"Disproportionate Response"

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Anyone else think this is a totally idiot term when applied to a battle? In a battle the purpose is to win with the most disproportionate response possible. You want as many of their guys to die and as few of yours as possible.

More than 700 Hezbollah rockets have hit Israel since the current crisis started. The only reason that there are more deaths in Lebanon currently, is because Hezbollah's not very effective with those rockets. If they took out just 1 person with each rocket, then Israel's loss would tripple that of Lebanon. It's not like they aren't trying to kill Israeli's.

[Aliotroph?]

Yeah, exactly. Hezbollah can go jump in a lake and so can all those idiots who think Israel wants all Lebanese dead.

[FATAL]

Yeah, Israel merely wants all Palestinians dead. After Palestina they'll move on to another country. This won't end until Israel refuses to act as USA's puppet, but that won't happen because USA is what keeps Israel running. Israel's economy bases totally on USA's support, and if that support would end, then Israel wouldn't have resources to do anything (ie. it would crumble), and soon the Arab nations would righteously reclaim THEIR lands.

Right now the situation is that Israel just keeps pounding its neighbours and acts as a foothold for USA in the middle east. The countries Israel is in "war" (how do you call a situation where one country has modern weapons and the other one has to use home made bombs?) with and any other Arab nations for that matter don't stand a chance because Israel's military equipment comes straight from the USA. Israel's actions could be stopped by UN peacemakers, but whaddayaknow, USA thinks not (http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/WarCrimes.html).

I believe that there's no question about what country is responsible for the situation in middle east.

Yeah, lead the example, glorious USA!



I hope this changes your views on the matter, Aliotroph. Hezbollah and his merry men are actually the good (albeit desperate) guys in my eyes. It is clear that Israel wants the nearby Arab nations to be wiped from the face of earth. The history and their current actions have proven that.

[DooMAD]

As for keeping things in proportion, you can't simply count this most recent of violent outbreaks. I'm pretty sure that Israel have been responsible for a number of bombings, abductions and kills far in excess of anything they've received in return since they first started occupying land. Keeping in mind you don't hear about most of them through the mainstream media.

I'm quite disgusted that people are prepared not only to tolerate such atrocities, but to openly endorse them under the myth that they are only acting in self defence. Israel's actions over the last few decades have been nothing short of cancerous. It has invaded, spread and killed indiscriminately.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Oh I see, it was the USA that held a gun to Hezbollah's head and said kidnap these soldiers and shell Israel so that they will bomb lebanon.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Show me where they invaded without provocation?

[DooMAD]

They didn't need provocation. It's that part in their religious scripture that says the land is holy and belongs to them, regardless of how many innocent people they have to displace and make homeless to get it.

[Doom_Dude]

Israel's economy bases totally on USA's support, and if that support would end, then Israel wouldn't have resources to do anything (ie. it would crumble), and soon the Arab nations would righteously reclaim THEIR lands. Let's assume that came to pass. Then the Arabs would be fighting one anouther over the land. Heh.

[PumpkinSmasher]

It doesn't matter what anyone does in the middle east, the countries/groups will always be fighting.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

It's rather interesting that basically Israel and Palestine are 2 sides of the same coin. Basically both have occupied the lands for thousands of years. The majority of jews got evicted about 135AD by the Romans. Palestinians approximately 2 centuries later. Both Jews and Muslims were slaughtered in the crusades. I want to say the number was approximately 300,000 jews. Both lay claim to the same land and in fact the same city as holy place. No other countries in the region wanted to take the jews in, and all of the Arab countries in the area kicked the Palestinians out as well.

For some reason however, people don't seem to have a historical reference pre 1948 and assume that there was never a jew in Jerusalem prior to the League of Nations mandating that England give them a state there and later the UN charters.

It's also unfortunate because Palestians should have had a state by now. They had it all locked up when Bill Clinton was president via peace talks and Yassir Arafat screwed them. Why? Because he only was popular as a terrorist leader. Historically his ratings among his own people plumeted in times of relative peace. He would not have power for long if peace came. So he took the agreement and walked away. You want blame for the current mess? Start there. If not for him, we'd already have new maps and globes with the country of Palestine on them.

If every Israeli was wiped out tomorrow, the palestinians would probably be next. The arabs in the area care nothing for them other than using them as a thorn in Israel's side.

[FATAL]

The mess started when Israel was re-found and USA started to supply their military and economy. The surrounding Arab nations would've wiped Israel immediatly if it weren't for the USA sticking its dirty finger in.

Just recently the newspapers here have been interviewing the surrounding nations' citizens (mainly Libanese, though), and there wasn't even one person approving Israel's actions, now or in the past.

From what I've been hearing more and more lately about the USA's media and judging by your views, it seems that the media has been spewing propaganda there, telling only one side of the story. Seems reasonable, as USA doesn't want anything bad to happen to Israel, and therefore wants to harm its enemies. The easy way is to teach americans to love Israel and hate the Arab nations.

[rustyslacker]

Just recently the newspapers here have been interviewing the surrounding nations' citizens (mainly Libanese, though), and there wasn't even one person approving Israel's actions, now or in the past.
Well, is that because nobody really approves of Israel's actions, or because the newspaper only printed interviews with those that disapproved?

[FATAL]

Well, is that because nobody really approves of Israel's actions, or because the newspaper only printed interviews with those that disapproved?
I strongly believe they would've mentioned if there were some people truly behind Israel's actions. Few of the Libanese were against Hezbollah due to him luring Israel to fight on their home ground, but no-one supported (or even approved for that matter) Israel's doings.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0607190149jul19,0,7148967.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

I think you'll find that there's a good chunk of the Arab world that wants Hezbollah to get it's ass handed to it. You see there's been terrorist bombings in Arab nations now, and they see what's coming their way and want no part of it either. If by some miracle terrorists were able to get us to pull out of the middle east, it would be open season on every government in the region that didn't follow the terrorists strict line of religeous thinking. It's already spread to Europe... look at Spain..

I think you will find that they are going to get out of the way and let us look like the bad guy so that we can take care of the problem they don't want to publically be associated with.

[Aliotroph?]

I've met Lebanese people who approve of Israel's actions. Generally the Christian ones do. They told us this week that they sit on their porch and watch as Israeli shells blow up Hezbollah houses and guns next door. It doesn't even bother them because the targeting is accurate enough to land right on the cannon and not touch the surrounding buildings. Those guys are sick of Hezbollah running the country like some kind of mafia business.

Hezbollah is full of people who openly state that they want to blow up women and children. How are they good if they want to blow up children and set up camp in suburbs so they can't be told apart from regular civilians???

And what's this concept of fair wars about anyway? Since when did it matter if the other side had weapons that were no match? That's kind of the point of fighting a war; you want to be able to completely smash the other side. Looks like Israel is having more difficulty with that than anyone thought they would though. I don't care that they use home-made bombs (they really use Russian-Iranian missiles) but only that they seem to think randomly shooting cities is a good strategy.

[FATAL]

Hezbollah is full of people who openly state that they want to blow up women and children.
Israel is full of people who say they will never do such things, yet do it anyway.

You two are stuck on totally irrelevant matters. The real problem is that Israel has been the offender for almost half a century, and it won't stop as long as USA keeps supplying it and using its veto right to unallow UN peace protectors to be sent to guard the situation.

Everyone who fights against Israel is doing so only due to desperation. They know they can't win, but they'd rather do everything in their power to annoy Israel than to give away their lands for free to an invading country.

Israel's reasons for the attacks (captured Israeli soldiers, a bomb attack etc.) are ridicilous excuses. Israel has easily thousands of Palestinians kept as a prisoners without any good reason (reminds of Guantanamo), and yet when others take one or two prisoners from Israel, they launch a massive attack against the country. There's no justification for these actions. Israel is a horrible threat to the middle-east.

[KuriKai]

The real problem is that Israel has been the offender for almost half a century,
Roflcopter. Who was it that wanted to wipe the jews out just after they settled back in israel but lost and lost their land fair and square (just like what happend to the germans.)

All this conflict started back with Abraham (the father of arabs and jews.) God promised him a child by his wife Sarah, but she didn't bear him children, so abraham had sex with his eygptian concubine Hagar and she gave birth to Ishmael. (That line became arabs.) Later on Sarah gave birth to Isaac, who had a child Jacob who in turn had 12 sons (that became the twelve tribes of isreal.)

Both jews, muslims, christians and catholics belive that story where it differs is muslims belive that Ishmael is the son god promised Abraham. the jews, christians and catholics belive Isaac is the one god promised.

[FATAL]

The nation of Israel is totally just made up. It was merely stuffed in there without asking the current occupants at the time. Of course they tried to get their lands back straight away. However, Jews were under the USA protection and thus were able to repel the surrounding nations and even gaining more ground. After that things truly started to go downhill as Jews started slaying arabs for little to no reason at all. One of their most formidable feats was the butchering of an entire refugee camp.

