SamuraiGuy

(My names Mike btw, and your getting owned Mike, not watch as I step up to the Mic, and molest you with unarguable logic).

(I'd also like to state right now, I have a very busy weekend ahead of me, and its Friday morning, so I dont know how often I will be able to reply, I will reply though, dont worry.)

I will be arguing that Americans should intervene or that Americans need to intervene for the situation to be resolved.

Israel and Palestine are currently at each others throats, and I believe Israel is working hard for a peace agreement or a cease fire. With the 2 hostages palestine has taken it will be difficult for this cease fire to come about. Intervention from the United States could aid return of the hostages, and therefore peace talks. Whether this aim came from military action (United States going in and rescuing hostages) or just the threat of war with United States, is irrelevent. Pressure from the U.S. would hasten the return of the hostages and hasten peace talks.

Israel is also quite concerned with the arsenal palestine has amassed. I belive its Katyusha (sp?) rockets they are amassing along with other missiles. And not only that they have started to use these missiles and rockets already. These missiles are manufactured in Iran if I'm not mistaken and this leads to problems. Iran is currently leaning towards Radical Islamist terroristic ideas, and buying weapons they produce, and using weapons they produce on other Middle Eastern Countries, poses a problem not only for Israel and the Lebanese, but every country in the Middle East, will Iran's agenda prevail?

The main conflict is stemming from the terrorist Hezbollah. Only with help from the U.S. (or the west for that matter) can this terrorist group be stopped before they cause any more destruction, take any more lives, or create more chaos in the middle east. The military might of the U.S is needed to stop these terrorist groups from attacking Israel and peaceful middle easter nations. The Hezzbollah uses their terrorism, their terror, the fear they cause as a weapon (along with rockets to back it up). They understand this fear, and unless they are out of their mind, should fear the united states. The presence of the united states will make them think twice about attacking another peaceful group knowing full well they wont be the biggest dog in the yard anymore.

It's also vital to the other Middle Eastern countries, as blows to terrorist organizations such as Hezzbollah, are blows to Iraqi insurgents and others who would wreak havoc in the middle east. They will realize that this wont be tolerated by the peaceful middle easterns, or the United States. (The west?). And they will realize more than ever, there is consequences for their actions, and that the United States will take a stand against Iraqi insurgents, or if need be Hezbollah or Iran.

One of the few Middle Eastern Countires with the power to stop the Hezzbollah is Syria, as they are providing the armanents being used for the attacks. This isnt in the Syrian interests though, as they support many many terrorist groups, and anyone who supports and aids terrorists might as well be a terrorist. The Syrians can stop the conflict, but they dont want it to end, the conflict needs to be resolved and the U.S. (west) are needed to do it.

And thats it for now.

__________________
"a few User CP's that are pretty significant ones(like a BoarSpear or SamuraiGuy one). " - GracieHunter

I choke people, I dont poke people. -- Me

Were you born to resist or be abused? I swear I'll never give in, I refuse. -- Foo Fighters

I want a girl that spends more time on her back than Royce Gracie.

I'll knee you in the face like your name was Josh Koschek -- Me

Mike Brewer

Alright, then by default, I will argue for the US staying out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I too am going to be gone most of the weekend, so no worries. This will be a long post, as I need to both address your points and then state my own. Please bear with me.

First let me address the points you made. I am going to try and encapsulate them into single sentence statements for simplicity, so if my wording is off, feel free to correct me.

Point #1: You made the point that US pressure on Hezbollah would influence Hezbollah to return the two Israeli soldiers they kidnapped, and that the US's involvement (you said pressure) would motivate Hezbollah to sit down at the peace table.

Point #2: You mentioned that Hezbollah is funded and supplied by Iran, but you didn't tie this in any tangible way to US involvement. You stated the obvious - that Iran is "Radical Leaning." I'd say that is an understatement, at least so far as the government is concerned. But you failed to make any connection between the fact that one radical islamist group helps the other, and how that in any way involves the US.

Point #3: You said that, being a terror organization, Hezbollah should understand fear, and that a US presence would inspire fear in them the same way they are inspiring fear in the Israelis.

Point #4: You argued that Syria could stop the conflict, but that they have no interst in doing so, and that means the US must get involved.

