics
you'll go through to explain how the whole planet is
prejudiced against Israel, and how the US is the only
fair and impartial judge when it comes to "subjective"
matters as this.

Unique
11-22-2006, 08:18 PM
They're back on track with the Hariri (sp?) investigation, but (unfortunately) they're also about to have their government dissolved. Six (Shia) ministers quit, one was just assassinated, and all they (Syria?) need to do is kill one more minister and 8 of the 24 will be missing, which meets the criteria for dissolution.

and there you have your enemy tactics

greglondon
11-22-2006, 08:20 PM
Kim Howells, British Foreign Office minister, said in an interview with CNN, "I hope that the Americans understand what's happening to Lebanon: the destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children, and so many people. These have not been surgical strikes, and it's very, very difficult I think to understand the kind of military tactics that have been used. You know if they're chasing Hezbollah, well go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation, and that's the difference"

oswann
11-22-2006, 08:22 PM
I addressed it.
The UN humanitarian chief said it was disproportional.
The UN human rights chief said it was disproportionate.
The UN voted 10-1 that it was disproportionate, 1 veto by US.
Amnesty International said it was disproportionate.
Human Rights Watch said it was disproportionate.


Having people say the same as you doesn't really address the notion of a particular moment when normal becomes disproportionate.


Os.

Cav Guy
11-22-2006, 08:23 PM
And irrelevant to Israel's violations of the GC towards civilians.

Quite relevent, actually. Though there seems to be little point in explaining the reasons. I do not agree with Israel's tactics in Lebanon, but that is not the main point behind this section of the GC or my discussion of it. Have fun with Google!

greglondon
11-22-2006, 08:29 PM
Having people say the same as you doesn't really address the notion of a particular moment when normal becomes disproportionate.

Ah, nice bait you got there, but I won't be biting.

You want to argue at what specific moment it became disproportional and get the conversation lost in the details and ignore the big picture. Sorry. Not interested. The big picture is that every major organization on the planet said it was a violation of the laws of war, except for the US.

That's good enough for me.

If you want to argue at what point they crossed the line, you want to focus on the details and the specific numbers of how many dead lebanese equates how many dead israelis and when it becomes disproportionate. And all a numbers game does is let people game the system, game the rules, with hypothetical "Yeah, but what if THIS happened?"

That's all irrelevant. The big picture is simple and straightforward, every major organization, except the US, said Israel violated the rules of war.

New Orleans was wiped out by Hurricane Katrina. You want to argue what distinguishes a hurricane from a tropical storm? then you're no longer looking at the big picture.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 08:31 PM
Quite relevent, actually. Though there seems to be little point in explaining the reasons. I do not agree with Israel's tactics in Lebanon, but that is not the main point behind this section of the GC or my discussion of it. Have fun with Google!

No, it is irrelevant. even if you're beign attacked by children in blue jeans and t shirts, shooting at you from a huge crowd of civilians, you still have to follow the rules of war. Even if your enemy does not. That's all there is to it.

oswann
11-22-2006, 08:42 PM
Ah, nice bait you got there, but I won't be biting.

You want to argue at what specific moment it became disproportional and get the conversation lost in the details and ignore the big picture. Sorry. Not interested.

I'm really not baiting you Greg. I understand what you are saying but you are not responding to the questions asked and I have absolutely no agenda to befuddle the conversation (anymore than it already is).


Os.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 08:54 PM
I understand what you are saying but you are not responding to the questions asked and I have absolutely no agenda to befuddle the conversation (anymore than it already is).

The thing is I don't care -when- it became disproportionate.
I only care that the end result is that it -was- disproportionate.

Israel wasn't limiting its bombardments to just rocket launchers
and hezbolla locations. It was targeting the whole nation of lebanon.

It crossed the line and dived deep into disproportionate territory.

If you want to discuss where the line was drawn, I don't know
what that will do other then open an argument about boundary
conditions.

And arguing about boundary conditions in this case doesn't
matter because it's clear that Israel crossed the boundary.

Birol
11-22-2006, 09:05 PM
People also seem to forget that the GC typically applies to formal combatants and NOT to irregulars (terrorists, bandits, freedom fighters, call 'em what you will).

Actually, it does (http://www.genevaconventions.org/):


civilian A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50 (http://spj.org/gc-text5.asp?#50), Sec. 1) [Emphasis added.]



There are sections that address mercenaries and spies, too.

SC Harrison
11-22-2006, 10:08 PM
and there you have your enemy tactics

Exactly.

To carry it a few steps further: Parliament dissolves, armed militias become more active, threatening to bring back all-out civil war, back-channel requests are made (just like before) for Syria to step in and bring order to the growing chaos, yada yada.

Here's the thing—while I can understand Israeli frustration that Lebanon would tolerate the active presence of Hizbollah, attacking infrastructure merely solidifies the idea that Lebanon is at the mercy of Israel, instead of the truth, which is: Lebanon is at the mercy of those who seek to compromise Israel's borders.

So, who is left to care about the Lebanese?

robeiae
11-22-2006, 10:37 PM
The thing is I don't care -when- it became disproportionate.
I only care that the end result is that it -was- disproportionate.

Israel wasn't limiting its bombardments to just rocket launchers
and hezbolla locations. It was targeting the whole nation of lebanon.

It crossed the line and dived deep into disproportionate territory.

If you want to discuss where the line was drawn, I don't know
what that will do other then open an argument about boundary
conditions.

And arguing about boundary conditions in this case doesn't
matter because it's clear that Israel crossed the boundary.It's clear to you, perhaps. And it is no doubt clear to many others.

However, you can't state it as inarguably true, unless you have some kind of standard with which to comapre it, or a precise defintion of what constitutes a disproportionate response.

