The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 08-16-2006, 08:54 AM

Tw is an avowed enemy of extremism and big-dic-ism. But not really, right? Because a speech like Nasrallah's Death To America speech is 100%, undeniably, extremism and big-dic-ism.

Israel, in his position, dare not use any level of force to achieve its goal, because it is theoretically the 800 pound gorilla in the region and has the general support and backing of the 1600 pound gorilla across the ocean.

(When Hez is being equipped with anti-tank and long-range munitions by its own 400-pound gorilla... well we overlook that part, for some reason.)

The expression of that power is scary, because simply holding power and authority, the worst anyone can do is to exercise it without restraint. As we sometimes note, to have power means to have responsibility. But you know, the responsibility is in the hands of the citizens. Because in a democracy, the restraint created by a voting citizenry exercizing its decisions and representing its interests does count.

As is often pointed out by the neo-cons, there has never been a war between two democratic countries.

But I guess what the voters say this time doesn't matter. The votes are "manipulated" by propaganda from the side they don't agree with - usually called the minority, but never mind all that. Even the peace movement in Israel is somehow manipulated this time, but never mind all that.

(And the people in the square, being addressed by Nasrallah and chanting Death to America, are not being manipulated?)

To that side, to have nuclear weapons and not ever brandish or test them is still unacceptable... and to not have them and suggest that once you do have them, the state of Israel will be wiped off the map, is acceptable. Not extreme, not big dic.

Is the expression of ANY power, by a powerful country, "extreme"? Is there ALWAYS a diplomatic answer?

The answer to that one, is an exercise once again left for the reader. But one last historical note. When we last left tw he was saying that it's all good for an armed, dangerous, extreme, big-dic militia to take over in Lebanon because after all Israel invaded earlier and was far too harsh in the expression of its power. (though not as harsh as the sectarian factions in Lebanon, who committed far worse massacres...)

He has a case, I admit, if you accept this notion of "original sin" in international relations. Of course, if you do, there is no action that Israel can take whatsoever except to negotiate with an organization whose stated goal is the termination of its existence, and who derives most of its power from its willingness to commit violence in the name of Shia Islam. Yeah I don't think that will work out so well.

He must of course be against the overthrow of the Taliban, because plenty of "original sin" can be found in the history of the US actions as well.

08-16-2006, 08:54 AM	#242
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Tw is an avowed enemy of extremism and big-dic-ism. But not really, right? Because a speech like Nasrallah's Death To America speech is 100%, undeniably, extremism and big-dic-ism. Israel, in his position, dare not use any level of force to achieve its goal, because it is theoretically the 800 pound gorilla in the region and has the general support and backing of the 1600 pound gorilla across the ocean. (When Hez is being equipped with anti-tank and long-range munitions by its own 400-pound gorilla... well we overlook that part, for some reason.) The expression of that power is scary, because simply holding power and authority, the worst anyone can do is to exercise it without restraint. As we sometimes note, to have power means to have responsibility. But you know, the responsibility is in the hands of the citizens. Because in a democracy, the restraint created by a voting citizenry exercizing its decisions and representing its interests does count. As is often pointed out by the neo-cons, there has never been a war between two democratic countries. But I guess what the voters say this time doesn't matter. The votes are "manipulated" by propaganda from the side they don't agree with - usually called the minority, but never mind all that. Even the peace movement in Israel is somehow manipulated this time, but never mind all that. (And the people in the square, being addressed by Nasrallah and chanting Death to America, are not being manipulated?) To that side, to have nuclear weapons and not ever brandish or test them is still unacceptable... and to not have them and suggest that once you do have them, the state of Israel will be wiped off the map, is acceptable. Not extreme, not big dic. Is the expression of ANY power, by a powerful country, "extreme"? Is there ALWAYS a diplomatic answer? The answer to that one, is an exercise once again left for the reader. But one last historical note. When we last left tw he was saying that it's all good for an armed, dangerous, extreme, big-dic militia to take over in Lebanon because after all Israel invaded earlier and was far too harsh in the expression of its power. (though not as harsh as the sectarian factions in Lebanon, who committed far worse massacres...) He has a case, I admit, if you accept this notion of "original sin" in international relations. Of course, if you do, there is no action that Israel can take whatsoever except to negotiate with an organization whose stated goal is the termination of its existence, and who derives most of its power from its willingness to commit violence in the name of Shia Islam. Yeah I don't think that will work out so well. He must of course be against the overthrow of the Taliban, because plenty of "original sin" can be found in the history of the US actions as well.