We'll start with point #1.
You've made a completely unfounded assumption in this point. At no time in the history of Israel has any terrorist organization in Lebanon - be it Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Black September, Fatah, or the current thorn in everyone's side - Hezbollah ever negotiated with America or at the end of American gun barrels. What, in your mind, would make that any different today? It is easy to show a pattern by Hezbollah in how they respond to force. In the 1980's we sent US troops into Beirut to quell a situation remarkably similar to this one (with the possible exception that there were far more groups participating). Hezbollah didn't respond by disarming, and they didn't respond by negotiating. They participated in (and very possibly carried out) one of the largest terrorist attacks on US military personnel in history - the bombing of the Marine Barracks. Additionally, their terrorist attacks on the US convinced the powers that be to withdraw from Lebanon. In all likelihood, this bolstered Hezbollah's confidence rather than diminished it. The lesson they learned was that terrorist attacks against America will work if you have the determination to "stick it out." For that reason, I have to say that your logic (if it can be called that after such proof to the contrary) that US military intervention in Lebanon would inspire negotiations and the release of hostages is at its root, flawed.

Point #2 is irrelevant, at least the way it is written, so I'll ignore it. It has nothing to do with whether or not US intervention would help or hurt. Rephrase, make it relevant, and I'll address it. Not to mention the fact that this clearly points out a lack of research on your part. Katyushas are Russian rockets, used since the time of Stalin. They've been bought by a lot of other countries, but were made in Russia - not Iran.

Point #3 is also a dangerous line, and I may need some clarification before I answer you. It would seem to me that you're saying that being a terror organization, Hezbollah would understand and fear US actions. Does that mean you're advocating terrorist action by the US against Hezbollah? An all out military campaign by Israel (using many of the same weapons, tactics, and bombs available to the US) hasn't frightened them at all. In fact, as you pointed out yourself, the rockets keep falling on Israel. So that might lead some to believe that Hezbollah both understands and has NO fear of conventional military might. Yet in your statement, you said they understand fear and would fear the US. If Israel is using the same planes, tactics, bombs, and missiles as we would (since we are the ones who sold them to Israel in the first place), and Hezbollah has no fear of the Israelis, what exactly do you think they'd be afraid of once the paint on the sides of the airplanes changes from a Star of David to the Stars and Stripes? Unless you are suggesting that the US use terror tactics (the kind that Hezbollah uses and understands, to paraphrase your point), I fail to see any evidence whatsoever that Hezbollah would fear US attacks any more than they fear Israeli attacks. There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary. Maybe you can connect those dots for me.

Point #4 is one worth looking at. I do not personally think Syria alone has the might to stop Hezbollah, but we'll deal in facts and not opinions. To that end, I'll need you to provide some evidence that Syria could halt Hezbollah's offensive. As for whether or not it can, will, can't or won't, I'll just draw on some hard facts. Syria's main interest is in Lebanon - the only other non-Muslim nation in the middle east aside from Israel. Hezbollah is not an army of Syria, although they have a vested interest in cooperating with Syria. Hezbollah was started and is funded by Iran (for the most part). If anyone has the clout to stop them from afar, it is Iran, not Syria, and even that is questionable. Which, as it happens, brings me to my own argument -

The US can afford to stay out of this situation and still come out the other side stronger for doing so. Much is made of the current US standing with other nations and that fact that our involvement in Iraq has hurt relations. getting involved militarily in Lebanon would stretch a military that is already short on money, resources, and combat-ready manpower. (sources include Dept. Defense, Dept. State, Strategic Forecasting, Inc., Power and Interest news Report)

It is widely accepted that the use of a nation's military is a last resort. If other options exist to reach an equitable conclusion, then those options should be exhausted first – not only as a matter of moral and ethical responsibility, but also as a matter of law. Right now, conditions exist for the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians in Lebanon to be resolved without US intervention. In fact, the conflict could lead to cooperation among Arab nations and Israel on an unprecedented scale. Arab countries are currently condemning actions by Hezbollah. Let me say that again. Arab Muslims are speaking out against the actions of other Arab Muslims, and they are doing it in favor of Jews in Israel. That is virtually unheard of in the Middle East. Egypt, Jordan (two countries that long ago recognized and made peace with Israel) as well as Arab Muslims all over the Middle East have recognized that Hezbollah is the problem, and they are in a much better position to resolve the conflict than the US will ever be. They have regional credibility, and the fight is in their backyard, over their issues. Given the past relations of the West and the Arab world, US intervention would likely be seen by these groups as “interference by an outside power.” (source: Joint Special Operations University, Middle Eastern Orientation Course Instructor and Middle East specialist, Professor M. Izady)