The problem with attempting to make such a defintion is that the anticipated military advantage, to which the actions are measured against, is also not quantifiable. That was the point of the Carthage example (Mac). In that example, this anticipated advantage was such that no other consequences could be seen as disproportionate, from the viewpoint of the Roman leadership.

What was anticpated by the Israelis? That question must be answered before the comparison can even be made. But even then, the question of whether or not the number of civilain deaths/injuries and the amount of property damage crossed some line is unanswerable without knowing where that line is.

Your position seems to be "I know the line was crossed because it looks like it was," or (more likely) "the line was crossed because that's the way I feel." Hardly a sound basis for law, for international courts or any other ones...

greglondon
11-22-2006, 10:54 PM
It's clear to you, perhaps. And it is no doubt clear to many others.

However, you can't state it as inarguably true, unless you have some kind of standard with which to comapre it, or a precise defintion of what constitutes a disproportionate response.

So, all those organizations, the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the 10 nations on the security council who voted to condemn Israel for violating rules of warfare, are what?

anti-semite?
prejudiced?
biased?

And the only neutral and unbiased group is Israel and the US?

You are arguing into the details of the line. It ain't gonna work. The big picture is that most of the planet says Israel crossed the line.

You want to explain that away as global anti-semitism?
Or maybe, just maybe, Israel actually crossed the line?

Otherwise you're just arguing whether a hurricane requires 100 mph winds or 110 mph winds, and it don't really make a damn bit of difference when assessing the damage done by the hurricane.

You're arguing that YOU know better than the rest of the world and every single organization that says Israel crossed the line. That it needs further investigation. Nice approach there, actually: "It needs more investigation". Israel invokes that response a lot. They never finish an investigation, but it is useful to bury an incident for a while.

Meanwhile, when I look at the historical votes at the UN, and see all the measures critical of Israel that come up that are 14-1 votes with a veto by the US, I have to wonder how much sh!t are we letting Israel get away with? Either the entire world is unfairly and unjustly biased against the nation of Israel, Or the US has been using its UN veto to let Israel violate teh rules of war and human rights for 60 years without any accountability.

Which is it?

billythrilly7th
11-22-2006, 11:07 PM
So, all those organizations, the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the 10 nations on the security council who voted to condemn Israel for violating rules of warfare, are what?

Extremely misguided and/or not clear thinking and/or clear minded.

billythrilly7th
11-22-2006, 11:08 PM
Meanwhile, when I look at the historical votes at the UN, and see all the measures critical of Israel that come up that are 14-1 votes with a veto by the US, I have to wonder how much sh!t are we letting Israel get away with? Either the entire world is unfairly and unjustly biased against the nation of Israel, Or the US has been using its UN veto to let Israel violate teh rules of war and human rights for 60 years without any accountability.

Which is it?

The former or the latter or whichever one means the world is biased against Israel.

billythrilly7th
11-22-2006, 11:10 PM
Your position seems to be "the line was crossed because that's the way I feel." Hardly a sound basis for law, for international courts or any other ones...

Damn.

That's how I planned on running things.

Maybe I still will.

We'll see.

Birol
11-22-2006, 11:15 PM
You're arguing that YOU know better than the rest of the world and every single organization that says Israel crossed the line.

Has Rob said whether or not he supports Israel's actions?

English Dave
11-22-2006, 11:17 PM
Western style Democracies have to start reacting with their brains and not their balls. Psychology 101 - Hezbollah assasinate a popular but anti-Syrian Christian cabinet minister. They want civil war and unrest because that is their only real hope of power [aside from the support they got after Israel attacked]

I advocate restraint. I have no truck with facists of any religion.

SC Harrison
11-22-2006, 11:47 PM
So, all those organizations, the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the 10 nations on the security council who voted to condemn Israel for violating rules of warfare, are what?

anti-semite?
prejudiced?
biased?



I don't believe they are wrong in their condemnation, because I do believe Israel stepped "over the line" several times during this conflict, namely targeting civilian infrastructure guaranteed to result in human suffering, as well as targeting refugee caravans which were traveling in pre-arranged "safe" corridors. It gets a little iffy (imo) when you look at specific incidents of collateral damage/civilian deaths when Israel neutralized rocket launchers and Hizbollah ground forces.

But...in the absence of a proper response by U.N. observers/peacekeepers in a) enforcing U.N. resolutions to disarm Hizbollah, and b) taking no (apparent) steps to discourage Hiz rocket attacks, you have to ask yourself: what steps could/should the IDF have taken to stop the rocket attacks that would have been considered "okay" by international human rights organizations?

This is the discussion that needs to take place, because...it's going to happen again very soon, I fear.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 11:48 PM
Has Rob said whether or not he supports Israel's actions?


regarding whether Israel violated the rules of war, Rob said:

It's clear to you, perhaps. And it is no doubt clear to many others. However, you can't state it as inarguably true,

This in the face of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, two UN chiefs, the British foreign office, and a UN resolution voted by 10 members of teh security council all saying that Israel did violate the rules of war.

Rob doesn't want to talk about that or whether a violation occured. He wants to talk about this whole thing being "subjective", because then as long as it is "subjective", then no "inarguably true" statement can be made about it.

Even if every other person on the planet said they violated the rules of war, if its "subjective", Rob can justify ignoring them.

I really don't care what Rob thinks. It doesn't matter when all the other experts say Isreal violated the rules of war.

Unless Rob can explain why I shouldn't take the experts at their word, I have no reason to completely disbelieve them and start from zero and try to reinvent the wheel that they just did.

It's like arguing about the WMD inspectors saying there are no WMD's in Iraq:

"Well, they don't know INARGUABLY that there are no WMD's. they just know they haven't found any SO FAR."

I'm not playing that game.
We've seen how that turned out.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 11:59 PM
what steps could/should the IDF have taken to stop the rocket attacks that would have been considered "okay" by international human rights organizations?