Now on when nothing truly treathens Israel, they like to keep it that way by demolishing their neighbor nations once in a while. It's no coincidence that most of Palestina has been mown down by Israeli bulldozers and that most of the Israeli strikes in Lebanon have struck civilian targets; houses, airports, roads and such.

Liberating at its truest form.

[rustyslacker]

Liberating at its truest form.
Liberating indeed.

Holy wa-ars...duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh DUH DUH DUH!

[Aliotroph?]

Roads and airports are legitimate targets; they carry supplies.

And who really cares that Israel is made up? All the countries in the middle east are like that. They all got drawn on a map by other countries who wanted money, oil, sand, power, or whatever else. The Jews did it by buying large chunks of land and deciding it's a country. If they got attacked for that then let them take places like Jerusalem. If they actually cared that much about owning the land in Gaza or Lebanon they probably would have conquered it already.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

It's all about cutting off the supply chain from Iran.

Hezbollah basically threw a rock at a hornets nest, and now they are getting stuck and complaining.

[Sigma]

Disproportionate response is a perfect term to use with the situation. Essentially, we have a civilian population, armed with a mere militant force, attempting to fight a nation funded by the US and immense amounts of blood money. The UK more or less drew a line in the sand while proclaiming this is Israel as WWII, holocaust reprimations and since then, Israel and Saudia Arabia have been the beach-heads for most of Britian and America's business interests in the region. Israel has completely over-reacted with these recent events. Capturing two soldiers does not justify bombing residential areas, airports and cutting off supplies to the nation. America has vetoed UN intervention in the Lebanon and Israel situation twenty-four times, quite obviously at this point, showing exactly were the US stands in respect to the situation. Ridiculous!

"Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia Islamic group and political party, with a military arm and a civilian arm, founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Defense Forces who occupied southern Lebanon until the year 2000. Its leader is Hassan Nasrallah."

-Wikipedia.org

I have a definate problem with people proclaiming terrorists are "bad" across the board. These people are revolutionaries and are often fighting for their simple existence. To denounce these statements negates the existence of Russia, the US, China, et cetera. These nations were also born from revolution.

I am positive now that the great things that once composed America have escaped the nation. Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Points" for example:

I. The abolition of secret treaties
Secret treaties were common before the First World War, and many blamed them for helping spark the conflict.

II. The freedom of the seas
The freedom of the seas allowed for freedom of navigation outside territorial waters at times of war and peace, but also allowed for total and partial blockades "for the enforcement of international covenants". This proposal was opposed exclusively by the United Kingdom.

III. Free trade
Free trade provided for the removal of economic barriers between peaceful nations, also called for the introduction of equality in trading conditions.

IV. Disarmament
Disarmament "to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety".

V. Adjustment of colonial claims.
Wilson called for decolonisation and national self-determination for formerly colonized countries, and for the people of the world to give equal weight to the opinions of the colonized peoples as to those of the colonial powers.

[...]

XIV. A general association of nations
Point 14 called for a multilateral international association of nations to enforce the peace, foreshadowing the League of Nations (and, after the Second World War, the United Nations).

The fourteen points created by Woodrow Wilson are considered great guidelines concerning foreign affairs. However, if you cannot see the immense amount of hypocrisy when applying these original, WWI points to the current situation in the Middle East (a situation that has come to have multiple similarities), I believe you're blind (or at least, have missed the point altogether).

Furthermore, it is a fact (albeit little known apparently) that the Jews were the ones to originally initiate the significant conflicts in the Middle East.

And this is for Aliotroph?:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/16/lebanon-canadians.html

A cessation of one-sided, poorly educated propaganda/banter is imperative if either you or Grimlock intend on me taking the two of you seriously.

[Danimetal]

Complex, complex matter... I don´t think that the current situation in the Middle East can be justified anymore in terms of religion: if I am asked I would say that it´s economics and politics what´s running the show. Fatal mentioned earlier that Israel´s military power is mantained (or better, sponsored) by the USA and well, that seems to be a fact... But well, I tend to think that Israel does sponsor the USA in a way so they never lack their support.

Maybe it´s all about economics and politics, as I said. If I understood the whole thing right, much of the USA´s economy is mantained by people with interests in Israel (Jews, I´d say... Damn, I´ll start to talk about masons soon :P) and that would be a fine clue to understand the whole USA support to Israel´s acts of war and terrorism (sorry about that but I don´t think that it´s more civil to blow up a building with a missile than with a bomb).

']
If by some miracle terrorists were able to get us to pull out of the middle east, it would be open season on every government in the region that didn't follow the terrorists strict line of religeous thinking. It's already spread to Europe... look at Spain.

Finally, I have to disagree there... About "pulling us out of the Middle East", I´m not sure about who´s "us" so I won´t talk about it to avoid misunderstandings. And then about the open season... Well, we´ve had terrible experiences with terrorism in Spain for years and I don´t think that any of our goverments (very different ones) have given up on the problems following a "strict line of religeous or politic thinking" (I added the politic... our main terrorist problem for years!).

Anyway, let me apologize beforehand If you meant that it´s the terrorism with religious connotations what has spreaded to Europe (instead of following the line)... It has (as we´ve seen a couple of times) spreaded but still I can´t see a reason for that. It was said that those terror strikes were "retaliations" against the countries that took part in the Irak conflict... I´m not sure if that fits in the whole Middle East frame (sure it does somehow) but I don´t see a direct relation between recent events and terror strikes in Europe and USA.

Edit: Just read Sygma´s post and I wanted to say that I too consider Israel´s response (if it can even be considered a response) completely overacted... Sorry for getting a bit off topic with my post.

[FATAL]

It's just nice to see you post. I'm glad you haven't totally disappeared.

By the way, I'll send you an email, we'll discuss business (or lack of it) there.


On topic:
Israel has killed over 900 civilians, and about 30 (hezbollah's source) to 100 (Israel's source) soldiers. I'd say that about halfway is the truth, so let's say that Israel has killed around 60 soldiers.

about half of the people Hezbollah has killed are soldiers. Just yesterday (or a day before? Can't remember) they killed 15 people, of which 12 were soldiers.

I think that there's no question of which side is just spraying and praying, and which one is really resisting against the other side's military force.

[Aliotroph?]

They're not resisting anything if they started the fight. And of course Israel has killed more civilians; they're bombing cities where Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields. They love doing that. They even have civilians admitting Hezbollah is doing things like launching rockets from hospitals. In such a case the hospital will get bombed and unfortunately so will anyone still in it.

Hezbollah can't hit anything with their rockets anyway. I suspect if they could some of their guys would bomb hospitals just because they can. Meanwhile Israel is losing more soldiers now because they're rolling in tanks and ground troops who are pretty easy to shoot at.

CNN claims this: "Israeli casualties in the conflict stand at 98 dead, including 35 civilians, and more than 700 wounded, according to the Israel Defense Forces."

and this: "Lebanese security forces say that 781 people have died, most of them civilians, and nearly 3,000 have been wounded."

Killing say 700 civilians in a month of airstrikes is pretty damn good.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Hezbollah has launched well over 2000 missiles at Israeli civilian populations.

The fact that they haven't killed more than Israel is not from lack of trying. They just suck at aiming.

Hezbollah started this shit, again and now they are paying for it. Israel was out of Lebanon. Hezbollah knew exactly what strings to pull to get them back in.

They stage attacks in places where they know a counter attack will do the most collateral damage.

Hezbollah has no intention of defeating Israel. They want to cause terror and cause Israel to unleash the most violent response possible so that other arab nations might become inflamed and attack Israel.

Well guys, you opened a can of shit and now you are reaping what you sow.

You don't negotiate with Hezbollah you wipe them out.

It's very simple. You have an agreement signed at the UN between a nation and a loose band of terrorists.

Israel violates it's side, what do you do? You can sanction it, cut off aid, cut off trading etc.

Hezbollah violates it's side, what do you do? Nothing. Why? Because you can't. It doesn't exist as a singular entity that you can directly address in any fashion.

That's why you can never broker a truce with them, because there's no way to hold their side to it.

So this is the choices.

Hezbollah goes away of it's own accord.

Israel destroys them completely.

That's it. There is no third option.

[Sigma]

That is one of the biggest pots of B.S. I have ever heard. Your opinions are so one-sided and fallacious I can't even stand reading your posts (which happens to state quite a bit, as I am very open-minded-- or at least I tend to believe I am).

Justifying either side in such a war is idiotic-- justifying the more heinous of the two is damn near brain-dead. This "war" is an outright atrocity. (Here we have another argument against religion.)

Now, since you seem to not understand, Israel (a nation born from nothing, despite what other nations existing in 1948 thought) is fighting the Hezbollah as a nation. The Hezbollah (whom were born from the intolerance and strife Israel inflicted in Lebanon to begin with) are fighting Israel as a small, militant force. The Hezbollah are justified in firing rockets at Israel, because the entire nation (Israel) has mobilized toward the "war" effort. Israel firing rockets into Lebanon is not justifiable because, as I stated earlier, it is relative to reducing a city to dust to combat street gangs. It is a broken, inadequate and ridiculous method to fight such a "problem."

