Middle East conflict

[samclemens]

i know im not the only one who is whole-heartedly cheering the IDF in this fight. i cant wait until they take on iran. the iranian gov't is completely out of control, and needs to be toppled- no less. i have difficulty believing that iran has weapons grade nuclear material- theres a huge difference between a power plant and a nuclear missile, and we have yet to see even a remote inference from iran that they have that capability. hopefully, i will persistantly be monitoring youtube.com for videos of IDF tanks obliterating pre-1990 soviet tanks with iranian flags on them in the future.

 

every arab nation that wont recognize the state of israel (which is a legal state) and has either (1) let terrorist organizations thrive and in some cases control territories in their country in close proximity to israel [example: Lebanon] or (2) have funded or supported those organizations [ex: basically every arab country] deserve what the IDF is dishing out.

 

if i can pat a terrorist on the back for the first time in my life, it would be for this: thank you, hizbollah, for bringing about your own destruction. the world will be much better off without you. with any luck, you'll be seeing syria and iran soon, and you all can enjoy your 1000 virgins togethor and sing kumbayah.

 

but that's just me.

Edited July 16, 2006 by samclemens

[Balta1701]

I'm just amazed that anyone can actually think the possibility of a wide war in the middle east involving virtually every country out there can be a good thing.

[Sonik22]

i know im not the only one who is whole-heartedly cheering the IDF in this fight. i cant wait until they take on iran. the iranian gov't is completely out of control, and needs to be toppled- no less. i have difficulty believing that iran has weapons grade nuclear material- theres a huge difference between a power plant and a nuclear missile, and we have yet to see even a remote inference from iran that they have that capability. hopefully, i will persistantly be monitoring youtube.com for videos of IDF tanks obliterating pre-1990 soviet tanks with iranian flags on them in the future.

 

every arab nation that wont recognize the state of israel (which is a legal state) and has either (1) let terrorist organizations thrive and in some cases control territories in their country in close proximity to israel [example: Lebanon] or (2) have funded or supported those organizations [ex: basically every arab country] deserve what the IDF is dishing out.

 

if i can pat a terrorist on the back for the first time in my life, it would be for this: thank you, hizbollah, for bringing about your own destruction. the world will be much better off without you. with any luck, you'll be seeing syria and iran soon, and you all can enjoy your 1000 virgins togethor and sing kumbayah.

 

but that's just me.

I don't enjoy war or anything but i agree with this. The IDF is powerful as hell and i don't know why anybody would want to provoke them. I support everything the IDF has done so far.

[samclemens]

I'm just amazed that anyone can actually think the possibility of a wide war in the middle east involving virtually every country out there can be a good thing.

 

as has been evidenced by more instances than i can count, islamic terrorists will not negotiate- they just wont. we've been trying to negotiate with terrorists for longer than i have been alive, and it has never worked, all it has done is prolong or temporarily downgrade their attacks.

 

so if you have a better solution for israel, im all ears. my guess is that you dont.

[Gregory Pratt]

Israel has no sense of proportion. It's completely nuts.

And shame on Bush for his whole handling of this.

[samclemens]

Israel has no sense of proportion. It's completely nuts.

And shame on Bush for his whole handling of this.

 

again, do you have a better solution? what should we be doing? what should israel be doing instead?

 

i'll pre-empt your suggestion that we bring in jimmy carter for more peace talks. for god's sake, they dont work, so please dont suggest that.

 

please see my post above about the arab countries involved in this conflict getting what they deserve and the reasons for it. in a nutshell, they shouldnt have dished it out to israel if they cant take it from israel.

[Gregory Pratt]

again, do you have a better solution? what should we be doing? what should israel be doing instead?

 

i'll pre-empt your suggestion that we bring in jimmy carter for more peace talks. for god's sake, they dont work, so please dont suggest that.

 

please see my post above about the arab countries involved in this conflict getting what they deserve and the reasons for it. in a nutshell, they shouldnt have dished it out to israel if they cant take it from israel.

