WCSox

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) So let me get this straight. You say that revolutions take time, but some people get the time and some people shouldn't. I don't pretend to know a lot about internal Lebanese politics and I'm pretty sure you are no expert either. What I can say, is that the little that I have heard, was that the issue of disarming Hezbollah was first and foremost on the domestic political agenda in the country. Revolutions do take time, and an elected Hezbollah may, in fact, mean the moderation of Radical Islamists. Organizations and viewpoints change over time, and giving Hezbollah a voice in a government may do just that. The Lebanese government couldn't have disarmed a terrorist militia that has more weapons than its own army and has strong political support throughout country (~30% of its government). And if you think that Iran and Syria would've just sat back and let a democratic Lebanon give Hezbollah the boot, you're even more misguided than I originally thought.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 10:20 AM) Strengths: Great reads; is rarely taken offguard. Strong, accurate arm Weaknesses: Absolutely no makeup speed. Appears slower than hell running after fly balls to his left. Agreed, although his arm accuracy is marginal at best.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 11:01 AM) "Taking out", yes. But not militarily. If you "Take out" Iran using military force, all you do is create another failed state of folks who hate you. There will have to be a regime change at some point. Hopefully it'll be an uprising funded by the West, rather than a direct conflict. On the other hand, I have faith that the Saudi royal family will slowly introduce enough reform into their nation that a regime change won't be necessary. Lebanon wasn't going to be a democracy with Hezbollah occupying 30% of its government and having enough arms to overpower the Lebanese army. If the Lebanese government took steps to kick out Hezbollah, Iran and Syria would've stopped them. Agreed on the first part, but there will definitely have to be a regime change in Iran at some point. Hopefully it'll come from within. But it'll have to come - their current administration is a poison to the entire region. It'd be working a lot better if Iran and Syria weren't sending terrorists into the region to attack Sunni and incite a civil war. BTW, revolutions don't happen overnight. It's going to take a while, but even if it results in freedom and economic prosperity for only the Iraq region of Kurdistan, it'll be an improvement over Saddam gassing the Kurds.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Ah, but here's the key...this is not going to happen when the military might of the west keeps turning various countries in the Middle East into failed states. Lebanon was actually starting to look like your real hopeful place, in that someday, it might be able to grow out of the terrorist mess. It actually had a democratically elected government, it was actually on the road to recovery from a long civil war, it was actually undertaking steps at modernization. Yes, Hezbollah was still there and armed to the teeth. However, within Lebanon, there were growing movements before this to either bring Hezbollah into the fold as a solely political organization, a-la the IRA, or to forcefully disarm it by using the Lebanese armed forces. Which btw, may be one of the reasons Hezbollah launched this attack in the first place...now no one in Lebanon wants them disarmed. Hezbollah wouldn't exist in its current form without financial and military support from Iran. Taking out the rogue regime is the key here. This isn't just about "failed states" that can be pinned on the West. The "successful states" like Iran and Saudi Arabia are the real culprits. These totalitarian regimes keep their people poor, ignorant, and angry. The addition of state-sponsored Islamofascism (Iran) is especially destructive. Just to be clear, Lebanon is a failed state because of Iran, Syria, and the U.N., not because of Israel or the U.S. They were a failed state after Syria assasinated its head-of-state and facilitated an arms buildup along the Israeli border. (1) Nor can you allow millenia-old hatreds to culminate in a nuclear weapon that destroys Israel. This needs to be stopped immediately. (2) These people won't have the better lives until the totalitarian regimes are out of the picture. It's no coincidence that the Saudi royal family is hording the nation's weath, there is a 40% unemployment rate, and Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists. This is one of the reasons that I supported the overthrow of Saddam. It gives the Iraqi people a chance to experience freedom and possible economic prosperity. QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) I dont get why people think that what Israel does actually matters to the people who want to destroy Israel. All that happens when the Israeli's are the good guys, is they get dicked in the end. They give back Gaza, etc, it only makes the militants more aggressive. As they are giving back the land, the Palestinian's go in and burn down the temples. The Israeli's are the good guys and let it happen. Then people start shooting missles into their country, and the Israeli's barely flinch. Its only when they start kidnapping soldiers, that the Israeli's get to their breaking point. Can you imagine what would happen if a bunch of rogue Quebec seperatists were shooting rockets across the US boarder? The US would put an end to them, and anyone who was harboring them, or letting them shoot rockets from their backyard would be caught in the cross fire. And if you dont like what people are doing in your country, and you think your getting a bad rap, you come out and do something. You dont just condemn the other side who is protecting its own border, while you sit there and do nothing. As for the ethnic cleansing, that is just naive. If the Israeli's wanted to ethnicly cleanse, the body count would be up in thousands already, and you would be seeing ground troops to come in and kill civilians. That is ethnic cleansing, not shooting missles at terrorists who are being hidden by civilians. In fact in the US we call that a conspiracy or an accessory. The only thing Israel can do is fight fire with fire. And each time those in the Middle East try to harass or destroy them, they must respond with such agression that any time in the future they consider doing the same thing, they will know the penalty. Wow, you and I actually agree on something.