They're not resisting anything if they started the fight.

That depends on how you look at it. The situation technically started with the 2006 Israel-Gaza situation (what prompted the Hezbollah to take action-- you didn't think they orchestrated what they did without some sort of motivation did you?). The Hezbollah have dedicated themselves to stopping Israel from terrorizing other nations and people like Israel did with Lebanon. This is what prompted the Hezbollah to "start" the conflict. You need to read more and educate yourself.

And of course Israel has killed more civilians; they're bombing cities where Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields. They love doing that.

And apparently Israel doesn't have a problem murdering ten civilians to kill that one Hezbollah militant either.

Killing say 700 civilians in a month of airstrikes is pretty damn good.

You're an idiot. (In other words, do you have any idea how stupid this makes you look? I could state that the September 11th attacks were "pretty damn good" strategic uses of jet aircraft in an act of death and destruction but I don't-- because it is sad, wrong and unworthy of any sort of admiration and respect.)

Hezbollah started this shit, again and now they are paying for it. Israel was out of Lebanon. Hezbollah knew exactly what strings to pull to get them back in.

"Hezbollah started this shit, again?" You're an idiot as well. I need at least one good argument to debate with either of you. I can clearly see all either of you have are opinions. Poorly backed up (under-educated) ones at that. Concerning your horrible logic as to the options available, the Hezbollah have given no reason to think they would act if Israel ceased to invade other nations.

Option three: Israel is removed from the middle east. Considering Israel has been responsible for two of the highest profile and highest casualty conflicts in the Middle East, a massive genocide and is not even sixty years old as a nation, I consider this nation a problem-- and an instigator of conflict. This won't happen though, so the peace proposal the UN has drafted will have to suffice.

Hezbollah violates it's side, what do you do? Nothing. Why? Because you can't. It doesn't exist as a singular entity that you can directly address in any fashion.

This is exactly the reason that Israel and America have gone about their respective conflicts in a horrible manner. You cannot annihilate an entire nation in hope of defeating a small, force of militants. Killing thousands of civilians in order to reach this goal just isn't worth it.

[Aliotroph?]

But using two jet planes to kill 3000 peple IS a good strategic use of resources. It's a horrible use and one that should be stopped and prevented wherever possible but it's damned efficient. My argument on that point is fine: they bombed all kinds of buildings and roads trying to stop some rocket launches for a whole month and they only killed about 700 civilians. They're clearly trying not to kill civilians. If they wanted to kill them there would probably be millions dead already.

And apparently Israel doesn't have a problem murdering ten civilians to kill that one Hezbollah militant either.

And apparently Hezbollah doesn't have a problem using civilians as human shields so they can shoot missiles randomly at other civilians so people like you will like them more than the guys who are shooting at them and accidentally killing the human shields. That's what those civilians are; if you set up rockets by a hospital you're sacrificing the lives of all the people therein.

It's still a shitty war to fight though since they may very will never kill all of Hezbollah. Guerrilla paramilitary things like that are hard to kill and tend never to die but it's better option than sitting there and waiting for bigger and bigger missiles to land randomly in their cities.

Removing Israel won't stop conflict over there. Shi'ites and Sunnis will just have their silly fights and they will target civilians on any side. I suspect they're heading for a light of fighting in the years to come anyway. Stating that Israel only existed for 60 years is pointless too. Most of those other countries didn't exist before either. They were carved out of kingdoms and empires and half of them think there shouldn't be any Jews around. Well, screw them. Israel is a productive place and ripping it up will solve nothing.

I feel bad for all the people in Lebanon who don't like Hezbollah and really can't do a thing about it. They have to put up with invasions, bombing, terrorism, and assassinations because some guys over in Syria and Iran like using their country as a proxy to skirmish with Israel.

[Sigma]

You've missed the point. Or, I just cannot agree in respect to the entire scope of things.

The Hezbollah is a broadly popular Shi’a Islamist organization and political party in Lebanon, comprising a military and a civilian arm. Formed in 1982, its primary goals have been to defend Southern Lebanon against Israel and to secure the release of Lebanese from Israeli prisons. It also denies Israel’s right to exist. The current Secretary-General of Hezbollah is Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who has held the office since 1992.

Although Hezbollah has been blamed in a number of terrorist acts, there is disagreement in the international political community about whether it merits designation as a terrorist organization in full, in part, or not at all. While the US, UK, Israel, and some other countries see the Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, among the general populations of Lebanon and the Muslim world, it is widely regarded as a legitimate resistance against Israel.

Israel is funded by Britian and America-- which obviously (even redundantly) translates to the nation you support and why American and Britian consider the Hezbollah terrorist as this article states. Lebanon does not have an adequate army to deal with Israel, nor did America or Britian even remotely deal with the Gaza situation to be honest, which in turn justifies the genesis of the Hezbollah. Furthermore, the majority of Lebanon supports Hezbollah, not the other way around.

As I quoted earlier:

Lebanese casualties
Civilian: Over 380
Combatant: 27 Hezballah (IDF reports >100; Hezballah reports 27); 22 Lebanese regulars

Israeli casualities
Civilian : 24
Combatant : 19

Foreign non-combatants
8 Canadians killed in an Israeli attack
2 Kuwaitis killed in Isreali attack
5 Brazilians (2 children) killed in Israeli attack
4 Germans killed in Israeli attack
3 Indians killed in Israeli attack
1 Sri Lankan killed in Israeli attack
1 Jordanian killed in Israeli attack
1 Iraqi killed in Israeli attack
4 UN workers killed in Israeli attack
1 Palestinian killed when an Israeli bomb hit a refugee camp in Lebanon
2 Nigerians killed in Israeli attack
1 Argentinian killed in Hezballah missile attack

Now, this statistic is showing some age, but is proportional to the modern accounts. How can you possibly justify this? Are you proclaiming the Hezbollah are using Canadians, Germans, Brazilian and UN workers as "human shields?" The Canadian, German, Brazilian and UN death toll is over half of the Hezbollah body count! How else can I possibly show you that Israel is combating the Hezbollah in a damnable method?

Let us assume there are one-thousand Hezbollah "terrorists" in Lebanon. In order to annihilate them, Israel would need to comparatively kill twenty-seven thousand Lebanese civilians using the method(s) they have been.

And apparently Hezbollah doesn't have a problem using civilians as human shields so they can shoot missiles randomly at other civilians so people like you will like them more than the guys who are shooting at them and accidentally killing the human shields. That's what those civilians are; if you set up rockets by a hospital you're sacrificing the lives of all the people therein.

I know that Hezbollah has set up rockets near a hospital (on one instance I can find), and yet, Israel doesn't seem to give a shit. They've shown they are more than willing to kill one-hundred people to take out that one Hezbollah militant. That's like bombing the building where you live and killing all the people within it, just to kill you. Futhermore, if I am to believe that Israel has accidentally killed all of those Lebanese civilians then surely the Hezbollah have as well. Israel has bombed an UN post and driving mass amounts of people to relocate and become displaced in a pure act of ridiculous righteousness.

I do not support Hezbollah as much as you probably think-- I do support them quite a bit more than Israel however. You see, my entire point is, killing is killing. I do not condone anything happening in that region-- and the bigger the offense, the more I oppose them.

True, many of those nations only existed a few years previous to the formation of Israel, but that wasn't the point. The Jews are a common enemy among those nations and the arrangement for the creation of such a nation amidst them was a mistake from the start. The fighting will not stop until either Lebanon, Iran, Syria and Gaza and the rest of Palenstina are annihilated or Israel. At least the Gaza genocide wouldn't have happened if Israel had never existed.

[FATAL]

One thing that people seem to forget is that Hezbollah actually maintains many hospitals, schools and such place in Lebanon. They are currently taking care of the wounded the best they can, as Israel doesn't want help to get through. Hezbollah is nothing of a terrorist organization. They're in the democratically elected goverment, and have very high support in the country. Even if the current soldiers were to be killed, more would ALWAYS recruit. Israel isn't fighting soldiers, it's fighting against ideology that's against Israel. Quite futile if you ask me.

Saying that Israel is productive and thus has a higher value in the area is really wrong. As Israel's economy is run by outsiders, and the only significant thing that has came out of there is the UZI (and I really can't think it as a good merit). I really believe that the Arab nations would be more productive if they weren't bombed to ground every now and then by Israel.

There's two options I see to end the troubles. First one is that the Arab nations disappear, the second that Israel does.

All but two conflicts (one when Israel was founded, the other this year) so far have been started by Israel totally unprovoked. That's dozens of conflicts. Israel continually (even now, although it's not in the news) destroys Palestina while their ridicilous territory demands are being rejected. They've butchered far more civilians than the arab nations together. Although it won't happen due to Israel being practically run by USA, I say that the easier solution is to "relocate" Israel, also being the much bigger troublemaker.

