Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ratbarf wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference. Israel is a different country. Obama is the president of mine.

So then you admit your abject hypocrisy?

There is a difference between the Rights of a Sovereign Nation and the President of the United Sates. Obama can't (legally) drone strike his own nation because of the legal limits on what actions he can take against US citizens and on US soil, he is not however, limited in what actions he can take on foreign soil against foreigners, hence the Drone Strikes.

So then you're saying GT's explanation is not merely a "yeah, but it's happening to them, not to me", but rather a "any country has the right to pre-emptively strike out when they feel threated without oversight because they're attacking something other than their own citizens"? Is that it? Is it really a goddamned flag that is the difference between indiscriminate killing and justifiable killing?

My entire point is that it's asinine to claim Israel is perfectly in their rights to attack based on their no-oversight-needed claim that it was necessary, and that seems perfectly apt a comparison to Obama's drone strike ability. The state can kill you (death penalty) with oversight and it's okay, but now they can also kill you (drone strike) wihtout oversight, and it's not okay. The same applies to GT's thoughts on Israel's no-justification-needed-because-they-know-best-or-something reasoning.

What would be oversight in this case?

 Mr Hyena wrote:
What would be oversight in this case?

The UN is probably the closest thing we have. You could enact retrospective punishment for crimes against peace or crimes against humanity at the Hague, but that comes after the fact.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference. Israel is a different country. Obama is the president of mine.

So then you admit your abject hypocrisy?

There is a difference between the Rights of a Sovereign Nation and the President of the United Sates. Obama can't (legally) drone strike his own nation because of the legal limits on what actions he can take against US citizens and on US soil, he is not however, limited in what actions he can take on foreign soil against foreigners, hence the Drone Strikes.

So then you're saying GT's explanation is not merely a "yeah, but it's happening to them, not to me", but rather a "any country has the right to pre-emptively strike out when they feel threated without oversight because they're attacking something other than their own citizens"? Is that it? Is it really a goddamned flag that is the difference between indiscriminate killing and justifiable killing?

My entire point is that it's asinine to claim Israel is perfectly in their rights to attack based on their no-oversight-needed claim that it was necessary, and that seems perfectly apt a comparison to Obama's drone strike ability. The state can kill you (death penalty) with oversight and it's okay, but now they can also kill you (drone strike) wihtout oversight, and it's not okay. The same applies to GT's thoughts on Israel's no-justification-needed-because-they-know-best-or-something reasoning.

Yip, a flag and the monopoly of violence over a given region coupled with the ability to enforce and defend that monopoly of violence is the only thing that makes a Sovereign State a Sovereign State. By it's very definition a Sovereign State does not have oversight from a greater power because that rank is the highest level of power. Obviously there are differences between the power levels of Sovereign States, but there is no one "up the line" so to speak.

Israel can do whatever it wants to Syria, and likewise Syria can do whatever it wants to Israel, as long as both nations can continue to enforce their monopoly of force they aren't answerable to anyone.

Please, the UN couldn't oversee a soccer game. Much less enforce anything.

The UN is like a Soccer League where the Coaches are also the Refs and all rule disputes require a unanimous vote. And there is no real way of making sure people follow the rules.

So then you think that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants. Might makes right? Because that would be pretty ironic, considering.

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
What would be oversight in this case?

The UN is probably the closest thing we have. You could enact retrospective punishment for crimes against peace or crimes against humanity at the Hague, but that comes after the fact.

The same group that is toothless when it comes to actually solving disputes?

I don't think Israel petitioning the UN, which'll take months, will be effective in stopping chemical weapons and missiles moving into Palestine from Syria...

I hardly see how this action constitutes "doing whatever they want"

Grey Templar wrote:I hardly see how this action constitutes "doing whatever they want"

They attacked based off of a broad claim that there was a threat to their security, although what that threat is or how it was established remains nebulous and ill-defined.

I look at this and can't help but be reminded of the comment in Dune, "The forms of Kanly have been obeyed." http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Kanly

They attacked based off of a broad claim that there was a threat to their security, although what that threat is or how it was established remains nebulous and ill-defined.

Whats ill-defined about weapons smuggling?

Their intell guru's and informants in Syria are much better then our intell guru's and.......crap....do we have informants in Syraiarnia....

 Mr Hyena wrote:

They attacked based off of a broad claim that there was a threat to their security, although what that threat is or how it was established remains nebulous and ill-defined.

Whats ill-defined about weapons smuggling?

By 'ill-defined', he means that he hasn't seen in the evidence that there was weapons smuggling going on.

Although, let's be fair here. I don't think that terrorist groups ever regularly advertise their weapons smuggling plans to the mainstream press or third party observer groups, so there's no way in which Israel can ever be justified under that logic.

 azazel the cat wrote:
So then you think that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants. Might makes right? Because that would be pretty ironic, considering.

Might does not make an action morally right, it does however make its wielder unassailable.

Although when it comes to the Struggles of Nations might and the willingness to use it is the ultimate determinant.

Ketara wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

They attacked based off of a broad claim that there was a threat to their security, although what that threat is or how it was established remains nebulous and ill-defined.