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 10:06 AM) And that, right there, is exactly the line of thinking which has made the "War on Terror" go so poorly thus far. When your enemy is willing to attack civilians with no regards to any of the laws of war, a nation can use that reasoning to justify any action in response. The only problem is, of course, that it totally neglects any thought about how the rest of humanity will respond, which is exactly what we're seeing in Israel right now; a dramatic strengthening of support for Hezbollah, and for almost every terror organization, due to the Israeli response, and Israel will spend its next few decades fighting against the terrorists born out of this campaign, just as they've spent the last few decades fighting terrorists born out of previous campaigns. Israel would have spent the next few decades fighting terrorists whether they would've launched this offensive on Lebanon or not. The extremists in this region want Israel dead AT ALL COSTS and that includes the sacrifice of innocent Muslims. Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, The Islamic Jihad, etc. have been attacking civilians for decades, yet they enjoy enormous popularity in the Arab world. "Humanity" in the Middle East has responded to terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens by proclaiming "Death to the Zioninsts!" and ordering more attacks. If you'll recall, Palestinians were dancing in the streets after 9/11. Therefore, giving a flying gosh darn about popular opinion in that part of the world shouldn't be the top priority at the moment. How "humanity" in the Middle East responds to this is predictable: They'll spew out the same anti-Jewish and anti-American garbage that the Mullahs and state-controlled media have been indoctrinating them with for decades. Therefore, the plan to "change the hearts and minds" of the people in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. via diplomacy is futile. The extremists are going to have to be removed by force, not by negotiations. And if the moderate Muslims world aren't going to rise up kick these terrorists organizations out of their nations, somebody else has to. The ethnic hatred and the lack of respect for human life has to stop NOW, not 100 years down the road when Sunnis and Shia grow up and realize that it's not only OK for them to peacefully coexist, but that the Jews have a righ to live as well. QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 10:08 AM) So ... what exactly should Isreal do? They're going to need to establish a demilitarized zone in Southern Lebanon, similar to what separates the Koreas. After the heavy-lifting has been done, the U.N. can patrol it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 09:25 AM) Thank you for finally proving my point. Because of the transgressions of their opponents, EVERYTHING Israel does is justified in your eyes. Wrong again. I don't believe that their blatant disrespect for the property of Palestinian residents was justified. Nor do I believe that their short-lived policy of breaking the arms of Palestinian youths who threw rocks at their police/soldiers was justified. But in THIS CURRENT conflict, I believe that the Israeli response has been justified. I may have done a few things differently, but overall I support their effort to defend themselves from a terrorist-controlled Southern Lebanon.

God have mercy on Castro. He's going to need it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 09:02 AM) So you choose the most benign example you could possibly give, building a highway through a farm? Do you really think that's even remotely representative of the worst things being done by that side in this conflict? You're right. I should've given the examples of the IDF sending suicide bombers into malls and restaurants in Ramallah during a time of peace. Or I could've used the exmaples of the IDF going across the border and kidnapping members of the Lebanese army. Oh, maybe the example of the IDF firing missiles from the backyards of Israeli homes and going screaming to Al Jazeera that the Lebanese are targeting Israeli citizens in their homes.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 08:47 PM) It isn't a religious cleansing that they want. It's pragmatic in dealing with everyday life. So, it's "pragmatic" for Iran's head of state to call for Israel to be wiped off of the map because of checkpoints around Israel? Look at a map and tell me how many hundreds of miles Iran is from Israel. It has EVERYTHING to do with religious cleansing. QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 08:01 PM) Thats his whole M.O. dude. He just loves to try to draw moral equivalency between terrorists and the civilized world when none exist. I have a friend from Ramallah and have heard several stories about the heavy-handidness of the Israeli police/military. Trust me, I know that Israel is far from innocent. But you're correct that there is no moral equivalency between building a highway through a Palestinian man's farm and blowing up a bus full of Israelis. People who believe otherwise need to get away from their socialist college professors for a while and experience the real world.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 09:46 PM) Here's the real key for you...having someone else do something to you, having someone else be the "instigator", does not mean that everything you do is ok. It doesn't matter if who you're fighting is a non-traditional army, it doesn't matter if they start the war or they start targeting civilians first. Having someone commit a war crime against your people does not give you a blank check to go out and commit war crimes. A bomb going off on a bus or a missile hitting a train station does not give you the right to level an entire country and expel everyone who lives there. I'm not saying that "everything Israel does is OK." I'm saying that they don't have much of choice in this situation. You lash out at them for "targeting civilians" when they're actually targeting Hezbollah guerillas who are blending in with civilians and using them as human shields in their propaganda war. How are they supposed to deal with them? Or do you suggest that they sit there with their tails between their legs and allow the kidnappings and terrorist attacks to continue? The bottom line is that nobody in Lebanon or in the U.N. did anything to keep Hezbollah in check. They were allowed to build up an arsenal (supplied by Iran) so significant that they became more powerful than the Lebanese army. If innocent Lebanese die, it's because Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and the U.N. enabled Hezbollah, not because Israel decided to defend itself. A lot of innocent Germans and Japanese were killed by the United States in World War II. Should F.D.R. and Truman have been put on trial for war crimes? I don't think so. And a lot of Jews couldn't care less because of the hundreds that they've lost to terrorist attacks on their own soil over the past 30 years. The Israelis at least had the decency to at least tell the Lebanese to get out because they were going to bomb. The Islamofascists have no such respect for human life.