 

No, I'm not going to see your above post. I don't care what you have to say about it as I have said my piece. Besides, I'm not going to look to you for insights when you've just mockingly suggested that I'd bring in Jimmy Carter -- if you knew anything about me, you'd know that I ridicule Jimmy Carter more than any President aside from Warren Harding, and at any rate, you "pre-empt[ing]" my suggestion obviously shows that you have no interest in engaging me in any form of civilized discourse.

 

Israel and Palestine are both ridiculous.

 

I personally wonder how close to using nuclear weapons Israel is, and how much wink wink support we've given them in that regard. I know you're cheering for Israel to attack Iran, but if they do, unless they use nukes, they are going to have some serious problems. I can't in good conscience rah-rah-rah a senseless War, and I'll never cheer on the use of nuclear weapons, which is something I can see Israel doing.

Edited July 16, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[Gregory Pratt]

What we are currently seeing in the Middle East is the most dramatic unraveling of Peace in thirty years, if not the worst since the first World War broke out so suddenly, and our President isn't lifting a finger to stop it.

 

Because, you know, all that's needed is for Israel to put on a "show of strength," and all will be well.

[Rex Kickass]

again, do you have a better solution? what should we be doing? what should israel be doing instead?

 

i'll pre-empt your suggestion that we bring in jimmy carter for more peace talks. for god's sake, they dont work, so please dont suggest that.

 

please see my post above about the arab countries involved in this conflict getting what they deserve and the reasons for it. in a nutshell, they shouldnt have dished it out to israel if they cant take it from israel.

 

A good solution would be to fight a non-state entity as a non-state entity and not as a state.

 

Israel is destroying one of the most liberal states in the mid-east and a nascent democracy and basically acheiving nothing because Hezbollah fights guerilla warfare and doesn't have big camps and headquarters.

 

They are attacking an unregulated militia by destroying neighborhoods in suburban Beirut. They are attacking an unregulated militia by destroying the transportation infrastructure in Lebanon. They are attacking an unregulated militia by literally destroying the Lebanese government.

 

And sadly it won't end soon - even though nothing but pain will come of this. Because neither hezbollah or the state of Israel is willing to have peace yet. Israel because its acting out of anger and political necessity, Hezbollah because it has nothing to lose.

 

Whod'a thought that we'd be wishing for the restraint of Ariel Sharon.

[Gregory Pratt]

Nevertheless, Israel says the massive destruction of vital Lebanese infrastructure is intended to show Lebanon's people the price they will pay for Nasrallah's decision to instigate a war. "You know that we are doing the right thing, and that if we succeed, Lebanon would be the beneficiary," Israel's U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman told Lebanon's envoy as they appeared before the Security Council last week.

 

From here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13881857/site/newsweek/

 

Disgusting.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

A good solution would be to fight a non-state entity as a non-state entity and not as a state.

 

Israel is destroying one of the most liberal states in the mid-east and a nascent democracy and basically acheiving nothing because Hezbollah fights guerilla warfare and doesn't have big camps and headquarters.

 

They are attacking an unregulated militia by destroying neighborhoods in suburban Beirut. They are attacking an unregulated militia by destroying the transportation infrastructure in Lebanon. They are attacking an unregulated militia by literally destroying the Lebanese government.

 

And sadly it won't end soon - even though nothing but pain will come of this. Because neither hezbollah or the state of Israel is willing to have peace yet. Israel because its acting out of anger and political necessity, Hezbollah because it has nothing to lose.

 

Whod'a thought that we'd be wishing for the restraint of Ariel Sharon.

 

 

That "unregulated militia" also just so happens to have a significant foothold in the Lebanese government so maybe they're not quite so "unregulated" after all.

[KipWellsFan]

8 Canadians have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli strikes.

 

ugh...

[LowerCaseRepublican]

8 Canadians have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli strikes.

 

ugh...

It's just collateral damage. They're not purposefully targeting them so therefore it doesn't count/matter that they get hit. Why do you love the terrorists that purposefully target civilians?