Combining this subject with the Arab nations' domestic problems is stupid. These two things have nothing in common.

[Aliotroph?]

If your goal is to shoot at civilians with inaccurate rockets and bully people who don't support your party then you're a terrorist. It doesn't matter if you run hospitals and schools.

I suspect Israel is happy to have aid go to the civilians in Lebanon. They're just uncomfortable with a load of easily hijackable trucks driving around and possibly ferrying military supplies. As it is they offered to rebuild things on a ceasefire right from the start. The problem was their condition for a ceasefire was they get their guys back.

Hopefully that crap from the UN will actually work (for like the third time in all history) and there will be a huge multinational army to tell Hezbollah to get lost. Meanwhile they're doing some more conventional ground fighting now where it's at least a bit easier to avoid blowing up lots of random people.

[FATAL]

I think those UN dudes should first concentrate on keeping Israel inside its own borders, and then concentrate on the rest. ;)
It is, after all, Israel that's spreading its tentacles to the other countries, not the other way around. I'm also very sure that if Israel was in as desperate situation as Lebanese dudes, they too would form a "terrorist" group and use cowardly means to harm the enemy.

But my guess is that the UN thing won't work due to USA using their right of veto for the twenty second time (I think) to prevent such actions. The UN system needs to be changed. If there's one country that doesn't like playing with the rest's rules, it shouldn't be able to paralyze the entire union.

What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? The latter fights fair, 18th century style?

[Aliotroph?]

Freedom fighters shoot at governments and militaries. I don't mind the Hezbollah guys blowing up Israeli soldiers. Terrorists shoot at civilians, often with inaccurate crap, they bully people who don't support them, etc. By my definition the government of Zimbabwe are terrorists.

The US supports a UN force as long as Israel doesn't have to leave instantly. If that idea gets vetoed it would probably be by China or Russia since Britain and France are with the US. If they choose the idea the other Arab countries are proposing then the US might veto it.

They probably needed vetos back in the day to stop the Americans and Soviets from starting a nuclear war (by stopping the UN from doing anything). Now the UN still can't do anything, but I'm sure most of the bureaucrats who work for it would like to keep it that way anyway. Better job security. ;)

[Sigma]

Freedom fighters shoot at governments and militaries. I don't mind the Hezbollah guys blowing up Israeli soldiers. Terrorists shoot at civilians, often with inaccurate crap, they bully people who don't support them, etc. By my definition the government of Zimbabwe are terrorists.

Using your definition of "terrorist," over half of the world are terrorists. Furthermore, besides the "inaccurate crap," which isn't even an argument, Lebanon supports the Hezbollah-- so technically, using your definition, Fatal is right. The Hezbollah are "freedom fighters."

In the entire scope of things, Israel has been the one "bullying," not the other way around. The Hezbollah were born from this "bullying." I write this again and again because you still don't seem to have grasped that.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

So question for you. Israel withdrew from Lebanon years ago. What were they freedom fighting about when they kidnapped the Israeli soldiers?

Nothing. They were distracting the G8 which was focused on Iran and nukes.

G8 starts and it's all Iran and nukes! Then Hezbollah... who is sponsored by.... oh yes, Iran... Looks and says hey, the palestinians kidnapped an Israeli soldier, and the Israeli's went apeshit bananas over that. We'll go grab a few that will surely piss them off.

G8 is now all about Israel and Lebanon. No longer about Iran and it's nuclear programs.

Do I need to draw a connect the dot diagram and post it?

[FATAL]

You miss the point again. The recent happenings are mostly irrelevant (ie. just another brick in the wall), as the problem has been there for half a century. Besides, it's clear that Israel was merely looking for an excuse to ram Lebanon to the ground (once again), as kidnapping one soldier isn't such a big deal. Over a thousand casualties compared to one captured soldier is nothing. But wait, I frogot, most of those casualties are Lebanese. Israel cares about those people almost as much as UN folks. ;)

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Here's another dot for the drawing.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060809/2006-08-09T214818Z_01_L09100220_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-LEBANON-IRANIANS-DC.html

Yes yes... they were just WAITING to invade. News flash for you. Israel didn't want to be in lebanon. They hated being in lebanon. All of the current citizens are concerned about being STUCK in lebanon again like last time. Why do you think they left in the first place. They don't want to be in lebanon now. But they are tired of missiles flying into their country. The lebanese government was not going to stop attacks from their soil against Israel, so what is Israel to do? It doesn't matter if the government was unwilling or unable to stop it, the end result was the same. They didn't.

Hezbollah started the latest round of shit, and now they are reaping the results. They looked at Israel being occupied with the Palestinians and decided to take a shot at them while they were distracted.

As for it not being a big deal, no maybe not to you, but when you have a terrorist organization that's been taking shots at you for decades, come into your country and grabs your people and basiscally say nyah nyah look what we just did... That's a big deal. Let me give you analogy. I break into your house while you are sleeping. Your wife and kids are upstairs... All I do is take an apple out of your refridgerator.

Are you upset about the apple? No. Are you upset that I was in your house at night while you and your family were sleeping? I'd bet so. I'd also bet that you'd try and beat the hell out of me if you saw me standing on your sidewalk eating it while I say wow this apple I just took from you sure tastes good.

[FATAL]

']
Yes yes... they were just WAITING to invade. News flash for you. Israel didn't want to be in lebanon. They hated being in lebanon. All of the current citizens are concerned about being STUCK in lebanon again like last time. Why do you think they left in the first place. They don't want to be in lebanon now. But they are tired of missiles flying into their country. The lebanese government was not going to stop attacks from their soil against Israel, so what is Israel to do? It doesn't matter if the government was unwilling or unable to stop it, the end result was the same. They didn't.
Maybe the people of Israel doesn't, but the goverment indeed wants to be in many countries at once. Otherwise they wouldn't be there.
']As for it not being a big deal, no maybe not to you, but when you have a terrorist organization that's been taking shots at you for decades, come into your country and grabs your people and basiscally say nyah nyah look what we just did... That's a big deal.
I think you mixed up the sides there. ;)


The main point is this: Hezbollah's recent doings are a great exception to the usual flow of things. The amount of destruction Hezbollah has caused isn't even near a promille when compared to the havoc Israel has caused in the past. It was clear that the moment the citizens (yes, that's what Hezbollah consists of) of the arab nations Israel has wrecked mayhem upon get some firepower, they will retaliate.

Also I can't see what's the matter with Iran helping Hezbollah. USA helps Israel by any means necessary (even vetoing UN to prevent it from help stop the conflicts, need I repeat? (http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/WarCrimes.html)), yet Iran is acting criminally and USA is not. The biggest crook here is the USA, funding and reinforcing Israel for decades so that it can keep arab nations in line and in a way that it'll be possible to come fetch some oil when the need rises. If someone says that USA goverment didn't/doesn't know that the weaponry they have been delivering to Israel is going to be used to butcher civilians and raze entire villages (cities even), I'll ask that person nicely to leave.

USA has nukes too, why couldn't Iran have them as well? I sure as hell don't trust USA's foreign politics. Since world war two they haven't done any good. On the contrary, it has managed to severly piss off many muslims now trying to bomb everything that has the star flag on it. I can't see those same people causing mayhem in Russia or China.

Oh sorry, I forgot that the world leader simply doesn't act unresponsibly with its foreign politics.

[Sigma]

So question for you. Israel withdrew from Lebanon years ago. What were they freedom fighting about when they kidnapped the Israeli soldiers?

For the 20th time, Hezbollah were using the two captured Israeli soldiers as bargaining pieces for the release of multiple Lebanese and Gaza civilains. Second of all, Israel has never fully withdrawn from Lebanon in the eyes of many Lebanese and Hezbollah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_17_Agreement

Third of all, Iran managed to enrich Uranium. There is a big difference between having weapon-grade uranium, coupled with the technology needed to launch a distance offensive and what Iran has achieved thus far. Essentially, Syria, Gaza, Iran and Lebanon have been at ends with Israel-- since its inception, oftentimes in the form of Syria or Iran becoming directly involved because Gaza and Lebanon have nothing in terms of defense. The US does the same thing with many nations.

Yes yes... they were just WAITING to invade. News flash for you. Israel didn't want to be in lebanon. They hated being in lebanon. All of the current citizens are concerned about being STUCK in lebanon again like last time. Why do you think they left in the first place. They don't want to be in lebanon now. But they are tired of missiles flying into their country. The lebanese government was not going to stop attacks from their soil against Israel, so what is Israel to do? It doesn't matter if the government was unwilling or unable to stop it, the end result was the same. They didn't.

Get your stories straight. Aliotroph? has stated they were waiting to invade and you do not. If Israel is sick of missles flying into their country, perhaps they shouldn't do/have done the same thing themselves-- in effect, causing this entire string of conflicts.

