Helping to pay for war damages

The UN, in Resolution 1701, agreed to help pay for damages Lebanon sustained in the recent war, but has not even considered doing so for Israel.  You could argue that Lebanon is a non-combatant that got caught in the middle.  I think, though, this is a difficult argument to sustain considering that Lebanon created a safe haven and a base of operations for Hezbollah.  To me, the more compelling argument is that a UN member nation was attacked by a terrorist organization, and the UN should step in to help out economically.  In any event, if you incline to the latter argument, you can sign a petition calling for UN financial aid to Israel.

By the way, I recognize that this is a symbolic exercise only.  When one remembers that the UN was busy making available to Hezbollah information about Israeli troop positions, I can’t easily imagine it ponying up money to help Israel recover from Hezbollah’s successful missile strikes.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    It’s not that the UN hates Israel. It is just that if the UN did reconstruction in Israel, the UN would be unable to skim the top off. In Lebanon, they can pay a small bribe, give out a small cut, and get loads of kickbacks from reconstruction contracts.

    Non-Corrupt countries are a pain in the arse, if you want to make a little side deal for your retirement. Why would it be in your interests to have honest competition when you can get good odds in Lebanon?

    People tend to look at international affairs and project their local environment to the international environment. If their friends and etc work together et cetra, they’ll believe the international world can work together for the better of all. What people don’t realize is that their little community doesn’t scale up, because there is no uber police, central government, and military to MAKE people cooperate. Without order, we have chaos and bribes and so forth.

  2. mamapajamas says

    Y, you’ve spoken an Incontrovertible Truth with this: “What people don’t realize is that their little community doesn’t scale up, because there is no uber police, central government, and military to MAKE people cooperate.”

    I’ve been applying this same argument to socialistic systems for decades now. If you’re in a situation where you know everyone else on a first name basis, welfare, for instance, works. You KNOW the derelict who will drink or dope away money so you give food instead, you KNOW how many kids a needy mother has and what her situation is, etc. But when you get to the stage where you don’t know everyone, fraud slips in very easily. The point where it breaks down is the point where you don’t know everyone.

  3. Nick Hooper says

    I agree that some people tend to look at international problems and assume that their community will scale up, largely because many of these people have never been outside their communities.
    The Lebanese to not like Hezbolah on their front lawn. They don’t have a choice. And at any rate Hezbolah fighters are no more evil or ‘terrorist’ than any legitimate soldier of a nation state. They are just fighting their corner as best they can. These people live in hopeless poverty, leave alone the fact that their nation and faith are insulted by the west and by israel every day. The United states and many other countries including my own have comitted far worse atrocities than Hezbolah, with far less justification.
    There can be no Uber police to govern such things. It is a war. Not a ‘war on terror’ (none of us believe that propoganda), but a war on anyone who threatens to destabalise areas of the world that are strategically important to the United States.

    I don’t blame you for holding conservative views. Just don’t come across like you/israel are the victims and like you honestly believe you have the moral high ground. Israel, the United States and Hezbolah are morally equivalent. They are each defending their beliefs and way of life with violence.

  4. says

    Nick, there is no moral equivalence between a group that would like not to be murdered, and takes defensive steps; and a group whose entire goal is the murder of a nation, and the subjugation of all other people.

  5. says

    Brazil is ranked 72nd on poverty while Pales is ranked 71nd. Why isn’t the Brazillians capping people because they live in hopeless poverty?

    leave alone the fact that their nation and faith are insulted by the west and by israel every day.

    I do believe they will feel better once I introduce mass executions. At least they will be dead, free from the shame of facing the insults, and enjoying their just rewards under Allah’s care. People complain, true, but there’s always a solution to their complaints.

    It’s propaganda. It isn’t about “props” like Hizbollah freedom fighters. It is about propagation based upon daggers, cloak, and lies.

    Just don’t come across like you/israel are the victims and like you honestly believe you have the moral high ground.

    We do have the moral high ground, but everyone who should know me would know that I don’t really care much for the moral high ground. That high ground is pretty useless, unlike tactical or strategic environmental high grounds like hills and what not. Those are useful. Moral high grounds? A bunch of props that should be knocked down.

    They are each defending their beliefs and way of life with violence.

    You haven’t seen the US do violence yet, hooper. You’re basing your beliefs on the ridiculous 5% the US is exerting and believing it is comparable to the 105% that Hizbollah is exerting in terms of force, killings, death, and violence. Ridiculous on the face.