 

/as if there is a difference between dropping bombs in a city and suicide bombs

//both are morally reprehensible

[Rex Kickass]

That "unregulated militia" also just so happens to have a significant foothold in the Lebanese government so maybe they're not quite so "unregulated" after all.

 

Oh, you're right. And it's been the biggest issue in Lebanon since the Syrians were thrown out last year. About whether or not Hezbollah should be able to have a militant wing. But this new democracy - like most - is fragile and change like that has to happen slowly. A wedge was being driven between a militant hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon. But destroying an entire country based on some rocket attacks by a militant group based in Lebanon isn't exactly going to help Lebanon rid itself of Hezbollah, and its going to do nothing but strengthen Hezbollah.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But destroying an entire country based on some rocket attacks by a militant group based in Lebanon isn't exactly going to help Lebanon rid itself of Hezbollah, and its going to do nothing but strengthen Hezbollah.

 

 

I agree with you but for a different reason. As long as you have Syria and Iran sponsoring Hezbollah then Lebanon will never get rid of it. What Isreal is doing right now is killing a few roaches on the kitchen floor while the nest inside the wall goes undisturbed. Unfortunately, going after that nest is a really nasty proposition right now.

Edited July 16, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Balta1701]

I agree with you but for a different reason. As long as you have Syria and Iran sponsoring Hezbollah then Lebanon will never get rid of it. What Isreal is doing right now is killing a few roaches on the kitchen floor while the nest inside the wall goes undisturbed. Unfortunately, going after that nest is a really nasty proposition right now.

The question of course is...if we find a way to avoid disturbing the next, is it possible that the nest will start to wither with time? Or will killing those few roaches on the floor be enough to rile up the full nest?

[EvilMonkey]

It's just collateral damage. They're not purposefully targeting them so therefore it doesn't count/matter that they get hit. Why do you love the terrorists that purposefully target civilians?

 

/as if there is a difference between dropping bombs in a city and suicide bombs

//both are morally reprehensible

Yes, there is a difference. They are not even on the same plane. Much like falling asleep at the wheel and killing someone will get you manslaugter, but running someone over because you didn't like them will get you murder 2. They are not morally equivilent, even if I can't spell equivilent.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The question of course is...if we find a way to avoid disturbing the next, is it possible that the nest will start to wither with time? Or will killing those few roaches on the floor be enough to rile up the full nest?

 

 

Also, it's worthwile to ask will they tear up too much of the kitchen floor in the process?

[Balta1701]

Yes, there is a difference. They are not even on the same plane. Much like falling asleep at the wheel and killing someone will get you manslaugter, but running someone over because you didn't like them will get you murder 2. They are not morally equivilent, even if I can't spell equivilent.

Personally, I think there is a line, but it's not as strong of a line as you're drawing. The line depends in part on the motivation of the people involved, even if the goal is the same. If you're bombing a city, you better as all Hell be trying to be careful and doing your best to avoid civilian casualties. Simply bombing a city randomly would, IMO, be either the same, or maybe even worse than strapping a bomb to your chest (an F-15 being more lethal than most suicide bombers).

 

Here's also an interesting counter-point I would like to offer up, if just to play Devil's Advocate: so, in both cases, a suicide bomber and an Israeli jet...civilians are dying. So the only difference has to be one of motivation; if you're trying to kill civilians or not; the end result is the same, but we're judging things differently based on motivation. Does that not argue that some motivations are worse than others? I.e. If I were to kill a man because he was African American, can I not then judge that my motivation makes my actions worse than if I killed an African American man in the process of a robbery?

 

(i.e. this is the hate crime legislation debate I'm throwing back at you...the best argument I've heard against that is that it's a crime either way, and it shouldn't matter what the motivation is. But here we're clearly taking motivation, in whether or not the civilian deaths were on purpose, into account, so in some cases, we're willing to take people's motivation into account in determining whether or not an action is immoral/illegal)

 

Also, it's worthwile to ask will they tear up too much of the kitchen floor in the process?