What’s more, this conflict allows for Iran to come out smelling like roses. The stage is set, between the Arab disapproval of Hezbollah’s actions in Lebanon, the Lebanese Government’s sincere wish to keep their sovereignty and not relinquish their nation to Syrian Rule again, and Iran’s desire to be seen as the Muslim world’s center of gravity for Iran to step in and offer Tehran as the bargaining table. If Iran wants to achieve global recognition and power (and all signals since 1979 point to the idea that it does), Khameini could invite the parties to Tehran for negotiations and broker a peace for the Israeli and Arab world without US intervention. And any peace negotiated among the nations of the Middle East, and for the nations of the Middle East is a lot more likely to stick than any military might the US could throw at the problem.

Now it would be silly to assume that Iran wants to see peace for Israel. After all, their leaders regularly speak out to the contrary. But it is also clear that from 1979 until today, Iran has regularly taken any political option that it views as a way to increase its global influence. Since it funds and supplies Hezbollah, it also has a lot of bargaining weight with Hezbollah, and can therefore negotiate from a much stronger position than anyone else. The key is not dropping US bombs instead of Israeli bombs, but making Tehran see that putting together a peace deal will garner them support across Muslim lines, and will make them a much more valued and trusted member of the International community.

In short, Arab and Muslim support for this cause is what is needed; not another “infidel nation” on the Middle Eastern Battlefield. This is a matter or keeping an eye on the goal. If peace is the goal, we should not care who brokers it. If a lasting peace can be brokered by Iran and other Muslim nations without US intervention, we should sit quietly and support it from afar. Sending in troops to get things done "our way" is the kind of arrogance that nearly always leads to more problems.

See you Monday.

SamuraiGuy

There is a reason military involvement would change the mind of the Hezzbollah, even if it hasnt in the past. Sure the U.S sold Israel planes/bombs/etc... but that doesnt mean Israel has enough of them, has the knowledge, tactics, and skill to use them like the Americans do. Sure sending in American troops hasnt done much in the past, because they havent sent in enough, a more stoic stance, where the Americans refuse to leave when they get bombed, and go in there with the attitude that they ARE going to get Hezzbollah. In your statement your saying Israeli military isnt doing any good, so how could American military. Do you really think they are equal, in power and reputation. So what if Hezzbollah blew up a barracks 20 years ago, it doesnt mean they think they can withstand American assault. Heck Canada burned down the WHITEHOUSE (hows that for a confidence builder), do you think we want to get into a military battle with the States. Do you think anyone wants to get into a War with the united states. I doubt it.

My mistake on the Katyusha's, I meant to say they were bought in Iran, not manufactured, still a technicality though. And it doesnt change my point. (there is a point in there). First of all the Hezbollah being backed by Iran gives it more military power than before, therefore bringing the United States in, is one of the only ways you can match this power. Israel cannot deal with an Iranian backed Hezzbollah.

As I stated before when defending my first point, the American army is not the same as the Israeli army. (Krav Maga anyone? lol). More guns, more rockets, more planes, better tactics (this is an assumption, but I think its a fairly safe one), better soldiers, etc. They may have the same things but they dont use them like the U.S. would... if you give Mike_Brewer an assault rifle, and give SamuraiGuy an assault rifle... and tell them to fight it out (Brewer being America in this example, SamuraiGuy being Israel), I'm gonna get slaughtered before I even figure out which end the bullets come out of (thats an exxagerration, but kinda close, I'd be fucked after that little bit).

Same weapons doesnt mean same army.

Now to adress your points.

If your saying the U.S will come out of this situation stronger military wise then I agree with you. Assault on another front would stretch the military, but are we looking at this topic as "Is it profitable for the united states to intervene in this crisis" or are we looking at is "Is it neccessary for the united states to intervene to resolve the situation" I'm not looking at the best way to profit America, I'm looking to profit, the world, the middle east. America like it or not has made themselves the champions of the war on terror, therefore when a terrorrist group is attacking another nation, they should feel compelled to act. "We are going into afghanistan to stop the terrorists, we are going into Iraq to stop the terrorrists... but the Hezbollah... well we are kinda busy, so they can do what they want".

