: Calling for a ceasefire is bad because...


Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 02:37 PM
... it could potentially help save Canadian lives.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 03:03 PM
because...it offers nothing and says, "You're equally responsible for this children, now just stop it."

If only great statemen had just taken that approach to every war, the world would "potentially" be better? Attack, defend, get chided by some vacuous foreign politicians. Yep, just great because it demonstrates the grasp that foreign nations have of the situation. They've identified fighting as bad.

Saying a ceasefire is a top priority, and that the prisoners must be returned immediately as THE first step, would be an example of something with a little more meaning and consideration beyond today's news.

That's got what some would call an Israeli-bias, so there's probably an equivalent from another point of view.

Either way, a first step needs to be identified: leaders sitting down together, prisoners returned, something, otherwise it's just, at best, irrelevant.

ArtistSeries
Jul 20th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Israel needs more time to get rid of it's stockpile of bombs so that it can ask for more US foreign Aid?

The US is welcoming this distraction from all the fun and games in Iraq?

Steve need another photo opt, and need an excuse to make a big fanfare when he will send humanitarian aid? I mean Canada sends....

Crisis, what crisis?

Hezbollah wanted to remodel southern Lebanon but could not afford the demotion fee - just a few more days and they can start rebuilding.

Hezbollah is trying to impress that cute nation called Iran...

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 03:42 PM
There it is folks... an act of political leadership that could potentially help Canadians under attack and running from war in Lebanon offers nothing. You heard it straight from Beej. I'm sure the Canadians in Lebanon adore your stance to sit back, watch the violence escalate.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 03:47 PM
There it is folks... an act of political leadership that could potentially help Canadians under attack and running from war in Lebanon offers nothing. You heard it straight from Beej. I'm sure the Canadians in Lebanon adore your stance to sit back, watch the violence escalate.

I think you're having trouble comprehending what's going on, so you've narrowed your scope to a manageable size for yourself. Whatever works for you.

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 03:48 PM
Fine avoid the question. Everyone can see that you are refusing to call for peace, for an end to violence. If that's your position and your comfortable with it, good for you.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 03:57 PM
Fine avoid the question. Everyone can see that you are refusing to call for peace, for an end to violence. If that's your position and your comfortable with it, good for you.

I'm refusing to fall into the trap of vacuous statements and empty gestures. I've told you the problems with your proposition, as I see them.

I've also clearly stated what a meaningful ceasefire request could look like.
I've also posted an interesting quote from the Saudis (in another thread?).

I've tried to impress upon you how irrelevant it is to just say, "Fighting is bad.", and how it can even be damaging to say that because of what it implies (it implies more than what you're claiming). And yet, you continue and don't discuss points made about such isolated empty statements.

This is a very familiar style.

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:40 PM
I've also clearly stated what a meaningful ceasefire request could look like.

If it makes you feel any better and the word "meaningful" to the call for a ceasefire so it reads "meaningful ceasefire". Does that solve your issues with it?

Got forbid that lives are saved or lost because politicians quibbled about exact wording. Not that you are a politician. Thankfully.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Got forbid that lives are saved or lost because politicians quibbled about exact wording.

It's about the content of statement. Have I been unclear about that? If it is essentially just, "Stop (fighting bad)." the statement can do harm in its implications (which go beyond what you're talking about). You seem to believe that our words "potentially" can matter; can you see how they can have unintended consequences that exist beyond today's news?

In another thread mikeinmontreal has already raised the issue of implications for what we say about events elsewhere in the world, I've talked about implications for what it says about our Middle East policy. This is foreign policy, not the playground. It is a case where, "I learned everything I need to know in kindergarten" does not apply.

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:46 PM
I'm refusing to fall into the trap of vacuous statements and empty gestures. I've told you the problems with your proposition, as I see them.


Is it an empty gesture to tell the warring parties to take care not to kill any of the tens of thousands of citizens that Canada has over in Lebanon? Maybe a ceasefire would help keep our citizens save. I wonder what the first step in obtaining a ceasefire is?... I don't know... maybe CALLING for a ceasefire. How bout sorting out the details of a ceasefire, while we call for it.

No, no, that's too childish.

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Our country should do everything it can to protect its citizens. Surely calling for a ceasefire fits nicely into that mandate. Or do I have to remind you that a Canadian family has already died as a result of the war making? Tens of thousands of other Canadians are terrified and suffering trying to flee the area. Think of them.