The rocket attacks didn't spike until after Israel invaded Lebanon. There were some rockets launched during the raid when the two IDF soldiers were taken prisoner, but that appears to have been a burst used as a distraction.

So, maybe, having the IDF react to attacks isn't the long term solution.

How about starting by getting some honesty about past violations of the rules of war and make some compensation for past mistakes? Isreal just blew hell out of 2.5 billion dollars of Lebanon's infrastructure. They going to put it back together?

As it is, Israel just did a lot of unjustified damage to Lebanon and then turned its back saying "not my problem". You think changing that approach might have better odds of dealing with the rocket attacks?

You may never get rid of all the extremists, but Israel's invasion of Lebanon turned a lot of moderate Lebonese to be sympathetic to Hezbollah. Draining Hezbollah of popular support would help a lot. Like draining the swamps that support the mosquitos.

English Dave
11-22-2006, 11:59 PM
.

I really don't care what Rob thinks. It doesn't matter when all the other experts say Isreal violated the rules of war.

Unless Rob can explain why I shouldn't take the experts at their word, I

This is you major weakness Greg. You make it plain you don't care what ANYONE else thinks.

But keep going.

Bravo
11-23-2006, 12:02 AM
all these alfs (alves?) talking is confusing me.

i dont know what's up and what's down anymore.

at least one of you needs to change their avatar.

thank you.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 12:11 AM
This is you major weakness Greg. You make it plain you don't care what ANYONE else thinks.

Unless someone can explain how all of these experts are wrong, I see no reason to entertain fantasies that question how the WMD inspectors were wrong and there might have been WMD's in Iraq.

If Rob can show me how every single one of these experts and organizations are all simply biased against Israel, then I'll reject the experts and consider what Rob has to say on the matter.

But otherwise, this is like all the people who actually went into Iraq looking for weapons came back and said there are none, and all the chickenhawks said it proves nothing because they haven't looked EVERYWHERE, yada, yada.

I'm not going to question all these experts just because they don't jive with Rob's opinion. Unless someone can explain how they're all biased.

The UN votes and the US vetoes seems to indicate where the bias is coming from though, and it seems to be the US government, not all the other organizations.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 12:11 AM
all these alfs (alves?) talking is confusing me.

i dont know what's up and what's down anymore.

at least one of you needs to change their avatar.

thank you.

I was here first.

;)

English Dave
11-23-2006, 12:17 AM
Unless someone can explain how all of these experts are wrong, I see no reason to entertain fantasies that question how the WMD inspectors were wrong and there might have been WMD's in Iraq.

If Rob can show me how every single one of these experts and organizations are all simply biased against Israel, then I'll reject the experts and consider what Rob has to say on the matter.

But otherwise, this is like all the people who actually went into Iraq looking for weapons came back and said there are none, and all the chickenhawks said it proves nothing because they haven't looked EVERYWHERE, yada, yada.

I'm not going to question all these experts just because they don't jive with Rob's opinion. Unless someone can explain how they're all biased.

The UN votes and the US vetoes seems to indicate where the bias is coming from though, and it seems to be the US government, not all the other organizations.

Greg, I'm with you on the WMD issue. I'm with you on the UN resolution issues. If you're American I can see how you feel you have to be aggressive to get your point across despite being accused of being a traitor.

But now you're in the real world. Cyberspace.

SC Harrison
11-23-2006, 12:19 AM
The rocket attacks didn't spike until after Israel invaded Lebanon. There were some rockets launched during the raid when the two IDF soldiers were taken prisoner, but that appears to have been a burst used as a distraction.



I can't check the time-lines well from here, but my recollection is: the actual invasion was postponed for a few weeks, during which Israel first targeted infrastructure then Hizbollah positions with (mostly) aerial bombardment. It was only after weeks of daily rocket attacks that they (finally) sent troops into Southern Lebanon to put an end to the attacks.

We can quibble about whether or not bombing equates to "invasion", or whether the intensity of Katyushas was in response to Israeli bomb attacks, but it still doesn't answer the question of what a "proper" response should have been on the part of Israel.

If you look at the steady growth of both troops and munitions among the ranks of Hizbollah in (mostly) Southern Lebanon, you can see this conflict was predictable and maybe inevitable. As long as the world tries to wash its hands of this problem by not stepping up, it will continue to be a cyclic problem.

eta: I had to fix the geography issues here (Northern, Southern). Sorry.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 12:23 AM
Greg, .

> I'm with you on the WMD issue.

Cool.

> I'm with you on the UN resolution issues.

frosty.

> If you're American

The listening posts haven't caused my disappearance just yet.

> I can see how you feel you have to be aggressive to
> get your point across despite being accused of being a traitor.

love it or leave it.
question it and egress it.

> But now you're in the real world. Cyberspace.

Aw shucks. cyberspace trumps everything. dang it.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 12:39 AM
it still doesn't answer the question of what a "proper" response should have been on the part of Israel..

Whatever reaction Israel took, I think it should be something along the
lines of treating Lebanese civilians as equal to Israeli civlians.
So, if no response would end up having 1 Israeli civilian killed,
and the only response they have ends up killing 100 lebanese civlians,
then they should do nothing, because their response is worse than
the problem. Cure worse than the disease.

Instead, Isreal seemed to consider lebanese civilians as culpable as hezbollah militants and therefore any number of lebanese civilian deaths was irrelevant to them.


As long as the world tries to wash its hands of this problem by not stepping up, it will continue to be a cyclic problem.

The world tried to condemn israel. the US vetoed it.
There was a UN post in the area, but Israel killed the four observers there.
There were US marines in Beruit back in the 80's but that ended badly.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to send troops in there. why?
because Israel has no qualms about violating the rules of war
any more than Hezbollah does. And because the US is so
allied with Israel, I'd be afraid we'd get sucked into fighting
hezbollah on their orders. No thanks.