You have the "Lebanese government not stopping attacks from their own soil against Israel" right though, because Lebanon supports the Hezbollah. Imagine that! ;)

Grimlock, you are the master of using transitive statements in your own deluded arguments. I ask you, why do you think these "terrorists" are primarily concerned with Israel, America and Britian? No reason at all? Even Bush Sr. realized his error with the middle east-- in conclusion, giving huge stock-piles of firearms and munitions to middle eastern nations for the release of American POWs. ;)

This escalation of violence in the middle east is a direct cause of America, Britian and Israel's interaction with the middle east. I have told you time and time again, you need to start with the Cold War if you have any desire to understand the situation adequately.

As for it not being a big deal, no maybe not to you, but when you have a terrorist organization that's been taking shots at you for decades, come into your country and grabs your people and basiscally say nyah nyah look what we just did... That's a big deal. Let me give you analogy. I break into your house while you are sleeping. Your wife and kids are upstairs... All I do is take an apple out of your refridgerator.

In order to keep the analogy in persective, in consequence from stealing that apple, I murder you, your family, destroy your car and incinerate your house. As a matter of fact, you only stole my apple because in the past I had stolen hundreds of apples from you and killed many of your friends, thus making you enraged with me.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

For the 20th time, Hezbollah were using the two captured Israeli soldiers as bargaining pieces for the release of multiple Lebanese and Gaza civilains.

For the 20th time back, no they weren't. They did this right as the G8 started in order to take the pressure off Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_17_Agreement

I believe it states quite clearly there that Syria was responsible for killing the agreement by refusing to withdraw it's troops.

Get your stories straight. Aliotroph? has stated they were waiting to invade and you do not.

My appologies, I forgot to consult Ali first to make sure we were on the same page. God forbid we have differing opinions. By far the funniest statement in a post I've seen in quite a while.

You have the "Lebanese government not stopping attacks from their own soil against Israel" right though, because Lebanon supports the Hezbollah. Imagine that! ;)

Well then they can't bitch about being the innocent victim of repriasals from Israel against Hezbollah.

Grimlock, you are the master of using transitive statements in your own deluded arguments. I ask you, why do you think these "terrorists" are primarily concerned with Israel, America and Britian?

Because we're the primary ones standing up to them. Spain bent over and took it, and where'd that get them? Oh ya subway bombings. Because you know they were a major presence in the middle east. Oh and how many troops does Bali have there? France was a big opponent of the war and they are coming under siege... Russia.. well you see how russia deals with it. Take a few hostages? Fine we'll kill you all even if it takes the hostages out with it. They don't give a fuck.

Weeee I've been name called. Ok who had today on the betting grid as the first name calling post?

[Sigma]

For the 20th time back, no they weren't. They did this right as the G8 started in order to take the pressure off Iran.

Transitive statement! ;)

You're insinuating that the Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, in effect, manifesting a war-- in order to take world-wide publicity off of Iran's nuclear program? That this was the ultimate cause of this entire conflict between Lebanon/Hezbollah and Israel? That sounds absolutely ridiculous. While public attention might have shifted course (which it happens to do, frequently), by no stretch of the imagination does that mean America has "forgotten" about Iran or failed to continue negotiations. I simply cannot understand how this even could remotely constitute for what actually happened (or in other words, I think you have a gross misrepresentation of the feelings between Lebanese/Hezbollah and Israel, and their past).

I believe it states quite clearly there that Syria was responsible for killing the agreement by refusing to withdraw it's troops.

Read it again. You've missed something paramount. Couple what you see there with "why was Syria in Lebanon to begin with?" then you will have an adequate idea of what America and Israel were attempting to do.

My appologies, I forgot to consult Ali first to make sure we were on the same page. God forbid we have differing opinions. By far the funniest statement in a post I've seen in quite a while.

Tepid. I did not expect you to consult Aliotroph?. I am simply stating your arguments are deleterious to each other-- in effect, bluring the debate by illustrating incoherent "facts" and "opinions."

Well then they can't bitch about being the innocent victim of repriasals from Israel against Hezbollah.

These people are still civilians. Did you ever think that perhaps the Lebanese in large support the Hezbollah because of what Israel has consistently done in the past? As DoomAD had stated at one point, this recent string of Hezbollah actions are nothing in the overall scope of things. Especially when compared to what Israel has done in the past and continues to do. Fatal and my arguments seem to be of no consequence as your mind is obviously made-up, therefore, debating is really pointless. I do not really care to repeat myself, but I often find myself doing so-- some people just need things to be pounded into them. To others, well... you can't force a blind man to see.

Because we're the primary ones standing up to them. Spain bent over and took it, and where'd that get them? Oh ya subway bombings. Because you know they were a major presence in the middle east. Oh and how many troops does Bali have there? France was a big opponent of the war and they are coming under siege... Russia.. well you see how russia deals with it. Take a few hostages? Fine we'll kill you all even if it takes the hostages out with it. They don't give a fuck.

Standing up to them? America created Al-Queda and Israel (American/British created) was directly responsible for the creation of the Hezbollah through their own, violent, ambitions. It wasn't until our precious crude oil came under seige that America and Britian did anything and even then, it certainly wasn't in the best interests of the masses living there. While the middle east has always been fighting, the current geography and factions are essentially the monsters of American and British creation.

The single reason I consistently argue with you is because you're (seemingly) the epitome of "what America thinks." You seem to indirectly support the unjust balance of power, much of which is consistent with American/British involvement, and the nations with the power tyrannically attempting to wipe out other nations while proclaiming the entire time, "Terrorists! Terrorists! Damn those terrorists!" when it is so blatantly obvious at this point these people are desperate and fighting for the very survival of their nations, ideologies and cultures amidst the American gears of war.

I have stated multiple times that in order for you to understand my perspective to this, and to why I am seemingly (though I am really not, entirely) against America, you need to study the Cold War. Since you do not seem to want to properly educate yourself, and I lack the time to write an otherwise, necessary essay, I cannot continue debating with you.

For now... Teilnahmslosigkeit.

[rustyslacker]

The single reason I consistently argue with you is because you're (seemingly) the epitome of "what America thinks." You seem to indirectly support the unjust balance of power, much of which is consistent with American/British involvement, and the nations with the power tyrannically attempting to wipe out other nations while proclaiming the entire time, "Terrorists! Terrorists! Damn those terrorists!" when it is so blatantly obvious at this point these people are desperate and fighting for the very survival of their nations, ideologies and cultures amidst the American gears of war.
America shows all the traits of "groupthink". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)
His eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:
1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
3. Collective rationalization of group's decisions
4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
8. Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information

One, two, and four are the most blatanly present in America.

[Aliotroph?]

Hehe, saw all of those in America in 2003 when they invaded Iraq. Also saw them in Canada but taking the opposite side. I don't think either side was entirely right in that war -- at least not the two sides that showed up arguing the most often.

[rustyslacker]

Yes. Now, however, they're shifting when it comes to Iraq. People who support the war are silenced, there's an illusion of unanimity against the war, etc.

[Aliotroph?]

Yeah, though I find most societies (even historical ones) won't support a war for more than a couple years if they can avoid it. War is only fun when you win it fast and most people probably support most wars for the perceived glory. The invasion of Iraq sure looked pretty glorious for the first couple weeks!

I supported invading Iraq only if the force was broader than the US and Britain, and preferrably if it could be done without the US (yeah right!). That way Hussein would get flattened, America would less a little less evil in the eyes of the third world, and there'd be an impression of more countries really being mad at Iraq. Of course, none of that could happen because most of Europe wanted nothing to do with a war like that and neither did anyone else. Bleh. Now they have some kind of religious guerrilla civil war thing there. Is that better or worse than Saddam Hussain? :/

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Transitive statement! ;)
You're insinuating that the Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, in effect, manifesting a war-- in order to take world-wide publicity off of Iran's nuclear program? That this was the ultimate cause of this entire conflict between Lebanon/Hezbollah and Israel? That sounds absolutely ridiculous.

And yet there are constant insinuations about Bush doing stuff of exactly this nature, and you'll believe all of those.

What part of this isn't clear. Iran directly sponsors Hezbollah. Iran's ass is in the hot seat over it's nuclear program. And the day the G8 is to start meetings where a large focus will be about Iran's nuclear program, Hezbollah starts shit with Israel. Not the usual shit mind you. They see how Israel reacted to the Palestinians taking a soldier so what do they do? The same thing knowing they will get at least an equal response. And given the history of Israel/Hezbollah they are assured of such. It makes far less sense to assume otherwise.

Tepid. I did not expect you to consult Aliotroph?. I am simply stating your arguments are deleterious to each other-- in effect, bluring the debate by illustrating incoherent "facts" and "opinions."

What's your point here? What diff does it make if Ali and I agree or disagree when it is you I debating an issue? I don't look at Ali's posts and go hmmmm I should make sure my arguments are consistent. What he says is what he thinks, just as what you say is what you think. There's no reason any of us need to have the same or differnet arguments on anything. It is what it is. If it was a debate between team Ali-Grim vs team XIX-Fatal I could see your point. I don't even know why you brought this up.

