Moderates Stand Up And Be Counted

Originally posted by subz


If you are a grounded, sane, moderate person who does not agree that the deaths of innocent civilians of either Lebanon or Israel is acceptable please post in this thread!

Pre-Sept. 11, 2001 I was considered a conservative Republican hawk on defense. These days I get called all kinds of things like - ooooh - liberal!

Why is this? Because, based on my own intelligence, I came to the conclusion that there were no WMD in Saddamland and I opposed the invasion. I also predicted it would be a disaster, based on my experience.

With Duhbya, the NeoCons came in and took over the Republican party (with the help of a bunch of Christian fundamentalists) and have shoved their PNAC agenda down the throat of America (God Bless Pax Americana!). It's madness. Never ending war. I've never heard such a thing before these clowns came along.

They are not Republicans and they do not represent anything American or Christian. What is happening in Lebanon should not in any way be taken lightly. It gives the NeoCons a little opening (perhaps for some pretext) to attack Iran. A cease fire should be urged by all parties immediately before the conflict ignites a regional war. Lest we forget, our troops in Iraq would pay a staggering price should that occur.

If we could stop this madness, we could stop a lot of unecessary death, destruction and injury. And people on both sides of the border could get back to living life. In peace.

Originally posted by subz
Nygdan, if Israel's response includes any action that kills innocent civilians I will never support it.

So?

If you think it's justified in any way, shape or form for Israel to kill innocent civilians then you are an extremist, just like Hezbollah.

Thats bunk. A moderate takes a sensible, realistic approach to an issue. You are saying that anyone who isn't a pacifist is an extremist.

If Hezbollah uses human shields of women and children bad luck you cannot kill them along side the militiamen.

That's quite an immoderate requirement.

If a criminal takes a hostage do we see the police vapourize the criminal along with the hostage and simply say "well he was a criminal and had to die,

They had better if that shooter is endangering other people's lives.

If you think killing 10x to 15x as many innocent Lebanese civilians to stop the killing of Israeli civilians is a moderate solution you are kidding yourself.

If you think a 'moderate' is someone that doesn't respond to an attack, you are kidding yourself. Isreal has the right to respond, with War, to Hezbollah. THere is no legal requirement to not bomb a building simply because there will be civilian casualties. You are the one making an immoderate requirement, one that goes far beyond any agreed upon rule of war or international law.

If you think the deaths of innocent Israelis and Lebanese is unacceptable and unjustifiable then say so in this thread.

Who can really say what is 'justified'? Israel and Lebanon are at war, no deaths in war are 'justified', its not some calm rational process, its the breakdown of calm rational processes, its one side saying 'do what i say or i will kill you', this talk of 'justification' is meaningless, its men killing other men. I think that its horrible that perfectly innocent women, children, civilians, are being killed in this war. Its disgusting, it needs to stop.
But a moderate will realize that the onyl way its going to stop is if groups like hezbollah are either obliterated by groups like israel and the US, or rooted out of their own countries. Face it, its impractical to think that israel is just going to go 'poof' in some UN Resolution, its here to stay, and its allways going to be willing to bomb the hell out of places like lebanon or the occupied territories as long as their are people attacking it. You can call for so-called moderates to 'stand up and be counted', but they count for nothing. So long as people are shooting at Israel, and Israel exists, its going to shoot back, no 'joint statement condemming the loss of innocent life' is going to do anything, other than make some people feel satiated in their own actions. Meanwhile people die.
So whats the real political choice for peace? Whats the moderate position here? People have to be against hezbollah, or else there will be no peace.


[edit on 25-7-2006 by Nygdan]

ECK, just a little FYI:

Originally posted by subz
For starters I would not be caught dead taking a side in partisan politics. The term "moderate" that I am talking about applies to one's own beliefs. Beliefs that are not radical or extreme in nature.

I am not talking about American politics or partisan politics in the slightest here.

Originally posted by subz
Bite? I dont want you bite anything or do anything about it.

If you think the deaths of innocent Israelis and Lebanese is unacceptable and unjustifiable then say so in this thread.

So what is the point of your post then? I'm sorry, but i'm just not getting the point of your post?