Maybe its time to bring back the laser intercepter to shoot
down hezbolla rockets. That might help if they could get
the damn thing to work.

The barrier might help too.

But if Israel doesn't give a damn about anyone but itself,
if it never feels obligated to make amends for its mistakes,
ain't nothing gonna give you a long term peaceful solution.

Birol
11-23-2006, 12:45 AM
Even if every other person on the planet said they violated the rules of war, if its "subjective", Rob can justify ignoring them.

I really don't care what Rob thinks. It doesn't matter when all the other experts say Isreal violated the rules of war. {Emphasis added.}

I just have to post this because it's driving me a little crazy. To the best of my knowledge, Rob's not an expert and for the sake of your own position, you might not want to elevate him to that status.

Going to sit quietly now.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 12:50 AM
Whatever reaction Israel took, I think it should be something along the
lines of treating Lebanese civilians as equal to Israeli civlians.
So, if no response would end up having 1 Israeli civilian killed,
and the only response they have ends up killing 100 lebanese civlians,
then they should do nothing, because their response is worse than
the problem. Cure worse than the disease.

Instead, Isreal seemed to consider lebanese civilians as culpable as hezbollah militants and therefore any number of lebanese civilian deaths was irrelevant to them.



The world tried to condemn israel. the US vetoed it.
There was a UN post in the area, but Israel killed the four observers there.
There were US marines in Beruit back in the 80's but that ended badly.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to send troops in there. why?
because Israel has no qualms about violating the rules of war
any more than Hezbollah does. And because the US is so
allied with Israel, I'd be afraid we'd get sucked into fighting
hezbollah on their orders. No thanks.

Maybe its time to bring back the laser intercepter to shoot
down hezbolla rockets. That might help if they could get
the damn thing to work.

The barrier might help too.

But if Israel doesn't give a damn about anyone but itself,
if it never feels obligated to make amends for its mistakes,
ain't nothing gonna give you a long term peaceful solution.

You know what? I don't live in Israel or The Lebanon. But I know people who do. My Lebanese friends think that Hezbollah are a bunch of wankers with their own agenda who are stirring unrest to get their own way.

My Israeli friends think that they would like to live in peace but as they screwed over the Palestinians 60 years ago to have their country in the first place they realise that some form of negotiation is in order.

You know who screws that up? Dogmatic bigots on both sides.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 12:59 AM
some form of negotiation is in order.

yeah. I'd go with that.

I was thinking maybe if the dogmatic bigots in Israel were informed
by the whole UN (without a US veto to protect them) that the world
thinks they crossed the line, then maybe those dogmatic bigots would
either lose power or change their ways to stay in power.

If it brought them to the table to negotiate with teh palestinians
and resolve this 60 year old dispute, I think it would be worth it.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 01:06 AM
yeah. I'd go with that.

I was thinking maybe if the dogmatic bigots in Israel were informed
by the whole UN (without a US veto to protect them) that the world
thinks they crossed the line, then maybe those dogmatic bigots would
either lose power or change their ways to stay in power.

If it brought them to the table to negotiate with teh palestinians
and resolve this 60 year old dispute, I think it would be worth it.

Ya know, some of those dogmatic bigots on one side believe that women shouldn't be educated just as much as some believe a baby has to be circumcised.

Dogma is the curse of civilization.

billythrilly7th
11-23-2006, 01:10 AM
Dogma is the curse of civilization.

And independent filmmaking as per our discussion.

Thank you.

robeiae
11-23-2006, 01:14 AM
I just have to post this because it's driving me a little crazy. To the best of my knowledge, Rob's not an expert and for the sake of your own position, you might not want to elevate him to that status.But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

greglondon
11-23-2006, 01:18 AM
Ya know, some of those dogmatic bigots on one side believe that women shouldn't be educated just as much as some believe a baby has to be circumcised. Dogma is the curse of civilization.

Yeah, sure. everyone's got dogmas.

If the solution ends up popping Israel's open-loop, isolationist, "we can do no wrong" bubble, but ends up resolving a major issue between Palestinians and Israel, even if the otehr side didn't have to give up any of their dogmas, wouldn't it still be worth it?

greglondon
11-23-2006, 01:19 AM
I just have to post this because it's driving me a little crazy. To the best of my knowledge, Rob's not an expert and for the sake of your own position, you might not want to elevate him to that status. Going to sit quietly now.

when all the (strike) experts

better?

English Dave
11-23-2006, 01:25 AM
Yeah, sure. everyone's got dogmas.

If the solution ends up popping Israel's open-loop, isolationist, "we can do no wrong" bubble, but ends up resolving a major issue between Palestinians and Israel, even if the otehr side didn't have to give up any of their dogmas, wouldn't it still be worth it?
Tell that to the people who had their loved ones blown up. Sunni? Shi-ite? Jewish? Christian? I don't give a crap. And neither do most people.

Birol
11-23-2006, 01:35 AM
when all the (strike) experts

better?

It's a more accurate phrase. Thank you.

SpookyWriter
11-23-2006, 01:38 AM
But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...Hey, sorry but I forgot to tip you last night. :D

robeiae
11-23-2006, 01:39 AM
Rob doesn't want to talk about that or whether a violation occured. He wants to talk about this whole thing being "subjective", because then as long as it is "subjective", then no "inarguably true" statement can be made about it.If you don't follow what I am saying, feel free to ask for clarification


Even if every other person on the planet said they violated the rules of war, if its "subjective", Rob can justify ignoring them.
I didn't say the "rules of war" were subjective. The only thing that is subjective is your conclusion of what a "disproportionate response" is, since you refuse to define the term or present a methodology for establishing when a response can be so classified, other than "it just is."