Fatal and my arguments seem to be of no consequence as your mind is obviously made-up, therefore, debating is really pointless.

You guys obviously do a better job consulting each other before posting than Ali and I do :)

The single reason I consistently argue with you is because you're (seemingly) the epitome of "what America thinks."

That's a rather large burden to place on a person don't you think? We need a second person however to be the what the other 50% of what America thinks because there's pretty much 2 camps of thought on all this.

For the record I'm far more educated on this than you give me credit for, but you've neglected your own arguments as they apply to you as well. Youy have your mind made up and refuse to be swayed, and anyone that doesn't agree with you must somehow be defective, or uneducated. In other words, you're better than they are, because you are the only one that "gets it". That's a pretty high opinion to have of ones self.

Ya know the whole oil argument is so fucking tired and old, and completly lacking in any sort of rational basis.

If you want to secure your oil interests, you don't destabilize the region. That's the worst thing you can do. We will never be able to invade a country over there and completely control the oil for the benefit of our country. You just can't do it. Then there is the argument that we only go after these countries because of the oil, (not saying you in particular made that argument), but last I checked, there's no oil in Afghanistan and we started the war on terror there. People are so focused on Iraq they forget we started in Afghanistan.

I'll blame Bush 41 for this mess for not finishing what was started in the first gulf war and taking out Saddam then. I'll blame Clinton for doing basically nothing for 8 years in regards to Iran or NK. I'll blame the UN for creating the Israeli mess and refusing to deal with it. Just like every other mess they create. But hey they are first in line to criticize anyone else that gets involved.

The UN could do well to learn from the following quote.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

I'll blame Arafat for having a deal of peace in his hands and then saying hmmm when it's peacefull nobody likes me in my home state, but when I am saying death to Israel they ove me.. I better torpedo this deal and remain popular and screw my own people.

I'll blame the world for ignoring that Hezbollah has now fired about 4000 rockets into Israeli civilian areas, but hey nobody cares about that, and it only took Hezbollah 3 hours to violate the new UN peace agreement,

I'm not saying Israel doesn't do things wrong, or that they are a saint here. They aren't, but the fact is you have a country completely surrounded by neighbors with a sworn and often publically stated goal of it's anhiliation. How would you react to threats if you lived in that environment.

I can tell you how I'd react. If someone comes up to me and I know they mean it when they say it... I'm going to come and kill you, and your family and burn your house down. I'll never stop trying, and some day when you least expect it, I'll get you, and if not me than my friends over there...

My response would probably be to kill that person on the spot. Why do I want to wait for the time of their choice when they have the advantage? In fact I'd probably beat him as badly as possible first to set an example to his friends as to whats waiting for them if they so much as look at me wrong, and the first one that takes a menacing step in my direction will have it brought to him in full.

As far as Iran not having Nuclear weapons. Agreed, they probably don't. Do you seriously believe them for one second that they don't want them? I mean the same people that say we are in Iraq and didn't learn from Vietnam are the same people saying Iran isn't a problem because they didn't learn from North Korea.

NK said hey believe us, we won't develop nukes if you give us aid.. Trust us... And we gave them aid... And then... Oh by the way, fuck you, we lied, we have a nuke, now what are you going to do? Come on, we dare you, we'll burn japan to the ground in a nuclear fire.

Iran.. We don't want nukes. We only want peacefull nuclear technology. We want it for energy purposes. That's kind of funny. An oil rich country needing nuclear technology for energy production. I could believe it with NK as they have to import their fuel, but not from Iran.

All of this of course is irrelevant.

How it started is no longer relevant because this shit has been going on for 3,000 years. For every argument about who started it one side wants to make, you can just go back a decade or two and find the other side started it first.

We are where we are, so the question remains what do you do.

It boils down to the argument I make as to why you can't negotiate with Hezbollah.

You can't have a cease fire/peace agreement with a non defined entity that can not be held accountable for breaking it. There's no way to do that with Hezbollah. Are we going to sanction Iran and Syria?

Look at Iran, they don't care what the UN thinks. They are openly threatening the UN if they are referred to the security council. You aren't going to do anything to them that will have any tangible impact on them.

Hezbollah has 2 choices. Complete stand down or complete destruction. If they gave a rats ass about lebanon, they would withdraw because the only reason Israel is in there is because of them. But they don't care about Lebanon.. This is all about sticking it to Israel.

So since we aren't going to make any progress about the other arguments in this thread, what would you propose is a solution to the Israeli/Hezbollah situation. Forget the past, it is what it is and it can't be changed. What do you do going forward? FYI in the politics forums on one of the other mge sites I've called for UN troops in that area for YEARS to seperate the sides. Maybe this will have an effect, maybe not. I'm going to guess it may for the short haul, but I think once they leave it will just start up again.

Yer lucky it's late and I'm keeping my remarks brief *wave*

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Ali,

Europe for the most part (with some noteable exceptions) will never do anything against a Saddam type of person. They talk and talk and talk and accomplish nothing. But they are right there on the sidelines booing anyone that does try and deal with the situation.

Look at the chief opposition to the war... look at the financial relationships they had with Saddam. They were making lots of money keeping him in power. We kicked over their gravy train, thats why they opposed it. One of these days the world is going to wake up and find out it's the same terrorism threat going after everyone, not just the US/Brittain. They just haven't gotten around to them yet... Just wait, it's coming. And then of course they will cry and blame us somehow.

This is a fanatical group of Muslims that isn't after the US because we support Israel. It's after the US because we stand in their way of taking over the region. They kill other muslims that don't follow their strict interpretation of Islam. They want a complete conversion to strict Islamic law in all of the countries over there. If the US did not exist, they would still be going after that goal.

[Sigma]

Though I stated "indifference," I cannot remain "indifferent." (You didn't even read what I wrote thoroughly did you?)

I understand your arguments, but an overture for peace cannot be taken with seriousness when America has every intention of orchestrating its intentions despite what happens in the region. These intentions are responsible, more or less, for the formation of Al-Queda, Israel, Saudia Arabia, destabilized Iraq and Kuwait. The formation of Israel was obviously a mistake and to account for this mistake, the solution must be titanic in implementation. Furthermore, as I had stated, people have every right to protest the situation when it is obvious nothing is getting better, about to change for the better or even hints at getting better in the near-future.

Your argument is worthless. The destruction of the Hezbollah will only further to disillusion people and increase hatred among the mostly Islamic middle east. Nothing can be done-- as a few people have stated, the Lebanon/Israel conflicts illustrate that Israel is the greater antagonist of the two, and America nor Britian can rewrite history (but you basically agree with this). Creating peace through destruction is not a reasonable course of action in the region and Americans have begun to understand the current course of action is not working.

I am a huge opponent of religion, in effect, showing where I stand not only in respect to the largely Islamic middle east, but Jewish Israel and Christian/Jewish-orientated America.

I ask from you:

Legitimate evidence that the current Israel/Hezbollah conflict was a direct result of what you proposed (G8-Iran proposal).

And to bother yourself with getting a proper education on the situation. I'm not proclaiming you do not know what you are writing about, but your "education" on the matter seems to be excessively prone to selective bias. If you are content with knowing America has a record national debt and a ten thousand plus casuality count and achieved relatively nothing in the last few years, then I suppose America's method of going about the situation is adequate. ;)

Crude oil:

The 1991 Gulf War (also called the Persian Gulf War or Operation DESERT STORM) was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 30 nations led primarily by the United States, its allies and mandated by the United Nations in order to liberate Kuwait.

The war began with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, following Iraqi contention that Kuwait was illegally slant-drilling petroleum across Iraq’s border. The invasion was met with immediate economic sanctions by the United Nations against Iraq. Hostilities commenced in January 1991, resulting in a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait with minimal coalition deaths. The main battles were aerial and ground combat within Iraq, Kuwait, and bordering areas of Saudi Arabia.


Causes

Prior to World War I, under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Kuwait was considered to be an autonomous caza within Ottoman Iraq. Following the war, Kuwait fell under British rule which treated Kuwait and Iraq as separate countries known as emirates. However, Iraqi officials did not accept the legitimacy of Kuwaiti independence or the authority of the British-appointed Kuwaiti Emir. Iraq never recognized Kuwait's sovereignty and in the 1960s, the United Kingdom deployed troops to Kuwait to deter an Iraqi annexation.

During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, Kuwait was allied with Iraq, largely due to desiring Iraqi protection from Shia Iran. After the war, Iraq was heavily indebted to several Arab countries, including a $14 billion debt to Kuwait. Iraq hoped to repay its debts by raising the price of petroleum through OPEC oil production cuts, but instead, Kuwait increased production, lowering prices, in an attempt to leverage a better resolution of their border dispute. In addition, Iraq began to accuse Kuwait of slant drilling into neighboring Iraqi oil fields, and furthermore charged that it had performed a collective service for all Arabs by acting as a buffer against Iran (Persia) and that therefore Kuwait and Saudi Arabia should negotiate or cancel Iraq's war debts. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s primary twofold justification for the war was a blend of the assertion of Kuwaiti territory being an Iraqi province arbitrarily cut off by imperialism, with the use of annexation as retaliation for the “economic warfare” Kuwait had waged through slant drilling into Iraq’s oil supplies while it had been under Iraqi protection.