Edited to add: You act one sided on this issue to me.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by zenlover28]

Im sorry but I cant think for you, or understand things for you either, if you still dont know what this thread is about then there is nothing I can do about that. Others got it, you didnt. Oh well.

The only thing I GOT was that you can't understand why people on both sides of the issue are calling for the death of innocent people? Is that right? Then you go on to mainly talk about Israel being in the wrong?

Sorry, Subz...I know an agenda when I see one.

Wrong, I clearly state in the openning thread that the deaths of Israeli civilians is unjustifiable. Then come the people who think they can justify Israel's killing of Lebanese civilians and I disagree with them and say so. If some one came into this thread and started trying to justify Hezbollah's killing of Israeli civilians then I would do the same to them. But as it happens, no one is trying to justify Hezbollah's killing of Israeli civilians here so the exercise is redundant.

Getting all uppity over criticism of Israel? Sorry, but I can see you have the agenda.

Excuse me, but did I ever claim that I didn't have an agenda? I clearly stated that I am a Moderate on the issue.

A. I live in reality
B. I use my common sense

A & B= Israel and the Jews will cease to exist if they do not stand up to these terror networks. It's called genocide. Look it up.

Can anyone provide some examples of issues which would be a rallying point for a moderate political movement? I havent seen any yet. Is it because "moderate" is too abstract a concept? It seems to encompasses everybody and nobody. Also while no one wishes to be categorized as an "extremist", they also do not want to be considered "average" and the term "moderate" sounds too much like "average".

It seems that should be about finding the middle ground between democrats and republicans. How do we do that?
.

I think there are too many misconceptions about Moderates and there lies the rub about why people are confused about a Moderate movement. We're painted as people who are fickle, who have no backbone and absolutely no personal convictions. That is the farthest thing from the truth. If anything we have more personal convictions and more of a backbone than the average Joe does because we think for ourselves and don't follow like a bunch of blind sheep. Fickle we certainly can be, but it just shows that we open our minds to any and all possibilites instead of closing them off to the limitations or guidelines most political parties would have you follow. Being a Moderate doesn't mean everyone has to agree on everything all of the time and it certainly doesn't mean that you stand in the middle of every argument mediating between the two. It means that you are well grounded on issues, but flexible enough to stand up and admit that something isn't working. It focuses more on satisfying the majority with a less extreme stance on issues. Which is why I'm claiming that my position on the Middle East is a Moderate stance. The peace talks have been tried over and over and over...they're getting nowhere. I don't think the U.S. should intervene with our military and I don't think either Palestine, Lebanon or Israel should be obliterated....just the terror networks that thrive on brainwashing these people to continue this nonsense. So, in my opinion it's time to let Israel stand up and fight her way to peace. It's worth a try. Many wonderful things have been accomplished through war despite the innocent deaths of civilians on all sides. And that's the cold hard truth.

As far as Moderate stances on other issues....well, we're trying to work on some issues. The party had to start somewhere though and the policies right now as they stand definitely need tweaking. Can't argue with you there. You're welcome join us on the fence and help.

Originally posted by zenlover28
time to let Israel stand up and fight her way to peace.

I have no problem letting israel fight its way to peace.

I do have a problem with us tax dollars being used to pay for israel to fight its way to peace. In fact I have a problem with us foreign aide to any country. A recent news story that particularly ticked me off said the US was on the hook for 46 million dollars to rebuild an electric power plant blown up by israelis with some of the 3 billion dollars of foreign military aide from the US. The arabs and the jews can destroy each other down to the last woman and child for all I care. My problem is US tax payers covering the cost of it all. The politicians can give their moral support to which ever side they like, but they should keep american tax dollars at home.
.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by df1]

That's a legitimate argument you make there. But, the U.S. is going to support it's interests. Another cold hard fact of life.

fixed my mispellings.



[edit on 26-7-2006 by zenlover28]

Originally posted by subz
Wrong, I clearly state in the openning thread that the deaths of Israeli civilians is unjustifiable. Then come the people who think they can justify Israel's killing of Lebanese civilians and I disagree with them and say so. If some one came into this thread and started trying to justify Hezbollah's killing of Israeli civilians then I would do the same to them. But as it happens, no one is trying to justify Hezbollah's killing of Israeli civilians here so the exercise is redundant.