I really don't care what Rob thinks.Then don't respond to me; or put me on ignore if you can't control yourself. It's an easy fix.
It doesn't matter when all the other experts say Isreal violated the rules of war.All the experts? Every single one of them? And btw, not everyone you are relying on is an expert on war, the rules of war, and military strategy.


Unless Rob can explain why I shouldn't take the experts at their word, I have no reason to completely disbelieve them and start from zero and try to reinvent the wheel that they just did.Heh. You freely question any opinion from experts in the current administration. It's almost like you're predisposed to accept ideas consistent with what you believe, and question ideas that are not consistent with what you believe--just like everyone else on the planet (me included). But this is an issue of degree...

greglondon
11-23-2006, 01:44 AM
Tell that to the people who had their loved ones blown up. Sunni? Shi-ite? Jewish? Christian? I don't give a crap. And neither do most people.

I don't understand. Lots of loved ones have been blown up all over, Dave. If you're saying that makes a solution impossible, then there really much point in trying to find a solution, is there? Unless its a purely military solution, I suppose.

SC Harrison
11-23-2006, 01:45 AM
Whatever reaction Israel took, I think it should be something along the
lines of treating Lebanese civilians as equal to Israeli civlians.
So, if no response would end up having 1 Israeli civilian killed,
and the only response they have ends up killing 100 lebanese civlians,
then they should do nothing, because their response is worse than
the problem. Cure worse than the disease.

Instead, Isreal seemed to consider lebanese civilians as culpable as hezbollah militants and therefore any number of lebanese civilian deaths was irrelevant to them.



I agree with most of this statement, because I believe decades of fighting and living under the dark cloud of imminent terrorist attacks on civilians has somehow warped the idea of proportionality in the minds of many Israelis. In part, I can understand where they're coming from, because they don't have the population to trade a life for a life against their enemies. A war of attrition would spell their doom.

But...this imbalance in the value they place on human life and suffering is bound to have an impact in the way they are viewed by the world, and that is not a recipe for a comfortable future.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 01:52 AM
You freely question any opinion from experts in the current administration. It's almost like you're predisposed to accept ideas consistent with what you believe,

No, I'm predisposed to question the ideas from "experts" who lead us into stupid quagmire wars on teh promise we'll be out in 6 weeks. There is no expert in the current administration that can tell their @ss from their elbow. They've clearly demonstrated that objectively and empiracally over the last 6 years. Why? Because they have been proven -wrong- repeatedly.

The CIA who repeatedly said they had no intelligence to support WMD's in Iraq: I'll believe them. The generals who repeatedly said it would take hundreds of thousands of troops, years of occupation, and a good chance for civil war: I'll believe them.

I don't believe them because they agree with my idealogy. I believe them because their predictions have been consistently RIGHT. and I make sure my choices are based on information from people who show a history of being correct.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 02:04 AM
I don't understand. Lots of loved ones have been blown up all over, Dave. If you're saying that makes a solution impossible, then there really much point in trying to find a solution, is there? Unless its a purely military solution, I suppose.

I think a lot of people here get that you don't understand Greg. Having lived with terrorist bombs for 30 years I know about compromise. And you know what? The wankers who think killing people to get their way are the same people who are voted out as soon as real Democracy prevails.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 02:12 AM
I think a lot of people here get that you don't understand Greg..

Thanks. preciate it.


Having lived with terrorist bombs for 30 years I know about compromise.

Except I never said the word "compromise"?

Whatever you think I don't "understand",
you're reacting to something I never actually said.

Israel violated the rules of war.
Israel needs to operate withing the rules of war.
And Israel needs to deal with some of its outstanding issues,
such as the 60 year grudge regarding the palestinians.

No one's integrity need to be "compromised" doing that.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 02:15 AM
Thanks. preciate it.



Except I never said the word "compromise"?

Whatever you think I don't "understand",
you're reacting to something I never actually said.

Israel violated the rules of war.
Israel needs to operate withing the rules of war.
And Israel needs to deal with some of its outstanding issues,
such as the 60 year grudge regarding the palestinians.

No one's integrity need to be "compromised" doing that.


Wow! just........wow.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 02:23 AM
Wow! just........wow.

I think you forgot the jaw drop.

:Jaw:

billythrilly7th
11-23-2006, 02:24 AM
"We're back here on FM 2710, where friendliness is broadcast daily. Let's get you started with a 50 minute commerical free rock block. Here's Freehold's favorite son Bruce Springsteen with "The Law of Land Warfare.."

English Dave
11-23-2006, 02:27 AM
I think you forgot the jaw drop.

:Jaw:

How delightful.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 02:28 AM
so which one is the compromise, Dave,

Israel following the rules of war that Israel signed up to?

or Israel dealing with some of its outstanding issues that Isreal created?

English Dave
11-23-2006, 02:38 AM
so which one is the compromise, Dave,

Israel following the rules of war that Israel signed up to?

or Israel dealing with some of its outstanding issues that Isreal created?

Your question shows your bias. I'm more interested in solutions.

billythrilly7th
11-23-2006, 02:40 AM
Your question shows your bias. I'm more interested in solutions.

http://www.dailywav.com/0199/brainstorm.wav
:D

English Dave
11-23-2006, 02:41 AM
http://www.dailywav.com/0199/brainstorm.wav
:D

Huh?

greglondon
11-23-2006, 02:43 AM
Show me the compromise, Dave.

Israel signed up for the Geneva Convention.
Having the entire UN, except the US, say Israel
violated the Geneva Convention, says they aren't
holding up to the treaty they signed,
or they are, but the world is out to get them.

And if Israel shells a beach and kills a family having a
picnic, is it a compromise to have them come out and
admit it and make reparations? Or must they bury it
and blame hezbollah for it, and that will somehow
get them closer to a long term peaceful solution?