The war with Iran had also seen the destruction of almost all of Iraq’s port facilities on the Persian Gulf, cutting off Iraq’s main trade outlet. Many in Iraq, expecting a resumption of war with Iran in the future, felt that Iraq’s security could only be guaranteed by controlling more of the Persian Gulf Coast, including more secure ports. Kuwait thus made a tempting target.

Ideologically, the invasion of Kuwait was justified through calls to Arab nationalism. Kuwait was described as a natural part of Iraq carved off by British imperialism. It had originally been under the mandate of the Ottoman governor of Basra and had only been defined as an independent nation when Sir Percy Cox drew up the border in 1922. The annexation of Kuwait was described as a step on the way to greater Arab union. Other reasons were given as well. Hussein presented it as a way to restore the empire of Babylon in addition to the Arab nationalist rhetoric. The invasion was also closely tied to other events in the Middle East. The First Intifada by the Palestinians was raging, and most Arab states, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, were completely dependent on Western military alliances. Hussein thus presented himself as the one Arab statesman willing to stand up to Israel and the United States.

Attempt to read this with an anti-American viewpoint or even indifferent viewpoint.

If you want to secure your oil interests, you don't destabilize the region.

No; that is exactly what you do. Then America can appoint its own leader. In this particular situation, nearly anyone is better than Hussein-- being an enemy of America, et cetera.

Then there is the argument that we only go after these countries because of the oil, (not saying you in particular made that argument), but last I checked, there's no oil in Afghanistan and we started the war on terror there. People are so focused on Iraq they forget we started in Afghanistan.

That is true, but again, you use transitive statements. An American funded and trained (created) Al-Queda took a stand in Afghanistan as an anti-Communist expansion deterrent (essentially to protect crude oil). Al-Queda challenges us now, primarily, because America and Britian are doing the same thing we trained them to fight against. While Al-Queda might be religiously inspired, religion certainly didn't inspire America or Britian's ambitions. Our intelligence was based on Afghanistan being the home-land of Osama Bin Laden. The destruction of Iraq was unrelated and based on poor intelligence (alternatively, no evidence supporting that intelligence).

What's your point here? What diff does it make if Ali and I agree or disagree when it is you I debating an issue? I don't look at Ali's posts and go hmmmm I should make sure my arguments are consistent. What he says is what he thinks, just as what you say is what you think. There's no reason any of us need to have the same or differnet arguments on anything. It is what it is. If it was a debate between team Ali-Grim vs team XIX-Fatal I could see your point. I don't even know why you brought this up.

Exactly what I said. Aliotroph? has made comments that are deleterious to things you have posted. The two of you argue as a whole it has seemed from time to time, but have opinions that dispose of each other's arguments. I don't mind the two of you sabotaging your own arguments however. ;)

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

At what cost? If you believe in the cause, join the military-- get behind Israel or the Iraq police-state. You're sitting behind a computer while making snide remarks about how "Hezbollah deserves this shit" and Aliotroph? proclaiming "war is fun." Join the army. Go get your arms blown off. Then come back on the computer and (attempt to) write that. The Nazis were committed to their eradication of the Jewish, does that make it right or commendable? The UN argument has been made-- and you seem to have either ignored it or forgotten it (and you're the one consistently posting about short-term memory!).

I'm not saying Israel doesn't do things wrong, or that they are a saint here. They aren't, but the fact is you have a country completely surrounded by neighbors with a sworn and often publically stated goal of it's anhiliation. How would you react to threats if you lived in that environment.

Ha! Why do the Jews tend to piss off everyone regardless of where they are? Joking aside-- invading Lebanon, committing a genocide in Gaza and being funded and supplied by America certainly doesn't help their situation. Exporting Judaics from Europe into a British drawn sector in the middle of generally, anti-Jewish nations doesn't help either. Fatal has proposed a solution, but obviously, that will never happen. I suppose America and Israel will simply have to continue waging wars until the huge, greater population of radical Islamics are dead in order to save the much smaller Jewish population of Israel. Seems reasonable enough to me. (I am being sarcastic; unnecessarily so, I suppose.)

As far as Iran not having Nuclear weapons. Agreed, they probably don't. Do you seriously believe them for one second that they don't want them? I mean the same people that say we are in Iraq and didn't learn from Vietnam are the same people saying Iran isn't a problem because they didn't learn from North Korea.

I am not disagreeing with the chance Iran wants nuclear arms. The situation is elevated because of religion-- unlike Communist Russia, Iran might not care if it starts an atomic war with America because they're all going to heaven anyway (isn't religion great?), however, war is not the answer. The perceived risk of war or invasion only serves their ambitions toward such weapons. In order for America to win in this region, it must be absolute-- giving the same priviledges to each nation. Thus-- the reason Korea has become infuriated as of recent. ;)

So since we aren't going to make any progress about the other arguments in this thread, what would you propose is a solution to the Israeli/Hezbollah situation. Forget the past, it is what it is and it can't be changed. What do you do going forward? FYI in the politics forums on one of the other mge sites I've called for UN troops in that area for YEARS to seperate the sides. Maybe this will have an effect, maybe not. I'm going to guess it may for the short haul, but I think once they leave it will just start up again.

I propose Israel sacrifice land to their north (because the Hezbollah are going to protest if Lebanese land is sacrificed), where a UN force, complimented by a man-built deterrent of some sort, can uphold a police-state with relative safety. Both nations should be informed that violence will not be tolerated through a massive education campaign. Lebanon should have as much capital invested into it as Israel (alternatively, have the same priviledges as Israel) to futher dissolve factions/create support for American policies. And finally, a British inspired disarming/gun-control procedure should be established among civilians.

The chance of this happening? Not too high I am afraid. At any rate, I don't understand why you've finally acknowledged (seemingly) that Israel has been the antagonist in the region and yet, tend to sympathize with them.

Europe for the most part (with some noteable exceptions) will never do anything against a Saddam type of person. They talk and talk and talk and accomplish nothing. But they are right there on the sidelines booing anyone that does try and deal with the situation.

It is comments like these that demonstrate what I have been writing this entire time. You're stating that America knows better than Europe, Japan, China, et cetera (the entire world)? Europe is sick of war-- Europe has had wars raging throughout the region decades-- centuries-- before America was even founded. America and Britian are the instigators (seen as antagonists to the nations in the middle east) for a reason. You paint a ridiculous picture of the world-- one that is so poorly conceived that I find furthering justification for writing what I do in each post you make opposing me.

[FATAL]

']You guys obviously do a better job consulting each other before posting than Ali and I do :)
Ha, while we actually do discuss certain matters, never are they about what we should post.
']Ya know the whole oil argument is so fucking tired and old, and completly lacking in any sort of rational basis.
Indeed it is not. First know that USA has never done anything without a goal that aids itself. Secondly know that the area hasn't got anything of interest, except oil. I fail to see how there wouldn't be a connection between USA and Israel and oil.

']Then there is the argument that we only go after these countries because of the oil, (not saying you in particular made that argument), but last I checked, there's no oil in Afghanistan and we started the war on terror there. People are so focused on Iraq they forget we started in Afghanistan.
But a scapegoat was needed for the 9/11 to please citizens and not give them a chance to say that nothing was done to retaliate.

']I'll blame Arafat for having a deal of peace in his hands and then saying hmmm when it's peacefull nobody likes me in my home state, but when I am saying death to Israel they ove me.. I better torpedo this deal and remain popular and screw my own people.
Are you aware of Israel's territory demands? They're ridicilous, and there's no way any nation would ever bend to them.

']I'll blame the world for ignoring that Hezbollah has now fired about 4000 rockets into Israeli civilian areas, but hey nobody cares about that
Oooo, I dare not count the amount of explosives Israel has shelled into Lebanon. Actually it may not even be that great amount, but their shots have indeed hit due to having very hi-tech weaponry. Just recently, after Israel recommended people to evacuate southern Lebanon, they had a manless(!) fighter to fire at the people escaping to north, killing many while at it.

']I'm not saying Israel doesn't do things wrong, or that they are a saint here. They aren't, but the fact is you have a country completely surrounded by neighbors with a sworn and often publically stated goal of it's anhiliation. How would you react to threats if you lived in that environment.
Heh, Israel doesn't state or swear anything, just annihilates. I think that "reconstructing" northern Israel will be done in weeks. I don't think the same can be said from Palestina or Lebanon.

']My response would probably be to kill that person on the spot. Why do I want to wait for the time of their choice when they have the advantage? In fact I'd probably beat him as badly as possible first to set an example to his friends as to whats waiting for them if they so much as look at me wrong, and the first one that takes a menacing step in my direction will have it brought to him in full.
Or then his friends will get pissed off at you, and try everthing to kill you. Because that's the thing that IS actually happening.