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:52 PM
In general, Beej, do you have any problems if a ceasefire existed?

If that question is too general for you:
Do you have any problems if a ceasefire existed that didn't meet your exact terms.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:53 PM
Think of them.

It would be more helpful to think of how to actually help them, not just 'think of them'. That's the difference.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 04:54 PM
In general, Beej, do you have any problems if a ceasefire existed?

If that question is too general for you:
Do you have any problems if a ceasefire existed that didn't meet your exact terms.

Why don't you finally address my comments for a change? Wouldn't want to be accused of 'avoiding', now would you?

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 05:15 PM
It would be more helpful to think of how to actually help them, not just 'think of them'. That's the difference.

How bout sorting out the details of a ceasefire, while we call for it.

The government can make arrangements for evacuations as it calls for a ceasefire to protect Canadians in Lebanon at the same time. It can also help to work out details of ceasefire, or work with nations at the international level who can broker such a ceasefire. It's not just "thinking of them". You seem to believe my idea is to have government call for an end to violence and just walk away. That's not the case. Obviously the government has to arrange for the evacuation and rescue of its citizens. Arrange... and execute the evacuations.

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 05:17 PM
Why don't you finally address my comments for a change? Wouldn't want to be accused of 'avoiding', now would you?

What items would you like me to address? I'll try to address them for you. For the sake of ease or reply, it might be beneficial to put them in a list all in one post.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 05:18 PM
The government can make arrangements for evacuations as it calls for a ceasefire to protect Canadians in Lebanon at the same time. It can also help to work out details of ceasefire, or work with nations at the international level who can broker such a ceasefire. It's not just "thinking of them". You seem to believe my idea is have government call for an end to violence and just walk away. That's not the case. Obviously the government has to arrange for the evacuation and rescue of its citizens. Arrange... and execute the evacuations.

That was understood and assumed. I was merely making a quick point about substance. I should have included a smiley.

So will you address my point about the potential harm from an empty ceasefire statement?

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 05:20 PM
What items would you like me to address? I'll try to address them for you. For the sake of ease or reply, it might be beneficial to put them in a list all in one post.

You characterise a ceasefire statement as, I think, at worst doing nothing but potentially doing something. I see an empty one (I've been clear regarding a meaningful one) as, at best, doing nothing but potentially being harmful beyond the news of the day.

Describe why you disagree with that concept or think it's of a lesser risk than the potential for good, please.

HowEver
Jul 20th, 2006, 05:24 PM
There it is folks... an act of political leadership that could potentially help Canadians under attack and running from war in Lebanon offers nothing. You heard it straight from Beej. I'm sure the Canadians in Lebanon adore your stance to sit back, watch the violence escalate.

Boys, boys, get a room!

Perhaps you could comment on the Canadians in Israel being bombed by Hezbollah, or those that die on buses and in restaurants or on campuses when Hamas sends their bombers in.

There will be protest after protest about what Israel is doing, and very little mention about why. Sadly, your original post qualifies in this regard.

ArtistSeries
Jul 20th, 2006, 05:32 PM
There will be protest after protest about what Israel is doing, and very little mention about why.
Goes both ways don't you think? Or will you be looking at a very narrow slice of time?

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 06:21 PM
Perhaps you could comment on the Canadians in Israel being bombed by Hezbollah, or those that die on buses and in restaurants or on campuses when Hamas sends their bombers in.

Sure, no problem. Canada can add its voice to the growing number of nations calling for a ceasefire. Those international folks put the pressure where it needs to be put and lets say (hopefully) a ceasefire happens. Canadians in Israel and Lebanon both benefit from cessation of hostiles and violence. The Canadians in Lebanon would probably benefit the most since this is where most of the Canadians are and where most of the war is happening. This repreive gives everybody time and opportunity to flee the country if they choose, incase hostiles occur again (which is likely).

The families of those Canadians that die in Israel or Lebanon will likely find little justice. It is criminal to attack innocent civillians and those acts are condemned. Whether it's a Hamaz suicide bomber, a Hezzbolah rocket laucher, or a Israeli warplane dropping bombs... the attacks on civillians are to be condemned.

Some have suggested that the Canadians in Lebanon should have known better if they were going to take the risks and travel to such a war-torn and unstable country. The same could be said for Canadians in Israel.