I don't see the compromise that you say is there.
Can you at least give a hint or some quick tip?

billythrilly7th
11-23-2006, 02:44 AM
Huh?

:Shrug:

English Dave
11-23-2006, 02:46 AM
Show me the compromise, Dave.

Israel signed up for the Geneva Convention.
Having the entire UN, except the US, say Israel
violated the Geneva Convention, says they aren't
holding up to the treaty they signed,
or they are, but the world is out to get them.

And if Israel shells a beach and kills a family having a
picnic, is it a compromise to have them come out and
admit it and make reparations? Or must they bury it
and blame hezbollah for it, and that will somehow
get them closer to a long term peaceful solution?

I don't see the compromise that you say is there.
Can you at least give a hint or some quick tip?



Nah. Although I was referring to IRA/UK compromise I honestly don't think you are of the compromising persuasion. More's the pity.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 02:53 AM
Nah. Although I was referring to IRA/UK compromise I honestly don't think you are of the compromising persuasion. More's the pity.

Sorry, google didn't turn up anything. And the wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army

mentions the word "compromise" twice, but both times it appears
that it was negotiations that failed to do anything, rather than
a compromise treaty that was broken later.

They don't teach history over here, so I don't know what specific
compromise you're talking about.

robeiae
11-23-2006, 02:56 AM
Having the entire UN, except the US, say Israel
violated the Geneva Convention, says they aren't
holding up to the treaty they signed,
or they are, but the world is out to get them.In the UN, the system is what the system is. But regardless, "the enitire UN, except the US" said no such thing. At least quote your own sources correctly.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 02:59 AM
In the UN, the system is what the system is. But regardless, "the enitire UN, except the US" said no such thing. At least quote your own sources correctly.

Here you go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207478.stm
UN's Humanitarian Chief Jan Egeland has condemned the devastation caused by Israeli air strikes in Beirut, saying it is a violation of humanitarian law.
He said the "disproportionate response" by Israel was a "violation of international humanitarian law".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197544.stm
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour said the "principle of proportionality" must be observed. "Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/0...tion-of-israel
The UN accuses Israel of a disproportionate use of force in lebanon.
10 Security Council nations voted in favor,
Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia abstained,
US vetoed

Eight of the last nine vetoes in the council have been cast by the United States. Of those, seven concerned the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../usvetoes.html
When the UN votes to condemn Israel for some action, the US often vetoes. Note in the far right column the vote tallies. There are 15 members of the security council. and the votes listed here are consistently 14-1 and 13-1, with the US vetoeing.




So, either Israel violated the GC, which they agreed to follow,
and having them follow the thing they agreed to is not a compromise,
or Israel followed the GC, and all these nations are out to get Israel.

robeiae
11-23-2006, 03:08 AM
The UN accuses Israel of a disproportionate use of force in lebanon.
10 Security Council nations voted in favor,
Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia abstained,
US vetoed
Which can hardly be viewed as "the entire UN, except the US." Hell, it's not even "the entire Security Council, except the US."

greglondon
11-23-2006, 03:12 AM
[/b]
Which can hardly be viewed as "the entire UN, except the US." Hell, it's not even "the entire Security Council, except the US."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

check far right column for votes.
It is often the entire security council except the US.
and the security council members rotate,
and those votes cover a lot of years, so its a lot
of the UN. And on top of that, it's often 1 veto.
maybe some abstentions because Britain would
vote against Israel but the US pressures them to
abstain instead.

Certainly seems like a pattern.

No. No. Can't be. Must be something else.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 03:24 AM
Sorry, google didn't turn up anything. And the wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army

mentions the word "compromise" twice, but both times it appears
that it was negotiations that failed to do anything, rather than
a compromise treaty that was broken later.

They don't teach history over here, so I don't know what specific
compromise you're talking about.

What? Redneckipedia didn't mention compromise but twice? I'm shocked. Cancel my subscription! I saw no mention of the 'Good Friday Agreement ' or disarmament either.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 03:30 AM
What? Redneckipedia didn't mention compromise but twice? I'm shocked. Cancel my subscription! I saw no mention of the 'Good Friday Agreement ' or disarmament either.

Well, "compromise" is a pretty generic term for google. so I tried wikipedia. Yeah, it's a good thing people don't pay money for that thing cause it's a little off.

Sorry I don't know your history. Well, I'm not sorry. But I don't know it. I can google the other phrases, now that I've got something to google, and read up on it. Or you could explain where the compromise is in expecting Israel to follow the GC that it signed up for, or in coming clean on blatant stuff like shelling a beach and killing a family having a picnic.

Or not. Well, lets see what google has to say....

greglondon
11-23-2006, 03:33 AM
Wikipedia calls it the Belfast Agreement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement

English Dave
11-23-2006, 03:33 AM
Well, "compromise" is a pretty generic term for google. so I tried wikipedia. Yeah, it's a good thing people don't pay money for that thing cause it's a little off.

Sorry I don't know your history. Well, I'm not sorry. But I don't know it. I can google the other phrases, now that I've got something to google, and read up on it. Or you could explain where the compromise is in expecting Israel to follow the GC that it signed up for, or in coming clean on blatant stuff like shelling a beach and killing a family having a picnic.

Or not. Well, lets see what google has to say....

Look under. 'Intelligent compassionate human being' rather than 'one note wanker'

greglondon
11-23-2006, 03:48 AM
Look under. 'Intelligent compassionate human being' rather than 'one note wanker'

I've got a couple notes:
Israel violated the GC. Israel needs to follow the GC.
Both of which might happen if the US didn't veto all UN criticism of Israel.
Israel come clean and resolve some of its more blatant screwups
like the beach bombardment.

still don't see how that's a compromise.

and "wanker", well, never mind.

robeiae
11-23-2006, 03:51 AM
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

check far right column for votes.
It is often the entire security council except the US.
and the security council members rotate,
and those votes cover a lot of years, so its a lot
of the UN. And on top of that, it's often 1 veto.
maybe some abstentions because Britain would
vote against Israel but the US pressures them to
abstain instead.