']How it started is no longer relevant because this shit has been going on for 3,000 years. For every argument about who started it one side wants to make, you can just go back a decade or two and find the other side started it first.
No, this war has been on since 1948, and has been more or less active ever since. Hezbollah is simply Israel's creation, that they made when they were in Lebanon the last time. There's no excuses there. When you raze half a country, some people are probably going to get pissed.

Let's say that USA had nothing to attack Afghanistan with. Then someone over there decides to cause some mayhem (9/11). USA will want to retaliate, but they can't since they have no weapons. They would start amassing weapons as much as they could, and THEN attack Afghanistan.

That's what's happening, if you replace USA with Hezbollah and Afghanistan with Israel. The people wanting to retaliate didn't have any weaponry, and when they get some, they'll try to fight back to have vengeance.

Saying that "Israel hasn't been in that country for years, why don't they just forget it?" is ridicilous. I'm absolutely sure they would've preferred to have this conflict back then when the country was already in ruins, but simply didn't have the resources.



']It boils down to the argument I make as to why you can't negotiate with Hezbollah.

You can't have a cease fire/peace agreement with a non defined entity that can not be held accountable for breaking it. There's no way to do that with Hezbollah. Are we going to sanction Iran and Syria?
Hezbollah is very eager to negotiate, but they don't comply with Israel's demands.


']Look at Iran, they don't care what the UN thinks. They are openly threatening the UN if they are referred to the security council. You aren't going to do anything to them that will have any tangible impact on them.
Look at USA, they don't care what the UN thinks. They openly say that they'll attack Afghanistan and Iraq despite what the rest of the world thinks. You aren't going to do anything to them that will have any tangible impact on them.

']Hezbollah has 2 choices. Complete stand down or complete destruction. If they gave a rats ass about lebanon, they would withdraw because the only reason Israel is in there is because of them. But they don't care about Lebanon.. This is all about sticking it to Israel.
When Hezbollah is completely destroyed, so is a good portion of Lebanon's population. You forget that those people are voluntarily enlisting to Hezbollah to fight for what they believe is right. I don't know for sure, but I don't think those people are paid to fight for Hezbollah.

']Europe for the most part (with some noteable exceptions) will never do anything against a Saddam type of person. They talk and talk and talk and accomplish nothing. But they are right there on the sidelines booing anyone that does try and deal with the situation.
Because European countries have a habit of playing with the rules. USA doesn't care about rules (Iraq, Kyoto, etc.). While USA has been preventing UN to help stop the problems (http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/WarCrimes.html), there's not much you can do if you play the world's rules.

[Sigma]

I'll blame the world for ignoring that Hezbollah has now fired about 4000 rockets into Israeli civilian areas, but hey nobody cares about that, and it only took Hezbollah 3 hours to violate the new UN peace agreement

The cease-fire proposal has not gone into effect yet. Israeli's have gunned down over 20 people (five Hezbollah, 13 civilians-- none of which fired at the Israeli's) in their march back to Israel already (so it could as easily be said they violated the agreement). There is obviously quite a bit of anguish between the two.

When the UN peace agreement actually starts, then such comments will actually mean something and not disregarded as poor education. Hezbollah said before the agreement can take effect, Israeli's must completely leave Lebanon. Since the Israeli's are still in Lebanon, I believe this sums up the remaining tensions. Obviously, Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah will not quit until Israel is gone-- for good reason. Thus the original proposal Fatal made in the beginning of this entire debate.

As long as there is an American supported Israel, with nuclear capabilities, Iran will want nuclear capabilities. The only solutions are-- war now, removal of Israel or war later. The removal of Israel would seem the most reasonable among most, but America won't give up its foot-hold toward the privatization of crude oil-- so I suppose the only course of action is to continue with these disgusting and depressing wars.

It's Vietnam all over again. I can imagine American leaders having a conversation about the situation, "Though the cost has been great, and we've achieved next to nothing in the middle east, we're too damn stubborn to admit we're wrong or defeat! Therefore, we will dedicate as much as it takes to defeat this unjustified violence (much of which we inspired) [/] at the cost of lives, the national economy/debt, world-wide opinion, our allies and walking a fine line of unleashing the wrath of an invisible enemy, seemingly infinite and using our own devices against us because they don't appreciate our imperialistic nature."

[edorien]

The cease-fire proposal has not gone into effect yet.

Oh yes it had. Started at 5.00 am GMT Monday morning.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/35772526-C1A8-4599-868C-E513C4F29C9B.htm


Iranian + Syrian weapons found
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/15/wmid15.xml

"If our fighters deep in Lebanese territory are left without food our water, I believe they can break into local Lebanese stores to solve that problem," Brigadier General Avi Mizrahi, the head of the Israel Defense Forces logistics branch, said Monday.
I wonder why people in the region dislike israel so much.

And it was israel who broke it
A CEASEFIRE to end a month of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah lasted less than four hours yesterday before shooting broke out in the town of Hadata, in southern Lebanon.

A spokesman for the Israeli Army said soldiers had shot and killed a Hezbollah militant. The spokesman said the soldiers opened fire at a group of militants who approached a patrol about 11am.

"The Israeli Defence Forces identified a cell of armed gunmen a few metres away who were approaching and threatening the force," the spokesman said. "To defend themselves, the soldiers identified the gunmen and shot at them. The soldiers shot first. I stress that we are committed to the UN decision but we will continue to defend our soldiers in southern Lebanon."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ceasefire-broken-in-less-than-four-hours/2006/08/14/1155407739692.html


And just to stir things up, I wonder if Bush + UN will actually do what he said he'd do.
America," he said, "will not turn away from this tragedy. We will call genocide by its rightful name, and we will stand up for the innocent until the peace of Darfur is secured."
That was Bush back in March. Guess everyones gotten distracted by more important things.*confused*

[Sigma]

I was aware of that. However, I was under the impression this agreement toward the cessation of fire was between Israel and Lebanon-- separate to that of the UN-peace arrangement. Regardless, it doesn't surprise me that Israel was the one to break it.

This is interesting:

Meanwhile, Israel has asked the US government to speed up delivery of short-range anti-personnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon.

One day from when Israel and Lebanon had agreed to cease-fire.

---

In respect to the Darfur genocide:

The Darfur conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited from local Baggara tribes, and the non-Baggara peoples (mostly tribes of small farmers) of the region. The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supported the Janjaweed, provided arms and assistance and has participated in joint attacks with the group. The conflict began in February 2003.

Estimates of deaths in the conflict have ranged from 50,000 (World Health Organization, September 2004) to 450,000 (Dr. Eric Reeves, 28 April 2006). Most NGOs use 400,000, a figure from the Coalition for International Justice. The conflict has been described by mass media as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide"; the Bush Administration of the United States and the U.S. Congress have declared it to be genocide, though the United Nations has declined to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_genocide

That was Bush back in March. Guess everyones gotten distracted by more important things.

I suppose the Bush administration and America certainly has. ;)

Furthering the idiocy:

The CIA has given up on finding Osama Bin Laden:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/04/cia-shuts-bin-laden-unit_n_24351.html

Entire coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1155873600&en=9602ea62e0830edd&ei=5070

"Alec Station" googles this:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Ch3.pdf

And the FBI does not think Osama Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

When the FBI was asked why the 9/11 attacks were not part of his crimes:

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

But I digress. This is a thread about Israel invading Lebanon, et cetera.

[edorien]

Back to lebanon.
Unsurprisingly look who's alreadly started to organise the rebuilding efforts.
Hours after the ceasefire began on Monday, the leader of the Shia Muslim group, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, appeared on television and promised to help Lebanese civilians rebuild, pledging money for civilians to pay rent and buy furniture.

We want to bring south Lebanon back to its real life and to rebuild it better than it was before the war," the cleric said as he stood in front of the demolished building that used to house his office before it was destroyed in the fighting.

Hundreds of workers were in the streets of Dahiyeh on Wednesday, clearing streets and removing rubble. Some areas were closed by Hezbollah members to protect the building from theft and only residents were allowed to enter after getting special passes.

It really looks like Hezbollah came out the better in this conflict.
It should be the israeli army doing those things, if they want to reduce/weaken support for hezbollah

Source:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E08DBD49-9620-4AB0-A69B-E12F962FDC36.htm

[FATAL]

Those exactly prove that Hezbollah indeed is on the people's side. They're just sick and tired of Israel every now and then leveling the country to the ground. At the times of peace (and war, actually), they do what they can to help the citizens of Lebanon.

As for Israel wanting guns right after the cease fire, it doesn't take much to imagine why they're doing so. Israel's high command has also said that "they may need to break the cease fire if the situation demands so"


If there's one country that needs to be demilitarized, it's Israel. demilitarizing Hezbollah would be like invitation for Israel to do whatever they wish.