    When the US operates 100% consistent with JACKSONIAN impulses, and Hizbollah starts defending their beliefs and their way of life with violence, then you can talk about us being equal with the other. But of course, by that time, Hizbollah will have been wiped off the face of the history of the earth. It would be a little bit moot by then, I believe, to talk about who is equal to whom.

    The solution is obvious. You can convince Hooper that he is wrong, by making it truly equivalent. And when Hooper sees what true equivalence is, he will be unable to construct any additional bridges of retreat. Hooper, because he has not seen the true violence of the US, believes he is able to judge with objectivity and fairness of standard. Show him the true violence, the true limitations of humanity, and he will sing a different tune. He will have no choice, not even the most stubborn of people would be able to ignore the unrestricted power of the strongest nation in the history of this earth, once demonstrated. Seeing is believing. That is the power of propaganda melded with hard power. There is no weakness, there is no defense, there is no retreat.

    Bush is too nice of a guy, too compassionate of a ruler, to truly decimate his foes. This weakness not only makes him unpopular in the US, but it also allows critics and referees into making inaccurate conclusions about the US and terroists.

  6. Nick Hooper says

    Look you’re a lawyer for heavens sake! A master of argument. A seeker of truth. And probably a genuinely nice person to boot. Please don’t get sucked into all that ‘they’re wrong and we’re right and its as simple as that’ propoganda. That smoke screen is not there for the likes of you and I. Its for the stupid majority whose tax dollars (and pounds) continue to finance wars that are ultimately about corporate interest and influence. There are no ‘murderers’ in this game just as there are no ‘heros’. These are emotive, tabloid trash terms. ITS A WAR. And everyone is going to do whatever is necessary to facilitate the survival of their group. Until someone has the guts to make a radical and unexpected gesture to end it.

    And how much would you want to end it if someone kicked you off your farm, killed your relatives (your children, god forbid). Would you perhaps want them to pay? Over and again? Would you maybe join an organisation who’s aim was to wipe these ‘scum’ from the earth?

    My point is that this has happened on both sides… applying the term ‘murderer’ is unhelpful. Even if it is factually correct. The Palestinians and Shias of southern lebanon have had a tragic history of injustice, opression and suffering that could almost rival that of the jews in the first half of the 20th century. Certainly it echos the torment of the jews in Exodus.

    One day one side or the other will wake up to this terrible coincidence and realise they have rather a lot in common. Probably not tomorrow.

  7. Nick Hooper says

    And Ymasakar, you actually sound like an Al Qaeda tape played on Al Jazeera. You are a complete nutter and I have no doubt that you would kill my wife and children to win this argument. You are part of the problem, so stay out of the solution.

  8. dagon says

    nick,

    i’m no longer responding to y, because as you have stated, he is a complete nutter in love with the sound of fingers obsessively tapping on his keyboard; but thank you for your comments.

    just beware, next he’s going to come back and address your words with some arcana that only he is interested in then claim that your arguments have somehow been completely repudiated. ?????

    peace

  9. says

    Well, Nick, if you listen to a lot of people who are just playing around on Air America all day long, any real belief behind words would sound rather radical to you, wouldn’t they.

    Do you believe this is a game between Hizbollah and Israel, terroists and the US? Maybe you do believe this is a game, that you can watch from afar, laughing at the stupidities and criticizing the plays.

    The difference is, we can bring the game to you, if we are tired of your perspective. Or we can ignore you, and carry on with the game, but only in so far as you do not interfere Nick.

    You are a complete nutter and I have no doubt that you would kill my wife and children to win this argument. You are part of the problem, so stay out of the solution.

    Many people have called the military child killers, baby killers, myrmidons, fascist bootlickers, and various other color descriptions. What is the relation between me and the military being called names then? Why, it is simple. Like the military, people seek to impose their own limitations upon me. If they were given the power the military had, they would be child killers, they would be unable to control themselves. So people see the military as a threat, to their way of life. Because those people have no discipline, while the military have all the discipline. Rather imbalanced, if I may say so myself.

    You have already helped kill several families, with your words, Nick. The difference between you and I, is that I can control my actions in such a way that if anyone dies, it will be because I believed it to be the right course of action. You, on the other hand, do not care about the consequences of your actions, therefore you kill with kindness and compassion, and fairness of standard. To which would people choose to be part of?

    Do you really fear people who are disciplined enough to know the good guys from the bad. Or do you just refuse to consider the good over the bad, as it would be too difficult to consider the ramifications of your words and actions.

    I have already won this argument nick, as any military personnel won the argument when someone called them a child killer. I’m playing a game, as you might term it. the Games people play.