Yeah, there's a lot of things to worry about here. It's one of those messes where there doesn't look like a good way out of it. The best long-term outcome...removal of the regimes in Iran and Syria and liberalization of those countries won't happen without ungodly huge casualties, especially given the current situation of the U.S. army, and if we wanted to try to get there through military means, it's going to wind up doing heavy damage to the region and specifically to the U.S. economy, which is already hurting on gas prices. Not to mention of course the potential casualties, which could be massive.

 

I for one think the best possible outcome we could hope for is some sort of stalemate/cease fire in the current shooting, returning to a state of very unsteady peace, and maybe making a few efforts to maintain or strengthen that peace while waiting on the mess in Iraq to destabilize the countries next door.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I for one think the best possible outcome we could hope for is some sort of stalemate/cease fire in the current shooting, returning to a state of very unsteady peace, and maybe making a few efforts to maintain or strengthen that peace while waiting on the mess in Iraq to destabilize the countries next door.

 

 

That's certainly the most bloodless solution but it is the least permanent and probably the least effective. What you're laying out here, basically, is no different than what has been happening ever since Isreal was created.

 

This is basically the cycle that has been repeating itself since Isreal was created.

 

-Period of war.

 

-Incomplete resolution to the conflict.

 

-Buildup of the same old tensions ( this involves both sides taking potshots at each other )

 

-Event that acts as a spark

 

-Period of war.

 

Now that Iraq is out of the terrorism sponsoring game it's the twin ugly heads of Iran and Syria that are behind everything IMO. The level of patent hypocrisy displayed by those 2 is just mind blowing. They claim that the Isreal/Palestine situation is the whole driving factor behind tension in the region, yet they do everything in their power to derail the peace process even though it would mean the creation of a Palestinian state.

 

Fact is that Iran and Syria do not want peace. Well they do but it involves wiping Isreal off the map in a new holocaust and replacing it with a like minded Islamo-fascist state first. Throw Iranian nukes into the mix and this has the potential to really come to a really ugly head here soon.

 

Personally I think war with Iran and Syria is inevitable. If thats true then the question now becomes what is the cost of going to war now as opposed to going to war later.

Edited July 16, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Pale Hose Jon]

That's certainly the most bloodless solution but it is the least permanent and probably the least effective. What you're laying out here, basically, is no different than what has been happening ever since Isreal was created.

 

This is basically the cycle that has been repeating itself since Isreal was created.

 

-Period of war.

 

-Incomplete resolution to the conflict.

 

-Buildup of the same old tensions ( this involves both sides taking potshots at each other )

 

-Event that acts as a spark

 

-Period of war.

 

Now that Iraq is out of the terrorism sponsoring game it's the twin ugly heads of Iran and Syria that are behind everything IMO. The level of patent hypocrisy displayed by those 2 is just mind blowing. They claim that the Isreal/Palestine situation is the whole driving factor behind tension in the region, yet they do everything in their power to derail the peace process even though it would mean the creation of a Palestinian state.

 

Fact is that Iran and Syria do not want peace. Well they do but it involves wiping Isreal off the map in a new holocaust and replacing it with a like minded Islamo-fascist state first. Throw Iranian nukes into the mix and this has the potential to really come to a really ugly head here soon.

 

Personally I think war with Iran and Syria is inevitable. If thats true then the question now becomes what is the cost of going to war now as opposed to going to war later.

 

 

 

 

Just to clairify do you mean the United states going to war with those two countries or Israel?

[EvilMonkey]

Balta, the hate crime analogy doesn't quite fit. In the hate crime scenereo, the perp set out to kill (or hurt, whatever) someone. The fact that their intention was harming the victim, whether racially motivated or not, is the crime. In the Israeli/terrorist mix, the Israelis shoot at an intended, legitimate target. They are not aiming at 'civilians'. The suicide bombers, however, are aiming for the most casualties that they can inflict. similar, but not the same. Any target for them is the desired target. Yes, if the jets were just firing off missles willy nilly into the city, that would be a very bad thing, likely no different than a suicide bomber. But they don't do that.