Whats ill-defined about weapons smuggling?

By 'ill-defined', he means that he hasn't seen in the evidence that there was weapons smuggling going on.

Although, let's be fair here. I don't think that terrorist groups ever regularly advertise their weapons smuggling plans to the mainstream press or third party observer groups, so there's no way in which Israel can ever be justified under that logic.

Thanks you, I'm glad someone has been able to recognize that "let's just take Israel's word for it" isn't necessarily enough for those who don't blindly support their every action.

That now being said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a just action. I know that I'd definitely want to do everything in my power to keep chemical weapons out of the hands of Hezbollah, too. I just think I'd rather see something along the lines of "we exploded a convoy carrying chemical weapons that we believe were going to be given to Hezbollah" rather than "we exploded those cars because national security."

Ratbarf wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
So then you think that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants. Might makes right? Because that would be pretty ironic, considering.

Might does not make an action morally right, it does however make its wielder unassailable.

So long as you understand the distinction. This conversation has given me the impression many here do not.

Az honestly this is what you're saying sounds like to my ears: "I personally disagree with the actions of Israel, and won't be happy till the Mossad or their Air Force General Staff in brief me on the intelligence that lead to these two strikes"

 Melissia wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm already in favor of Israel based on time in the middle east and friends and family who live or have lived in Israel.

So you don't know any Palestinians or Palestinian emigrants?

At least you admit that you don't treat the situation fairly or without bias I suppose.

I do. We hammered out a two state solution with a google map and ten minutes. Both of us agreed Hamas had to go for it to work though.

In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.

Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.

Was wondering when you'd show up Nuggz.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Was wondering when you'd show up Nuggz.

I try to steer clear of these threads...spitballing is about as productive as actually engaging in intellectual conversation on these issues, and a lot less time consuming.

I haven't followed the thread, so I'm not sure where it stands, but I'm pretty sure the discussion followed the same trend that these always do. I think the only thing that we can say, at the end of the day, is that Israel's haters are largely irrelevant to the country's existence. No amount of hypocritical moaning by the UN, or least of all clueless space cadets crying on the internet, about how the "evil Zionist occupier" treats the "peaceful Palestinians" is going to change the truth- that Israel has always done, and will always do, what is necessary to ensure its survival, judged in comparison to its neighbors and critics in Europe.

In the IDF we were often given use of force briefings, insanely restrictive ROEs, and restricted operational requirements to minimize the danger to civilians, and every time I thought, "What's the point?". No matter the precautions we take to ensure that the threat to civilians is minimized, they are going to find a way to put civilians in the line of fire, or even intentionally injure them for the cameras. The Palestinian propaganda machine is absolutely insane - you have people willing to put their own kids in harm's way for a 5 second propaganda piece against Israel. So why am I conducting operations in a way that increases risk to my soldiers?

ETA: The good news is that a lot of the things are changing for the best. For example, things that went wrong in 2006 with the war with Hezbollah will not be repeated again. We had a Chief of Staff from the Air Force, so we ended up with a strategic-level response to tactical problems. This caused problems for Lebanon's civilian population and our own soldiers. In Gaza, we had the opposite situation - our Chief of Staff was an infantry officer from Golani. We kicked ass so hard, we actually ended up killing more of each other by accident than soldiers we lost to enemy action.

Aggresive Debaer?

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Az honestly this is what you're saying sounds like to my ears: "I personally disagree with the actions of Israel, and won't be happy till the Mossad or their Air Force General Staff in brief me on the intelligence that lead to these two strikes"

I think that's pretty hyperbolic. It should sound more like: "I don't have much faith in the motivations of Israel, and don't think 'trust us' is a sufficient explanation, nor do I think 'because we can' is a sufficient justification".

I don't necessarily disagree with the actions of Israel in this case; I just disagree with so many of their actions in the past that I'm unwilling to take it on faith that they've acted in a just manner.

BBC news reports that Iran is increasing its level of support to Syria - more troops, logistics etc etc

This could easily escalate into a god awful mess.

I for one hope the UK does not get bogged down in the middle east (again) It is amazing how much of the middle east's problems can be traced back to guys in London drawing lines on a map in the 1920s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.

Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.

Are you suggesting that Israel should be above any criticism?

In a nutshell, yes.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.

Yes. Because dwelling in a geographical locale ruled by an aggressive government means that one is somehow directly responsible for aforementioned government's actions. And therefore is unable to have a moral stance on any other aggressive government's actions.

I mean seriously?

'You live in America therefore you're not allowed to have an opinion on China interfering in Africa, because the American Government is aggressive!'

I know I've never invaded a country...
Well not while sober...

One of my friends accidentally invaded Bosnia (iirc). True story.

Good hustle from him.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.

Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.

Are you suggesting that Israel should be above any criticism?

Quite a few people are.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:BBC news reports that Iran is increasing its level of support to Syria - more troops, logistics etc etc

Oh, super. So Syria gets to be Israel & Iran's own personal Afghanistan, then? Because that worked out so well for the US, USSR & Afghanistan.