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 07:00 PM) Here's the reality. Israel is literally trying to destroy parts of southern lebanon they feel threaten them. In the former Yugoslavia, we called this Ethnic Cleansing. They are dropping pamphlets saying get out, and considering everyone else to be potential targets. Then they bomb the roads on which refugees are trying to escape. They attack civilian centers and blame the other side for using them as human shields, which is still an attack on a civilian center whether or not their claims are correct. They attack purely civilian institutions, or institutions of the Lebanese army, while claiming they are targeting only Hezbollah. These are war crimes. It is difficul to use the term "war crime" here when the instigator is a terrorist organization that doesn't play by the rules of war. Does blowing up a bus full of Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv fall under the "war crimes" definition as well? At least the Israelis told the Lebanese to get out of the region before they attacked. And if you're going to accuse Israel of "ethnic cleansing"... wow... I can't imagine what you'd accuse Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda of. I agree with some of what you say and Israel sure as hell hasn't handled this situation perfectly. But what are they supposed to do? Nearly the entire Arab world wants them all dead... because they're Jews. Just like Hitler and Stalin murdered tens of millions of them in the not-too-distant past... because they're Jews. What the hell would you do if you were in their shoes? Would you try to appease the terrorists who want you dead or would you go after them aggressively to ensure your survival?

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) If it is so easy to grow at home, why aren't more people growing it now? Um, maybe because it's illegal? QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 04:56 PM) There wouldn't be a surge in traffic related deaths for DUI any more than the traditional ones with alcohol. Wrong. There are going to be A LOT more people getting high because the drug is legalized and a large percentage of this new demographic is going to be driving around high.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) Salon.com with an interesting article about the myth of Hezbollah hiding among civilians. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/...h/index_np.html Now, to play Devil's Advocate here: Israel’s response is the usual “oops, sorry” followed by the rationalization that tragedies such as this are “inevitable” because Hezbollah are operating within civilian populations, using said civilians as “human shields”. Myth, my ass. They have plenty of (video) evidence to back it up, not to mention precedent on Hezbollah's part. Israel has absolutely nothing to gain by killing Lebanese civilians. In fact, doing so harms them significantly. On the other hand, Hezbollah has everything to gain from a PR standpoint by sending innocent Lebanese to slaughter. Given that the entire Middle East has been trying to wipe them off of the face of the Earth for the past 60+ years, it's no wonder that Israel needs a "war machine" to survive. Yes. Unfortunately, it's "inevitable" that terrorist organizations will launch rockets indiscriminately into residential areas in Israel and that the rest of the Arab world won't give a crap because they want all of the Jews dead. Your comparison of the Israeli army to al Qaeda and Hezbollah is ridiculous and downright insulting to Jews. While the Israelis have not always "played nice" with their Arab neighbors (though usually in response to an attack), they at least have some regard for human life and have no desire to wipe Muslims off the face of the Earth. In fact, quite a few Muslims live in Israel and, IIRC, some even hold office.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 06:38 PM) I have never smoked the stuff so maybe my views are out of step and naive, but it seems to me that most of the problems would be solved by legalizing marijuana. It would stop being a "gateway" and the quality should increase, avoiding the poisons that reportedly have been introduced. We could lower enforcement costs and increase taxes. I don't see a downside besides the usual ones that are also shared by alcohol and cigarettes. Pot is essentially alcohol that can be more-readily grown at home and doesn't have the negative physical side-effects. The result is that it's very easy to abuse... and would likely be very widely-abused if it were legalized. At the very least, a surge in the number of traffic-related deaths from driving under the influence would occur.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 03:51 PM) Ummm, it's pretty obvious that countries aren't expected to waste their time denouncing terrorist activities. Ummm, that makes absolutely no sense, given that a slew of nations denounced the 9/11 attacks and the Madrid and London bombings. It makes even less sense with regard to the Arab world, where popular opinion casts Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance force and not a terrorist organization.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jul 29, 2006 -> 05:48 PM) He was that belligerent and loose-lipped at .12? No kidding. For a "normal" 190-lb man, that's basically on the borderline of "heavily-buzzed" and "drunk". And if Mel really is an alcoholic as he claims, 0.12 would probably just be a moderate buzz. I've always liked Mel, but this is really disturbing. It's not like he just used a term like "dirty Jew" as a poor attempt at a joke - he went far beyond that. He can't use the I-was-too-drunk-to-know-what-I-was-saying at 0.12.

