WCSox

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 03:10 PM) You're still drawing a false comparison, son. When Iran begins attacking other countries the comparison will be real. As it stands, it isn't, and I won't take the, "THEY'RE DOING IT BY PROXY!" answer, either, because stretching it to its natural conclusion puts us at War with every country in the Middle East that funds terror groups. I find it amusing that a 17-year-old is calling somebody else "son." Your argument doesn't account for the fact that the U.S. gives foreign aid to pretty much everybody. I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but that list has historically included the Palestinians.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) The U.S. also offers Israel about $1.5 billion in aid per year, most of it military, combined with about $2 billion in loans each year which are understood to be turned into grants at some later date. That's roughly 1/3 of the U.S.'s entire foreign aid budget. The U.S. donates a crapload of money to other sources around the world, not to mention loans (with interest). What's your point? Israel is like South Korea. They get a lot of help from the U.S. because their neighbor to the north wants to kill them, but they're a self-sustaining entity with their own interests. Hezbollah cannot sustain itself and, therefore, must do the bidding of the nations that supply and finance them.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) So on that basis, the U.S. is actually at war with Lebanon? Israel PURCHASES weapons from the U.S. It's a financial transaction. Hezbollah, on the other hand, doesn't purchase anything. Iran GIVES them the weapons and, in return, Hezbollah does their bidding. Hezbollah isn't a self-sustaining entity. They're not a sovereign state. They have no economy or natural resources. They rely on Iran for the vast majority of their funding and weapons. Israel, on the other hand, is a powerful democracy with a strong economy and cutting-edge technology. They're financially-independent of the U.S. and have their own interests.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:37 PM) Do you actually not believe that Iran is funding Hezbollah? 'Cause I'd bet the farm they are. Not only that, but they supply so much of their funding and arms that Hezbollah is essentially a proxy of Iran.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) Sorry, I don't buy that. Well, that's convenient because I'm not selling it.

Rolling Stone + Kennedy family = left-wing garbage

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) Here's my problem with your line of reasoning. The Soviet Union could be deterred. Despite their flawed ideology, they were a rational and intelligent people. They understood the consequenses of war with the Western powers and didn't want anymore than we did. Iran, on the other hand, may not be able to be deterred. They are a fanatical, nazi-style regime that is hell bent on wiping out Isreal and if they get wiped out themselves they will chalk it up to being a martyr for Allah. I agree completely. The Soviet Union, Cuba, China... even North Korea can be reasoned with. Iran is a different beast. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) When Iran fires a shot at Israel, I'll be all for a War. By arming Hezbollah, they already have.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) its really pitiful how you just flat out ignore the questions people present to your arguments and continue to be a terrorist apologist when its convenient. are you even going to respond to any of the responses to your posts? or do you not have an answer, and you concede those points? and please, stop using garbage sources to support pro-terrorist claims. Haaretz is a Jewish publication, but doesn't support his argument. Balta, I've asked you this before, but I don't believe that you've responded: What would YOU have done if you were in Israel's situation? QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) Injury? So, the "injured" Hezbollah guerillas were apparently healthy enough to fire on the IDF. :rolleyes

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 11:30 AM) Haaretz paints a very different picture of that raid, just so you know. They suggest that the Israelis went into the hospital, which is actually funded by groups linked to Hezbollah, looking for a leader of that group, not that it was being used as a headquarters of any sort. If it wasn't a headquarters, why was the leader of the group suspected to be there? The IDF wouldn't have raided a hospital and risked a PR nightmare if they didn't have substantial intelligence suggesting that it was a Hezbollah stronghold. And why were Hezbollah guerillas there? Why were some captured, but others were killed? (Suggesting that the guerillas fired on the Israelis.)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) But here's my question to you; Israel spent 18 years with its army occupying significant chunks of Lebanon, and it couldn't even scratch Hezbollah. So why exactly do you think that more invasions, more troops, and more bombing are going to make any difference now, when it couldn't do so for 2 decades? If Israel can go into Southern Lebanon, cripple Hezbollah forces there, and allow the international community to set up some sort of a buffer zone between the two nations, less people in Northern Israel will be murdered. That's reason enough for me.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 10:43 AM) so what is your suggestion to take care of this. We have a terrorist organization launching missles from the saftey and cover of a neighborhood. Negotiations. Sure nothing like negotiating with terrorists. Maybe after 9/11 we should of sat down and asked Al Queda for a peace treaty, and never bombed Afganistan. Maybe Haifa should just get used to the weapons raining down on them. The bomb shelter people could make a killing. If this was happneing in the US and these missles were raining down on your home or your families home, I doubt if you would be sitting here asking for restraint. Hezbollah also uses hospitals as headquarters. That's about as despicable as it gets.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) But here's what I can't get the other side to admit: Israel is not justified in doing anything and everything to destroy Hezbollah. Israel is not allowed to commit war crimes, or directly target civilian installations with no possible military value , just as Hezbollah is not, under the rules of war. "No possible military value", my ass. Hezbollah stockpiles weapons in those sites. They fire rockets from people's backyards. They stash weapons in homes. It's easy for you to sit behind your computer and criticize Israel, but try putting yourself in their shoes. Imagine that you're surrounded by terrorist-sponsoring states that want you, your family, and everybody else in your country DEAD... and they'll gladly sacrifice their own lives to achieve that goal. Imagine that terrorists have killed members of your family and/or friends. Now multiply that by 6 million and then add 50+ years of violence on top of it. What do you do? Negotiations haven't worked in the past. Prisoner exchange hasn't deterred the kidnappings. The response from Israel withdrawl from Gaza and Southern Lebanon was more terrorist attacks. The U.N. and Europe haven't done anything for you. I mean, really... what are the options at this point? Diplomacy has done nothing. Acts of good faith are seen as signs of weakness by the Islamofascists and encourage more attacks. What do you do at this point if YOU'RE an Israeli?