And you say that if Iran tries to make peace, then peace will come in the Middle East, a peace far longer than any an American army could provide. The problem with this, is this will be like, all the peace deals, all the cease fires, the peace agreement will not hold up, it simply wont. Whether or not an American laid peace will hold up is yet to be seen, but as history teaches us, they always find a reason to start wars, blow each other up, and claim "their" territory. Another faulty peace agreement is not what the middle east needs.

You also said Iran woould come out smelling like roses, and gain favor in the international community, and this is why you think they would want to make peace. Why would you want to give Iran an opportunity to become more powerful? That seems detrimental to the good of the western world.

In your last point, you say "if a lasting peace can be brokered" well thats just not going to happen, history shows us that the fighting wont stop, the fighting will continue, someone will go over the border, someone will be taken hostage, and cities will be bombed. The need for intervention is there.

And while it may seem like arrogance, sending in troops our way, may be the only way to get peace, they havent been able to create it for themselves.

__________________
"a few User CP's that are pretty significant ones(like a BoarSpear or SamuraiGuy one). " - GracieHunter

I choke people, I dont poke people. -- Me

Were you born to resist or be abused? I swear I'll never give in, I refuse. -- Foo Fighters

I want a girl that spends more time on her back than Royce Gracie.

I'll knee you in the face like your name was Josh Koschek -- Me

Mike Brewer

The first point you made is again flawed. As I pointed out, Hezbollah has never shown any fear of the US military, and when we have stepped up our presence in the region, they have only attacked harder. You keep making this assertion that a US presence would intimidate them, but all evidence is to the contrary. I'm afraid you'll have to show me some evidence of past US actions against Hezbollah that inspired fear and capitulation if this point is going to be seen as valid. As it stands, you are making your point based on an unfounded opinion that stands in contradiction to the facts. Moreover, I didn't say that the Israelis are doing nothing - I simply said that despite all they are doing, they haven't created any fear in Hezbollah either. And then you went on to say that the Canadians burned down the White House. So if we can't even intimidate the Canadians into leaving us alone, how are we going to intimidate radical Muslims that have fought us on that same ground before, and who made us leave through terrorism? Please clarify this point with some factual evidence, or conceed that intimidation of Hezbollah is not something that's likely to happen.

Your points on Iran are noted. Israel can indeed deal with Iran. Israel is a nuclear power, and Iran isn't. Israel has far more of the world on its side than does Iran, which means that it can draw far more support for its efforts than Iran. However, Israel may only be able to deal with Iran as long as the US stays out of things. Right now, we're looking at two small groups fighting their own war. To the Arab world, the US stepping in militarily would justify the same measure by Iran. Our involvement might actually give them the reason they are looking for to get involved. What's more, US involvement would most likely cloud the issue when it came to the hands-on support of other nations. Already, we can see that the US involvement at the diplomatic level has turned away those Arab states that were crying out agtainst Hezbollah. For many Arab nations, preserving a peace established through treaties with Israel is one thing - backing the Americans is another entirely. US involvement has already taken a toll, and it is demonstrable. (US State Dept.)

Finally, you mentioned something that is at the heart of my argument. You said you were not looking at this in terms of what would be the most profitable, but in terms of what should be done? You also stated that peace in the region is the goal, right? Well, by that logic, peace attained by anyone should be seen as an acceptable outcome. Once again, Iran is staying removed from the situation in part because we have provided them with no reason to get involved. What's more, they know full well they don't have to be the ones who make the peace work - they just have to provide a venue. They understand that a "Tehran Conference" would win much support in the Arab world. And again, Iran has shown clearly by its actions (even recently with its acceptance of nuclear enrichment limitations in exchange for a little political power) that it is more concerned with power and influence than with weapons and war. Most of the Iranian populace seems to want to stay out of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict too (CNN, PINR, BBC). What you have in Iran is a largely pro-west majority with the potential for stopping the conflict. You have the potential for saving thousands of lives, and making something happen that will be not only accepted, but honored by the Muslim world. By your statement (what we should do as opposed to what is most profitable), we should accept the best options for peace that exist - and those are options that involve the Muslim Middle East in the solution. You can see by glancing therough your morning paper that support for US military efforts to bring peace to Iraq and Afghanistan are not being received well. What makes you think US military action in Lebanon would be any different? You said "We are going into afghanistan to stop the terrorists, we are going into Iraq to stop the terrorrists... but the Hezbollah... well we are kinda busy, so they can do what they want". I say that we should look at those other actions and see that the results we've attained are far from the results we wanted. Going after Hezbollah in the same way and expecting a different result would be silly. We should be smart enough to see when a tactic isn't working and change it. In this case, a change is what's needed.