Getting all uppity over criticism of Israel? Sorry, but I can see you have the agenda.

yes, I have an agenda. It is to exterminate extemist Islamic terrorist. The blame for civilian death lay at the feet of the terrorist that use them a human sheilds so "moderates" will cry over them. It is STUPID. Moderates will get the planet incenerated by proping up terrorist as "equal" to real democracies.

Moderates ARE sheep to be pushed around by slick PR firms..............Take a "freaking" side, or at least admit you are willing to let the terrorist win just so you can "feel" good about your middle of the roadisim.........

At the mcDonalds drive thru make a choice will you, the rest of the line is waiting.......Or would that be taking sides.........

There has been plenty of times when Jews were not in the best interest of the "American Government."

While I fully believe men like Hitler need to be stopped, this country didn't want to go to war until Japan bombed us...and then there's enough conspiracy around that to make my head spin. It wasn't in our best interest to fight early on. For us, it was honestly best that we waited as long as we did. How many Jewish lives could we have saved by being there earlier? That's an unanswerable question.

Originally posted by jlc163
There has been plenty of times when Jews were not in the best interest of the "American Government."

While I fully believe men like Hitler need to be stopped, this country didn't want to go to war until Japan bombed us...and then there's enough conspiracy around that to make my head spin. It wasn't in our best interest to fight early on. For us, it was honestly best that we waited as long as we did. How many Jewish lives could we have saved by being there earlier? That's an unanswerable question.

Sorry but you would be wrong...........Ever heard of Lend Lease? How about Flying Tigers................America was "In" the war for many years, they just didn't 'declare" war until Pearl harbor..........

What does moderate mean in this case?

I'm not trying to be cute here, and I don't think I'm stupid, but I'm confused by the thread author's question. What the hell is a moderate point of view when weapons are firing? How can anyone be "moderately" opinionated about the use of deadly force?

WTF does moderate mean here?

Does it mean lower in tone of rhetoric?

Does it mean you haven't yet taken sides?

Does it mean you're rational enough not to advocate death and destruction in support of your position on the politics of this conflict?

It doesn't matter who is doing most of the dying, and it doesn't matter who's "side" you're on. What really matters is that ANY MODERATE VOICES THAT COULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE WERE ALREADY DROWNED OUT LONG AGO. Remember, rockets are firing, bombs are falling. This is war. The moderate point of view went out the window already.

How can anyone be "moderate" now? You either want it to stop, or you don't.

How can you want it to cease immediately, in a moderate way?

How can you want it to continue untill one group is victorious and the other is vanquished, but only moderately?

Read the first post for starters. It cannot be any clearer than that. I dont have to take sides in this, they're both wrong in what they are doing. Wow, heaven forbid some one doesnt take a "side".

Originally posted by subz
Read the first post for starters. It cannot be any clearer than that. I dont have to take sides in this, they're both wrong in what they are doing. Wow, heaven forbid some one doesnt take a "side".

How would a "moderate" solve the matter then?

I'm just wondering if someone is in the middle, a fence-sitter so to speak...then what is a resolution?

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
How would a "moderate" solve the matter then?

I believe I posted my views to solving the problem on the second page. I must be writing in invisible ink or something

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I'm just wondering if someone is in the middle, a fence-sitter so to speak...then what is a resolution?

I dont think a moderate is a fence sitter. A moderate eschews extremism and is not married to any political ideology or framework. A moderate takes into account the rule of law at all times and avoids radicalism.

I would define the killing of civilians, and justification thereof, as extremism.

Subz, do you not consider your sig to boycott Israeli products extreme???

Zed normally a Moderate would look for a peaceful solution by encouraging peace talks, etc. However, it's been tried and tried and tried and it's obvious that every time they get close to a peaceful resolution Hezbollah or some other terror network has to instigate drama to throw everything off balance.

First off, I think Arab nations...if they truly want peace...need to unite and confront the radicals. But, they're not going to do that. And since radical Islam has blatantly called for the demise of Israel...not the other way around....I think Israel has every right to do what they are doing. And they should continue to do what they are doing as long as radicals call for their demise and the non radicals don't stand up to the BS.