Certainly seems like a pattern.

No. No. Can't be. Must be something else.So what? None of this makes your characterization correct:

Having the entire UN, except the US, say Israel
violated the Geneva Convention...

These kinds of discussions are not well-served by hyperbole with regard to facts, at least imo.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 03:54 AM
I've got a couple notes:
Israel violated the GC. Israel needs to follow the GC.
Both of which might happen if the US didn't veto all UN criticism of Israel.
Israel come clean and resolve some of its more blatant screwups
like the beach bombardment.

still don't see how that's a compromise.

and "wanker", well, never mind.

Greg.... I think I was the first to mention the beach bombardment on these boards. If you want to play suicide bomber on a bus versus beach bombardment then go ahead.

Me. I'd rather go for solutions. You seem to be part of the problem.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 03:59 AM
http://www.usip.org/fellows/reports/2006/0706_farry.html

> The Good Friday Agreement has some in-built design flaws. ...


Well, that explains some things. I'm not talking about any sort
of new agreement. I'm talking about Israel keeping its old agreement,
the Geneva Convention, and Israel cleaning up some of its obvious
muck ups, like the beach bombardment, the extra territory they
grabbed with the position of their security barrier, and stuff like that.

That's not the same as entering into a badly designed compromise
between you and your enemy.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 04:03 AM
http://www.usip.org/fellows/reports/2006/0706_farry.html

> The Good Friday Agreement has some in-built design flaws. ...


.

Does it? I haven't been blown up on my way to work for a number of years. To be honest I took it as part of the risk of not giving in to terrorism.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 04:17 AM
Greg.... I think I was the first to mention the beach bombardment on these boards.

Good for you. maybe I missed it. Not sure how its relevant.


If you want to play suicide bomber on a bus versus beach bombardment then go ahead..

I don't even know what that means. How is coming clean on a screw up
"playing" a bus bomber "versus" that screw up?

All I'm saying is they "investigated" it and came up with some lame
excuse that Hezbollah put landmines on teh beach, whatever.
And they should come clean about it, and try to make some sort
of reparations for it. like the US eventually did for shooting down
Iran Air flight 655 passenger airliner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Compensation

Not that that was the model of perfection for dealing with a
military muck up.


Me. I'd rather go for solutions. You seem to be part of the problem.

So, Israel shelled a beach and killed a family.
can we solve that on the up and up?
or will it become buried, never resolved, problem.

I don't have any magical solution that says
do this one thing and it will all be better.

I think Israel should fight according the teh GC that
it agreed to and that it should clean up whatever messes
it creates, rather than bury them under "investigations"
and have the US veto any public condemnation of its actions.

It isn't a magical solution for peace, but at least I think
it would stop creating new reasons for wars,
maybe drain some support from the extremists.
Given no magical solution has been proposed,
I think its better than nothing.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 04:20 AM
>The Good Friday Agreement has some in-built design flaws.


Does it?

I was quoting the URL. The author there seems to think so.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 04:25 AM
You know ....Greg.... we have people like you over here. We call them 'Trainspotters' They are the guys wearing anoraks at the end of the railway platform jotting down the serial number of every train that passes by.

Where it's going or why it's there in the first place is irrelevant to them. Just so long as they get those numbers.

That makes them King in the trainspotting world.

I wish you every success in your chosen field.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 04:30 AM
cripes, even Libya can make reparations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Libya#D.C3.A9tente


In 2003 Libya began to make policy changes with the open intention of pursuing a Western-Libyan détente. The Libyan government announced its decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programmes and pay almost 3 billion US dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am flight 103 as well as UTA flight 772.

Since 2003 the country has restored normal diplomatic ties with the European Union and the United States and has even coined the catchphrase, 'The Libya Model', an example intended to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation rather than force when there is goodwill on both sides

greglondon
11-23-2006, 04:37 AM
You know ....Greg.... we have people like you over here. We call them 'Trainspotters' They are the guys wearing anoraks at the end of the railway platform jotting down the serial number of every train that passes by.

Where it's going or why it's there in the first place is irrelevant to them. Just so long as they get those numbers.

That makes them King in the trainspotting world.

I wish you every success in your chosen field.

Thanks, Dave, means a lot to me.

I'm really sorry if I've only got a partial solution or suggestion or
"compromise" as you like to call it. I'm just a one note wanker, after all.

I didn't catch your suggested solution for peace in the middle east.
What was it again?

Oh, right. you didn't have one.

I suppose that makes you a zero-note something or other.

Better to wait for a perfect solution than to do some minor improvement.

Well, right. anyway. every success chosen field and all that.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 04:39 AM
Thanks, Dave, means a lot to me.

I'm really sorry if I've only got a partial solution or suggestion or
"compromise" as you like to call it. I'm just a one note wanker, after all.

I didn't catch your suggested solution for peace in the middle east.
What was it again?

Oh, right. you didn't have one.

.

I think I might have proposed keeping people like you out of the equation.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 04:40 AM
I think I might have proposed keeping people like you out of the equation.

detente, by example

English Dave
11-23-2006, 04:50 AM
detente, by example
I don't speak French. Does that mean ''poster who becomes a pain in the arse through repitition?''

greglondon
11-23-2006, 04:59 AM
I don't speak French. Does that mean ''poster who becomes a pain in the arse through repitition?''

I thought it meant "I know something you don't know",
followed by "neener, neener, neener".
But maybe I was thinking of a different word.

Basically, "keeping people like you out of the equation"
is another way of being an arse while avoiding the painful
admission that you've got squat.

sort of like saying that expecting Israel to follow the GC
is a bad compromise, and then never having to explain
what the hell you're talking about.