I hope that answers your question. Let me know if its unclear.

Paul O'Keefe
Jul 20th, 2006, 06:31 PM
So will you address my point about the potential harm from an empty ceasefire statement?

We disagree whether such a statement would be empty? I don't think it would be empty. Calling for a ceasefire of all sides seems neutral to me. Doing as the US and the UK has done and standing firmly behind Israel seems to me to be for harmful to our neutrality in this arena and our traditional value of being see as a peacemaker. The potential harm is that we could be seen as taking sides with Israel as a ally and then be open to attacks from groups who have declared violence on Israel and its allies.

I see no harm in calling for an end to violence. No political harm. No military harm. No economic harm.

Harm can come from a rescue mission for our citizens in Lebanon. Our "charted cruiseships" could be attacked or detained by militarie or militia groups. We should have armed escorts of this rescue ships by our own military or military of NATO. But even having our own military ships in the area could be misconstrued as being a thread to one side or another.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 06:36 PM
Calling for a ceasefire of all sides seems neutral to me.
........
I see no harm in calling for an end to violence. No political harm. No military harm. No economic harm.


These are a couple reasons why I wanted this notion discussed earlier. Our disagreement is quite fundamental regarding harm and neutral (neutral between two sides being preferred, other 'values' promoted and other messy discussion topics). It's good to clear that up for certain. Again, quite a fundamental disagreement that can be understood but hardly ever, in my experience, rectified.

Beej
Jul 20th, 2006, 06:39 PM
Paul, your thoughts on this with regards to the 'no harm' statements:
.....
You seem to believe that our words "potentially" can matter; can you see how they can have unintended consequences that exist beyond today's news?
.....

Greenlion
Jul 20th, 2006, 08:01 PM
Paul, your thoughts on this with regards to the 'no harm' statements:
.....
You seem to believe that our words "potentially" can matter; can you see how they can have unintended consequences that exist beyond today's news?
.....

I think what Beej is trying to say is that Israel won't get to sufficiently "degrade" or in plain English, destroy, enough of the "bad guys" if there is a ceasefire now. And perhaps he worries that this will "embolden" said bad guys to try and support their Palestinian cousins - oops I mean wipe Israel off the map - in the near future.

I'm guessing on this, and I could be wrong.

Of course the real long term view would be able to see the true folly of Israeli actions. They create more justified fear and hatred in Lebanon and amongst their moderate neighbours, and create further need amongst the decimated populace for an outfit like Hizbollah.

But like I said before, until the US decides it doesn't like the PR spin on their direct complicity in innocent slaughter, people will keep dying.

And judging from Iraq and Afghanistan, I wouldn't be holding my breath for a break anytime soon.

ArtistSeries
Jul 20th, 2006, 08:06 PM
I think what Beej is trying to say is that Israel won't get to sufficiently "degrade" or in plain English, destroy, enough of the "bad guys" if there is a ceasefire now. And perhaps he worries that this will "embolden" said bad guys to try and support their Palestinian cousins - oops I mean wipe Israel off the map - in the near future.
It's too bad that Israel can't learn from the past.
Their present actions in Lebanon (instead of dialogue) will only plant the seeds of another generation of "freedom fighters"/"terrorists"/"fanatics"....

HowEver
Jul 20th, 2006, 08:32 PM
As opposed to what? Sitting back and letting Lebanon, or Lebanon's "guests" at least, bomb them over and over?

Oh, perhaps some more dialogue will help, while the rockets reign down.

Israel has also asked for a ceasefire. There have been no takers.


It's too bad that Israel can't learn from the past.
Their present actions in Lebanon (instead of dialogue) will only plant the seeds of another generation of "freedom fighters"/"terrorists"/"fanatics"....

MACSPECTRUM
Jul 20th, 2006, 08:34 PM
It's too bad that Israel can't learn from the past.
Their present actions in Lebanon (instead of dialogue) will only plant the seeds of another generation of "freedom fighters"/"terrorists"/"fanatics"....

sadly, that will probably come true
but is good news for military hardware manufacturers and oil companies

nxnw
Jul 20th, 2006, 09:14 PM
It's too bad that Israel can't learn from the past.
Their present actions in Lebanon (instead of dialogue) will only plant the seeds of another generation of "freedom fighters"/"terrorists"/"fanatics"....So Israel is also responsible for Iran, Al Qaeda, the Taliban?