QUOTE(samclemens @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) im not rationalizing. israel does not target civilians, as opposed to hezbollah. shame on hezbollah for intentionally using lebanese civilians as human sheilds. every single one of the attacks has been at sites that were associated with hezbollah, including the bombing of the UN observers and the one where all the children died. thats tough spiff if hizbollah can dish it out but they cant take it- they have to go, for good. If a terrorist militia is going to attack a sovereign nation and then hide behind innocent civilians, some innocent civilians are going to die. It's a shame, but that's what happens. And it won't stop until these civilians take action to expel these terrorist scumbags from their neighborhoods.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 06:54 AM) No surprise at all on what their solution is. Here is something else to add to what Iran has possibly been doing. We all know that there are claims that Iran is supplying Hezbollah, but just how much is Iran involved in? Iran working with N. Korea to develop long range missiles. A note on this link is that it is from a South Korea source. So, I don't know how trustworthy something like that is. This is going to have to come to an end... and the international community is going to have to be involved.

You can't fight terrorism effectively by playing by "the rules of war."

Kudos to Ozzie for getting on them for corpseball. I would've over-turned a table in the clubhouse a month ago. That said, Juan is a phenominal defensive player and I want him in the black and white pinstripes for at least the next few years.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 12:10 PM) Ok, so I shouldn't have used the word all, or even most. But I think the evidence is strong that the foreign fighters have played almost a miniscule role in the insurgency. The U.S. efforts at closing the border have done nothing to stop the insurgency, despite the fact that the U.S. has done a decent job securing most of those borders (it's actually fairly easy to secure some of these areas, since most people trying to cross them wind up dead anyway). The U.S. can't even secure it's own border. What makes you think that they can secure Iraq's? I strongly disagree that "foreign fighters have played almost a miniscule role in the insurgency." Take Zarqawi, for example. He's Jordanian-born, and has spend most of his life in Jordan, Afghanistan, and Iran... he's pretty much a jihad-for-hire guy who goes wherever he can to fight. He only came to Iraq for medical treatment and only stayed because some Islamofascists were fighting the Kurds in the north. He brought money, weapons, and training to this insurgency. That makes him worth more than 100 random angry Iraqi guys who have no freaking clue how to blow up a building or kidnap a Haliburton employee. You need to look past the sheer numbers. Who's supplying the funding? Who's supplying the weapons? Who's supplying the know-how? Something tells me that Ahmed Average in Iraq who can barely keep his family fed isn't spending hundreds of U.S. dollars on explosive devices. He's not obtaining them from the U.S.-controlled Iraqi military and probably doesn't know how to put them together himself if he could get his hands on the parts. And, hell, there probably isn't a Lowe's down the street from his house, either. There's no doubt that most of the "ground soldiers" in the insurgency are Iraqi-born, but they're not the important ones. The important ones are the ones who supply the money, weapons, and training... and the ones who are inciting the violence. And even though the Suni and Shiia don't like each other, they'd been living on top of each other under Saddam's rule for 30+ years. And now all of the sudden, they're armed to the teeth with machine guns, rocket lauchers, and IEDs. I seriously doubt that they've all just been stashing these weapons in their basements for the past 30 years. And I'll bet that the vast majority of them didn't even know how to use a machine gun until one of Zarqawi's buddies showed them. These people lived right beside each other for 30+ years and are now engaged in a bloody civil war. Why? Because professional (and mostly foreign) terrorists have incited it. It's not because they just felt like starting a bloodbath for the heck of it. OK, so we agree on ONE thing. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 02:20 PM) Lebanon was at a very early stage along a path that would hopefully one day take them away from being a terrorist-causing failed state after the Cedar Revolution. They had an army, their economy was growing, and there was starting to be some impetus for disarming Hezbollah. It would have taken years for this movement to actually bear fruit, and I can give you no guarantees that it would, but I can guarantee one thing now; it never will. Lebanon has been raized to the ground again by Israel, and it has another decade of rebuilding to even have a chance to get to the point it was at before this operation began. Again, blaming Israel for Lebanon not becoming the thriving democracy that they were possibly going to be at some point way down the road... maybe. How about blaming the U.N. for not enforcing its resolution to disarm Hezbollah. Why not blame Syria for assasinating Hariri? Why not blame Iran for moving a ton of weapons into Hezbollah strongholds and using Syria as a conduit? Why not blame the Lebanese government for allowing these weapons to be transported into their "sovereign" state and, oh, allowing a freaking terrorist milita control the entire southern portion of their nation. Why not blame Hezbollah for going across the border to kidnap Israeli soldiers? I can understand your anger, but PLEASE... put the goddamn blame where it's due. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) Excellent post Badger. I second that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 12:04 PM) They were a lot closer a month ago than they are now. LOL! Was that before or after Hezbollah amassed enough weapons to destroy the Lebanese army?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) Actually, if you average over the whole year, it's down to less than 6 hours per day, with several months coming in around 4. Suggesting that the insurgents in Iraq are all either foreign fighters or are even on the side of Syria and Iran really shows how little you actually understand that entire situation, given that the insurgency which did so much damage, sparked the civil war, and had the Administration talking about foreign fighters was a Sunni-based insurgency, and Iran is the dominant Shi'a country and would like nothing better than for the current government in Iraq to become entrenched. Oh, and I assume you meant Iraq, not Iran, so I fixed that. You're right. Not all of the insurgents in Iraq are Shia who are being supplied with manpower, weaopns, and money from Iran and Syria. Quite a few of them are Sunni Al Qaeda. And not all of the terrorists are foreigners. But quite a bit of the money and weapons that they're getting are from abroad. And, yes, quite a few of the insurgents in Iraq are VERY loyal to Iran, which was the entire basis for Saddam's invasion back in the '80s. I didn't suggest that ALL of the insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters, but feel free to continue misrepresenting my posts and using those false statements as evidence that I understand "little" about the situation. QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) Balta: you haven't figured this out. Anything that happens in Iraq is clearly the fault of Iran and Syria. Yes, that's EXAXTLY what I said. And apparently the Lebanese government was on the verge of kicking Hezbollah's ass into submission, completely removing Syria and Iran's influence, and becoming a utopian-like decmocracy before those stupid Israelis started this war.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 10:47 AM) Baghdad gets electricity 8 hours out of the day. There are 24 hours in the Iraqi day. The oil pipeline reconstruction project that the Americans and Iraqis have been working to increase revenue for the government has still not been completed two years behind schedule. An effort to create 140 primary health clinics in Iraq have created all of 20 three years into the project. Before last month, Beirut had health care, electricity AND a tourism industry. So yeah, I'd say that the Iraqi government's administration of social services would be not as good as the Lebanese administration of social services. Terrorist proxies of Iran and Syria destroy the infrastructure of Iran every day. They were not doing so in Lebanon until Hezbollah baited Israel into a war. Again, it's a ridiculous comparison. If you really think that Iran and Syria would allow a West-friendly democracy in Lebanon, you're living in La-La Land. In just the past year and a half, Damascus ordered the assasination of Hariri and Tehran provoked the Israelis into a war via Hezbollah. Both of these incidents were staged to send the nation into chaos and prevent democracy.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) The counterpoint I'd give to that is that well, the gigantic deserts of Iraq, yeah, there's very little fighting in those. But the other areas, the areas where people actually are, are simply a disaster. The whole area. You don't hear a lot about it, because a.) we have a shiny new war to pay attention to, b.) the shiny new war isn't yet killing journalists, and c.) it's literally not safe for journalists to leave the Green Zone, so areas outside of Baghdad hardly get noticed. With Iran and Syria sending jihadists into Iraq, it's no wonder that it's not safe. It's a revolution where, unlike Lebanon, the revolutionaries are actually a military threat to the Islamofascists. Lebanon's weak army and highly pro-Hezbollah population isn't nearly as much of a threat to Iran and Syria. If Tehran and Damascus were to unleash their terrorist forces into Lebanon, it'd be a complete mess as well... and it very well might be in another few months. To automatically assume that Iran and Syria would just allow Lebanon to become a democratic friend to the West is ridiculous. Yes, one side or the other... implying that both could do it. That's what I meant. Jesus, for the last freaking time, I'm not saying that Israel is beyond reproach. :oldrolleyes