 

And just an interesting conspiricy theory I heard earlier today, could the tensions be rising in the region due to a failed Iranian nuclear program? If they escalate the situation, and promt Irsael (or the US) to take out their nukes, they can then claim 'oh, now because of the eeeevil zionists we have to start of nuclear program all over from scratch'. Maybe it isn't there at all, and they are worried about saving face in the region? After all the blustering they have been doing, if it turns out they have zilch, that would be pretty bad for Iran. Saving face can be a hellova motivator in those parts.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Just to clairify do you mean the United states going to war with those two countries or Israel?

 

 

If one goes to war with them then surely both will.

[Balta1701]

That's certainly the most bloodless solution but it is the least permanent and probably the least effective. What you're laying out here, basically, is no different than what has been happening ever since Isreal was created.

 

This is basically the cycle that has been repeating itself since Isreal was created.

 

-Period of war.

 

-Incomplete resolution to the conflict.

 

-Buildup of the same old tensions ( this involves both sides taking potshots at each other )

 

-Event that acts as a spark

 

-Period of war.

 

Now that Iraq is out of the terrorism sponsoring game it's the twin ugly heads of Iran and Syria that are behind everything IMO. The level of patent hypocrisy displayed by those 2 is just mind blowing. They claim that the Isreal/Palestine situation is the whole driving factor behind tension in the region, yet they do everything in their power to derail the peace process even though it would mean the creation of a Palestinian state.

 

Fact is that Iran and Syria do not want peace. Well they do but it involves wiping Isreal off the map in a new holocaust and replacing it with a like minded Islamo-fascist state first. Throw Iranian nukes into the mix and this has the potential to really come to a really ugly head here soon.

 

Personally I think war with Iran and Syria is inevitable. If thats true then the question now becomes what is the cost of going to war now as opposed to going to war later.

Personally, I don't think war with either of those countries is inevitable. The events of the last week which weren't noticed because of the mess in Lebanon actually gave me quite a bit of hope...Iran was successfully referred to the Security Council under the threat of sanctions, with neither China nor Russia expressing willingness to use their veto to stop those sanctions. Over the weekend then, Iran started making noises about being willing to negotiate on the basis of those offers put on the table a few weeks ago.

 

The key thing in my eyes in these situations is that the leaders of those countries, no matter how crazy they are, still enjoy being the leaders of those countries. They aren't going to risk having themself overthrown for nothing. Nations have proven this again and again, if someone is really serious about removing them from power, they'll do what it takes to hold onto it, whether it is cracking down on dissidents or capitulating to every demand for inspections from the U.S. The problem with Iran and Syria right now is that both of them feel pretty secure in that the U.S. is totally bogged down in Iraq and won't be invading them any time soon, so they feel some willingness to act out.

[Balta1701]

Balta, the hate crime analogy doesn't quite fit. In the hate crime scenereo, the perp set out to kill (or hurt, whatever) someone. The fact that their intention was harming the victim, whether racially motivated or not, is the crime. In the Israeli/terrorist mix, the Israelis shoot at an intended, legitimate target. They are not aiming at 'civilians'. The suicide bombers, however, are aiming for the most casualties that they can inflict. similar, but not the same. Any target for them is the desired target. Yes, if the jets were just firing off missles willy nilly into the city, that would be a very bad thing, likely no different than a suicide bomber. But they don't do that.

But here's one counterpoint...a lot of the targets Israel has hit are not genuine Hezbollah or military targets. They've hit bridges around Beirut. They've hit the Beirut airport. They've hit factories in the northern part of lebanon, in areas outside of Hezbollah control. They've reportedly killed something like 20 Lebanese soldiers, but killed something like 150 Lebanese civilians, which is an abjectly bad ratio with the technology available to the Israelis. Yes, they have gone after legit Hezbolla targets, like their leadership compounds, or TV stations, but they're also going after targets which have no relationship to Hezbollah, but are key parts of Lebanese infrastructure.