A Hezbollah missile went right through the roof on a train station in Haifa in the middle of the morning rush hour, yet strangely there was no internatinoal condemnation of Hezbollah for targeting Israeli cititzens.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) I'm not going to nitpick here, but that was your entire post. Show me what I missed. The fact that I said that "his own party is throwing him under the bus" doesn't mean that other factors aren't involved in his poll numbers. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 10:49 AM) Actually Lamont is a millionaire who could self-finance his campaign. So yeah, Soros/Streisand matters very little. Especially Streisand. Streisand contributes so much to the Dems that she had personal meetings with Bill Clinton back when he was running for re-election. So, yeah, she contributes A LOT. And Soros contributes vastly more. The fact that somebody is rich doesn't mean that they're going to blow it all on a campaign Katherine Harris-style. The Bush family are millionaires and they didn't finance their own campaigns. Billionaires (Ross Perot, Steve Forbes) are the only ones who tend to do that because it won't drain a signficant amount of their bank accounts.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 10:33 AM) You just said that's exactly what it was. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Misquoting posts isn't going to help you win arguments.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 10:35 AM) George Soros and Barbara Streisand does not constitute the "left wing of the party." And what does it matter? The "Soros/Streisand" department of the Democratic Party doesn't even live in CT, so what they fund doesn't matter. The people who throw Lieberman under the bus have to actually vote for Lamont. Those people live in CT - and moderates are breaking for Lamont, not Lieberman. Lamont is no left-winger by any means. So, the money that Soros and Streisand give to Lamont's campaign "doesn't matter"? That's absolute crap and you know it. That money does a lot more for his campaign than hundreds of votes from CT Democrats could. Soros and Streisand both contribute a ton of money to left-wing causes. While Lamont is not a left-winger per se, he's a means to unseat a "right-wing" Democrat, which is pretty much the same in their eyes.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) This is news, how? It's a guerilla war movement that Hezbollah fights. Of course they have some support of the people in Lebanon. Especially the Shia who live in Southern Lebanon. And frankly if the bombs were falling on my house from Israel, I'd probably side with the people fighting back myself. Six weeks ago, Israel had a chance to affect change by attacking Hezbollah politically and helping the Christians and Druze who wanted a disarmed Hezbollah. They didn't do that, did they? Southsider: to answer your comment, of course Hezbollah hasn't done that. And they wouldn't. Their stated goal is the destruction of Israel. That's unacceptable. However, Israel's stated goal wasn't bombing shelters of women and children either. It was stopping Hezbollah and making tactical mistakes like that doesn't stop Hezbollah. Even if some families are letting the militias fire from a backyard. There's a huge difference from bombs falling on your house for no good reason and bombs falling on your hosue because you're allowing an illegal militia to fire an anti-aircraft gun from your backyard. If Heabollah wants to use human shields, innocent people are going to die. And their blood will be on the hands of Hezbollah, not Israel.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 10:23 AM) Like Hillary!? She's pro-Iraq war. There are other pro-Iraq war democrats out there who enjoy the support of their party. I love how that's the "only" reason. It really really isn't. Nobody is saying that it is. But it's a significant one.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 10:24 AM) Whoopdeespiff. If Soros and Streisand contributed, good for them. It's nice to see private citizens taking an interest in public affairs. On the whole, Lamont's campaign is more small money than big - and Lieberman's campaign is more out of state money than in state money. So, my assertion that the left wing of the Democratic party is funding Lamont is true. Thanks for proving my point.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) Over half of Lamont's money raised came from Connecticut. Only 20% of Lieberman's did. The "Soros/Streisand" argument holds no water. It only "holds no water" if one solely focuses on WHERE the money came from, rather than WHO. Soros and Streisand (the far left) contributed significantly to Lamont's campaign. Google it if you don't believe me.