Mike Brewer

It's been three days! What are you doing? Waiting for the war to be over to debate this?

Mike Brewer

Okay seriously. We're in the fifth day since your last reply?

One more and I'm reading it as:

"SamuraiGuy throws in the towel and admits his complete debating impotence and total defeat at the hands of Brewer."

SamuraiGuy

See my PM as a reply to your above post.

You'll notice this is the first thing I'ved posted in 5 days I would imagine.

Edit; Bear with me here. Or wait, I'll go along with your logic... Everyone Mike_Brewer lost the debate when he refused to participate, weeks or months ago, he said he'd create a topic, but he didnt, he hid until I called him out on it, he said he was "sick".


Now doesnt that sound dumb. Thats my point. Dont get your panties in a bunch.

__________________
"a few User CP's that are pretty significant ones(like a BoarSpear or SamuraiGuy one). " - GracieHunter

I choke people, I dont poke people. -- Me

Were you born to resist or be abused? I swear I'll never give in, I refuse. -- Foo Fighters

I want a girl that spends more time on her back than Royce Gracie.

I'll knee you in the face like your name was Josh Koschek -- Me

Mike Brewer

Glad you're back.

I liked your last post, too. Now are you going to post anything related to the debate?

SamuraiGuy

Hey, I'll stop keeping you waiting.

Sorry but I'm far too busy to do this.. I have exactly 3 minutes until I go to another Judo class... 2012 it will pay off hopefully.

So I'm hereby admitting pure and utter defeat to Brewer, whether by default, or logic. Whichever he wants. I think it was pretty obvious he was going to win, but that was never the point.

I just don't have the time right now to actually research and think about this, and if I can't do something right, what point in doing it is there.

__________________
"a few User CP's that are pretty significant ones(like a BoarSpear or SamuraiGuy one). " - GracieHunter

I choke people, I dont poke people. -- Me

Were you born to resist or be abused? I swear I'll never give in, I refuse. -- Foo Fighters

I want a girl that spends more time on her back than Royce Gracie.

I'll knee you in the face like your name was Josh Koschek -- Me

Mike Brewer

Hey Samurai,
For the record, I say we call this one a draw for the simple fact that we're both busy people, and all I was going for was the educational value anyway. You made me argue the side I don't believe in, and so you made me do a lot of digging on the opposing viewpoint, which taught me a lot. I still support US involvement, but I'm a lot better educated because of this.

Besides, you proved a point that goes way beyond the debate itself - and that's that two people can talk politics - even sensitive current issues - without getting stupid and personal about it. One of these days when our wives leave us and we retire and have nothing to do, we'll come back and do it again.

Thanks.

SamuraiGuy

Eh, lets just hope its not the same topic if we ever do come back to it.

Plus, I picked my side for that very reason haha.

__________________
"a few User CP's that are pretty significant ones(like a BoarSpear or SamuraiGuy one). " - GracieHunter

I choke people, I dont poke people. -- Me

Were you born to resist or be abused? I swear I'll never give in, I refuse. -- Foo Fighters

I want a girl that spends more time on her back than Royce Gracie.

I'll knee you in the face like your name was Josh Koschek -- Me

Mike Brewer

Like I said, my hat's off to you! I really appreciate people who can intelligently argue a point without breaking down into the schoolyard nonsense that happens so often, and who are willing to research, study, and educate themselves so that they can articulate their beliefs. It shows you're willing to learn about yourself, and that you can entertain an idea, even if it conflicts with what you believe.

Thanks for participating. Maybe next time, you can pick the topic and I'll pick the stance.

SamuraiGuy

If you find the time, let me know what your arguments for my side would have been. You mentioned thats the side you actually support, so I'm interested in hearing them.

As for arguing on your side... I've got nothing, except probably what you posted reworded... lol.

__________________
"a few User CP's that are pretty significant ones(like a BoarSpear or SamuraiGuy one). " - GracieHunter

I choke people, I dont poke people. -- Me

Were you born to resist or be abused? I swear I'll never give in, I refuse. -- Foo Fighters

I want a girl that spends more time on her back than Royce Gracie.

I'll knee you in the face like your name was Josh Koschek -- Me