MacAllister
11-23-2006, 05:04 AM
The scary part is that you two aren't really that far apart, ideologically.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 05:08 AM
Basically, "keeping people like you out of the equation"
is another way of being an arse while avoiding the painful
admission that you've got squat.

.

Good luck with your many and varied solutions.

Kofffi Annan

xxxx

greglondon
11-23-2006, 05:10 AM
The scary part is that you two aren't really that far apart, ideologically.

But I'm the one-note wanker, a trainspotter, and a pain in the arse.
All because something I said was a compromise
as bad as the belfast agreement.

Dave won't say what it was, though.

It's either the idea that Israel violated the GC and should start following it.
Or Israel should come clean and make ammends on military muck ups
rather than burying them under "investigations".

One of those two is some sort of evil compromise.

oh well.

English Dave
11-23-2006, 05:18 AM
Dave won't say what it was, though.

It's either the idea that Israel violated the GC and should start following it.
Or Israel should come clean and make ammends on military muck ups
rather than burying them under "investigations".

One of those two is some sort of evil compromise.

oh well.

It's because of that statement you are a trainspotter a wanker and a pain in the arse.

Try thinking more about how people feel and live and less about political slogans.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 05:34 AM
It's because of that statement you are a trainspotter a wanker and a pain in the arse..

Which one, though? Israel violated the GC?
Or Israel should clean up after itself?


Try thinking more about how people feel and live and less about political slogans.

What "slogan" are you talking about?

Maybe you could answer a question straight out,
like what "compromise" are you talking about?

And where am I dissing how people "feel and live"?
By saying Israel should follow the GC that they signed up for?

Is there some implication due to the way they live and feel
that makes it impossible for them to follow the GC?

If so, then they should withdraw from the agreement.
Or at the very least, own up to when they violate it,
rather than having their big brother veto it.

as it is, all you've got is a bunch of insults and vague
complaints but you haven't said anything specific
that would point to what it is you think is a "compromise",
what it is you think says I'm making "slogans", rather
than looking at how people "feel and live".

MacAllister
11-23-2006, 05:35 AM
Lay off the namecalling, ED.

Greg, weren't there actually Israelis protesting the bombing, too? Off to see if I can find a source for that vague recollection.

ETA: Yeah. There were. http://ontheface.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/17/2130104.html

greglondon
11-23-2006, 05:58 AM
Greg, weren't there actually Israelis protesting the bombing, too? Off to see if I can find a source for that vague recollection.

bombing of lebanon or bombing the beach?

I'm talking more about forcing the Israeli government to face
one of its screw ups. As it is, they pretty much deny any
wrongdoing, and if the UN tries to say something, the US vetoes.

Maybe the Israeli government changed because of some of its
internal protests from Israelis, but their public face so far has
been insulated from outside criticism, and generally unwilling
to publically apologize for any mistakes.

I think that does nothing but create more cause for violence
against Israel down the road. Not that apologizing and owning
up to one particular mistake will bring peace to the whole region,
but sometimes I swear its like they add fuel to their own fire.

The Israeli invasion of lebanon pushed a lot of moderate Lebonese
to embrace Hezbollah when they hadn't before.

greglondon
11-23-2006, 06:07 AM
ETA: Yeah. There were. http://ontheface.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/17/2130104.html

Yeah, I remember seeing some of those protests on the news.

I sort of thought of them like I thought of a lot of americans
who opposed Bush's push for war with Iraq:
Bush was going to go in no matter what we said.

I'm not saying there are no good people in Israel because
their govt invaded Lebanon. We invaded Iraq but there are still
good people here who knew it was a bad bad idea from
the beginning.

But the Israeli government reminds me a lot of the Bush
administration. Neither one ever says they're sorry.
No matter how bad the screw up.

Would having the UN pass a resolution saying Israel
violated the GC be the end of Israel? I think it might
burst the government's bubble and maybe they'd stop
acting so indifferent to everyone else. But I don't see
how it would be so damning that the US has to step
in every time and veto any criticism at all towards Israel.

billythrilly7th
11-23-2006, 06:07 AM
For the love of god.

Bartholomew
11-23-2006, 06:16 AM
For the love of god.


That basically sums it up, I think.

Billy solved everything. Pack it in, boys, we're goin' home!

billythrilly7th
11-23-2006, 06:22 AM
That basically sums it up, I think.

Billy solved everything. Pack it in, boys, we're goin' home!

Exactly. It's Thanksgiving for god's sake.

Thank you.

Greg,
I assure you, you've made your point. We hear you. Israel is bad because they don't follow the Geneva convention that they signed on to and when they don't they should cop to it and make amends and if the US would stop vetoing every resoultion maybe they'd have to do those things and that would help out in the overall peace process. We got ya, dude.

Now go have a beer and Happy Thanksgiving.

SC Harrison
11-23-2006, 06:24 AM
Greg, weren't there actually Israelis protesting the bombing, too? Off to see if I can find a source for that vague recollection.

ETA: Yeah. There were. http://ontheface.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/17/2130104.html

There were and are, but many changed their minds (or at least became silent) when Haifa began to take hits. If I remember correctly, the percent of Israelis who supported the IDF's actions increased substantially after that.

oswann
11-23-2006, 01:21 PM
Exactly. It's Thanksgiving for god's sake.

Thank you.

Greg,
I assure you, you've made your point. We hear you. Israel is bad because they don't follow the Geneva convention that they signed on to and when they don't they should cop to it and make amends and if the US would stop vetoing every resoultion maybe they'd have to do those things and that would help out in the overall peace process. We got ya, dude.

Now go have a beer and Happy Thanksgiving.

Oh dear, I agree with Billy. I need to lie down.

Os.