    And everyone is going to do whatever is necessary to facilitate the survival of their group. Until someone has the guts to make a radical and unexpected gesture to end it.

    When Nick said that, well, it just proves that America deserves criticism, because America not only will not facilitate the survival of their citizens and the “group”, but in fact also will not have the guts to make a radical and unexpected gesture to end it. Do you not see, people like Nick, are waiting for it. They wait for it, in baited breath, at the same time they call people like me who see it, child killers out to get their children like some sort of idiotic fanatic.

    How did I know how to convince Nick? Because his psychology is not abnormal. Most people will only believe what they see. And in these days of propaganda, that arrogance has lead many like Nick, to be the victims of propaganda while at the same time claiming to be above propaganda. What did the ACLU say, they fought for freedom of speech, even for the criminals? No one is above propaganda, no one. To believe with such an arrogance, that you see the truth of things… it is not a wise path to tread.

    Nick, your solution is to watch the game in the Middle East, taking no sides, and waiting until one side slaughters the other. Please excuse me, if I stay away from you and your solutions. You remind me of Soloman, except you actually will cut the baby in two regardless of what anyone says.

    There are no ‘murderers’ in this game just as there are no ‘heros’.

    Did you know that I asked Nick whether it was a game to him WITHOUT reading this sentence? How did I suspect it was a game to Nick, even before Nick said it was? Deductive logic. Psychology. Propaganda. Of course it is a game. Nick answered my question, after I had asked it of Nick without reading Nick’s response to Book. How very consistent.

  10. says

    he is a complete nutter in love with the sound of fingers obsessively tapping on his keyboard;

    Am I the only one that realizes that Dagon took this opportunity to make a post addressed to Nick, in order to circumvent his self-imposed restriction on attacking me, and yet Dagon accuses me of beng in love with the sound of fingers obsessively tapping on my keyboard? Is that not a bit inane?

    Who exactly is obsessed with attacking Ymar anyways, I know it ain’t me.

    It’s a good thing that you won’t attack me Dagon, except indirectly through guerrila warfare. It gives me more time.

  11. Nick Hooper says

    Ymarsakar, thank you very much for your considered response. I am very flattered though, of course, I dissagree with most of it. But one thing you have got absolutely spot on is the seriousness of the subject under discission. I apologise for my earlier flippant remarks.

    Bookwork, sorry for hogging your blog a bit here. You started it!

  12. says

    Here’s a note for whomever. That note, being, that I suspect Nick wrote his reply to Book, and was quite serious in his meaning when he wrote,

    There are no ‘murderers’ in this game just as there are no ‘heros’. These are emotive, tabloid trash terms.

    But one thing you have got absolutely spot on is the seriousness of the subject under discission. I apologise for my earlier flippant remarks.

    I do not believe Nick was acting inconsistent with his beliefs when talking to Book, even if he over-reacted towards me. Therefore my conclusions do not change all that much. What does change, however, is the fact that I won’t push a rout since I have no cavalry.

    So while I won’t push a rout, I also cannot truly accept an apology in which Nick retracts things he really meant. What is the purpose of that, I do not know.

    Things have been serious for awhile. Clan and border warfare atrocities are always a serious matter, as is the merchant that watches in eager anticipation of both sides annihilating the other while at the same time providing good business to the arms merchants and mercenaries.

    The way the world is, but not the way the world should be.

  13. says

    Come, come now, my good Y, surely we can be honoured adversarys?

    You cannot push a rout in this situation as you have no rout to push. Currently your main force are charging up the wrong valley, towards the wrong guns. By this I mean, your main assult is ‘ad hominem’ – you are attacking me rather than the arguments.

    Examples
    How did I suspect it was a game to Nick, even before Nick said it was?

    How did I know how to convince Nick? Because his psychology is not abnormal. Most people will only believe what they see.

    Etc. Etc.

    It may not be too late to throw your reserves at the main threat – my contention that Israel and the US have as much to answer for in the middle east as any terrorist organisation. But your argument will have to be sound and preferably supported by some facts. And don’t use my name too much. This is also illegitimate as it is a technique used by salesmen to win trust and interrogators to intimidate.

    Finally, again I find myself inclined to agree with you on a particular point. This time its:

    Clan and border warfare atrocities are always a serious matter, as is the merchant that watches in eager anticipation of both sides annihilating the other while at the same time providing good business to the arms merchants and mercenaries.

    I assume you are talking about US foreign policy. This is certainly not the way the world should be.

Leave a Reply