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 09:21 AM) I just don't see how peace is possible there without A ) A neutral Jerusalem, B ) A Palestinian state, and C ) huge involvement from the international community. These are definitely key. The Palestinian state has alredy been proposed by Israel, so that wouldn't be a problem. The international community would begrudgingly get off of their asses and become involved. The neutral Jerusalem would be a sticking point, though. Even if they could be "convinced" under tremendous pressure to give it up, extremists from one side would try to take it back at some point.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 09:22 AM) Perhaps you failed to note the past tense. Perhaps you failed to note the past tense. And I don't hear about a lot of Lebanese on Lebanese violence in Lebanon at the moment either - which would be the definition of "internal" peace. You can repeat your spin all that you want and it's not going to change the fact that Syria and Iran still controlled Lebanon (via Hezbollah) after the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah pretty much destroyed the peace when they decided to kidnap Israeli soldiers. On the verge of democracy, my ass.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) So you're completely dismissing any chance of a political process to work in a peaceful Lebanon? Then why didn't we go into Lebanon in 2003 when we were fighting terror over in the middle east? They actually have a legit terrorist organization operating at the time with government approval. The reason a political process has a chance to work is the same reason it worked in the Cedar Revolution. Because the people deemed it necessary and important to do what was done. This was a people power revolution, and sometimes all changes take some time to fully accomplish what was set out. The revolutions in Iraq and Lebanon are not at all comparable, we agree there. One took place three years ago and the results of which are still as violent as the current Israel/Hezbollah conflict. One had a new government democratically elected which coalesced fairly rapidly. The other took 6 months to form a cabinet and prime minister from election results. One government was able to provide some social services and provide a relative internal peace and security for its people. The other hasn't and still doesn't. In terms of revolutions, I think we saw the successful one destroyed this past month. LOL, successful my ass. The Hezbollah guerillas are more powerful than the Lebanese army and Iran/Syria are able to send equip them with munitions at will - the Lebanese government can't stop them. And I wasn't completely dismissing any chance of the political process working there... just saying that it's highly unlikely because of Hezbollah's presence in the government, Hezbollah's militia being more powerful than the Lebanese army, Syria's influence, and the fact that no powerful outside force was aiding them. The new Iraq government can't provide social services? That's another load of crap. They've been doing so for over a year. Also consider that the vast majority of the violence in Iraq is in Baghdad (and mostly becuase Iran and Syria are sending terrorists there), while the rest of the nation is relatively peaceful. And how's that "internal peace" thing going in Hezbollah-run Lebanon? LOL.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) That's not what I said at all. I said that over time Hezbollah may moderate itself. Further, you said Revolutions take time. The Lebanese revolution happened last year. That was a revolution from within and institutions had really just begun to be created. That would have helped move Hezbollah away from either power within the government or as a terrorist force. And it would have hopefully happened from help from other states looking to see a democratic Lebanon succeed. Yeah, Hezbollah MAY moderate itself over time. But for the forseeable future, they were gladly accepting rockets from Iran and happily kidnapping Israeli soldiers. There's absolutely no evidence that they were headed in that direction... quite the contrary, actually. There's probably a better chance of me winning the lottery sometime over the next decade than Hezbollah ceasing terrorist activities and becoming a peaceful political party. I don't think that the revolutoins in Iraq and Lebanon are comparable. Iraq's was orchestrated by the most powerful military in the world and the infrastructure is being rebuilt by the wealthiest government in the world. And while that's going on, the military is providing security. The Iraqis also have an important natural resource that could bring a economic prosperity into their nation. As long as American interests are there, their chances of success are high. On the other hand, the Cedar Revolution was an internal movement in response to the assassination of Hariri. To my knowledge, the democratic movement in Lebanon has had little (if any) support from a military capable of dealing with the opposition. The political wing Hezbollah occupies ~30% of this new government and the military wing had a stronger military than the actual Lebanese government did proir to the Israeli attacks. Unless the U.S., Britain, Russia, or another powerful military were to assist the new Lebanese government (and nobody seemed interested), Iran and Syria would have continued to supply Hezbollah with weapons and would have tightened its grip on Lebanon. The fact that Syria was shipping weapons into Lebanon without resistance and that Hezbollah pretty much controls the southern portion of the country shows that this new government had little control over its territory. Without outside assistance, the chances for the new democratic Lebanon to succeed were dim.