Thanks for clearing that up. Now we know there would be no Islamist extremism, if not for Israel. Everything from obesity to Apple's low market share is probably Israel's fault, too.

And greenlion, I am offended by your derisive characterizations in your last post, minimizing Hezbollah's genocidal agenda, with your talk of "bad guys", and so on. Is this what you feel is naughty? if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah quoted in a Lebanese paper (http://web.archive.org/web/20021024133755/http:/www.dailystar.com.lb/23_10_02/art5.asp). "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."Nasrallah quoted in The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2006/07/14/1152637865649.html)

ArtistSeries
Jul 20th, 2006, 09:31 PM
So Israel is also responsible for Iran, Al Qaeda, the Taliban?

Thanks for clearing that up. Now we know there would be no Islamist extremism, if not for Israel.
You are (once again) distorting my views.
Hezbollah partially came about because of Israeli actions and policy in Lebanon.

Furthermore, US and at times Israeli foreign policy has had the opposite effect wanted.
Once, Iran and The Taliban were enemies - the Taliban was almost wiped out - strengthening Iran.
Iraq and Iran were enemies - US policy has removed another of Iran's enemies.

The extremists have been empowered.
The region is destabilized.

MACSPECTRUM
Jul 20th, 2006, 09:38 PM
I believe the CIA call it "blowback"

nxnw
Jul 20th, 2006, 09:53 PM
You are (once again) distorting my views. I don't think I am. You said that Israel is planting the seeds of Islamist extremism when, it seems to me, those seeds are coming from other places, like Iran.

Now, it wasn't fair saying you were blaming Israel for Apple's low (but improving!) market share. In truth, they are actually helping the market share, in that the MacBook and MacBook Pro CPUs were developed at Intel Haifa.

ArtistSeries
Jul 20th, 2006, 10:44 PM
I don't think I am. You said that Israel is planting the seeds of Islamist extremism when, it seems to me, those seeds are coming from other places, like Iran.
Wow, now I actually have to quote myself because of your distortions.


It's too bad that Israel can't learn from the past.
Their present actions in Lebanon (instead of dialogue) will only plant the seeds of another generation of "freedom fighters"/"terrorists"/"fanatics"....

You are (once again) distorting my views.
Hezbollah partially came about because of Israeli actions and policy in Lebanon.


Furthermore, US and at times Israeli foreign policy has had the opposite effect wanted.
Once, Iran and The Taliban were enemies - the Taliban was almost wiped out - strengthening Iran.
Iraq and Iran were enemies - US policy has removed another of Iran's enemies.

The extremists have been empowered.
The region is destabilized.

https://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=427604&postcount=26
https://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=427643&postcount=30

What Israel is planting in Lebanon is another generation that will likely resent and hate them. They will gravitate towards any ideology that promises revenge.

US foreign policy and their domino effect of democracy has not worked. Look at Iraq.

nxnw
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:45 PM
US foreign policy and their domino effect of democracy has not worked. Look at Iraq.How's this for an alternative theory. Under Sadam, Iraq was a brutal, but secular, dictatorship. Dissent, notably the dissent of radical Islamists, was crushed. With the dictatorship gone, the genie is out of the bottle.

I think that is a much more reasonable view of Iraq situation than the idea that the US came in and made everyone go crazy.

ArtistSeries
Jul 20th, 2006, 11:56 PM
How's this for an alternative theory. Under Sadam, Iraq was a brutal, but secular, dictatorship. Dissent, notably the dissent of radical Islamists, was crushed. With the dictatorship gone, the genie is out of the bottle.

I think that is a much more reasonable view of Iraq situation than the idea that the US came in and made everyone go crazy.
Why would it have to be an alternative theory?
(In a valley girl voice): Like duh!

So how's that democracy thing working out? Has it spread like expected?

MACSPECTRUM
Jul 22nd, 2006, 08:40 AM
How's this for an alternative theory. Under Sadam, Iraq was a brutal, but secular, dictatorship. Dissent, notably the dissent of radical Islamists, was crushed. With the dictatorship gone, the genie is out of the bottle.

I think that is a much more reasonable view of Iraq situation than the idea that the US came in and made everyone go crazy.

you mean the same evil dictator that Rumsfeld gleefully shook hands with, and sold arms to, when he was in the Reagan admin?


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm


U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam