RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 2:40:25 PM)

CrappyDom,

Spot on commentary from yourself on this issue.

Regards



CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 2:49:21 PM)

Ironbear,

Have you ever read "The Ugly American"?  I only read it recently but found it to be more "Why America would win easily if it stop shooting itself in the foot".

Funny thing is, we seem to be repeating the same mistakes we made in Vietnam and the Russians made in Afghanistan.  Holding on to the big cities and letting the countryside go is a losing strategy in the long run.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 2:56:04 PM)

quote:

Most of the time I think you are pretty objective Merc but not on this one. I do't know how you can't see that you have the same knee jerk reaction without any objective analysis as the current American administration on this issue.


Meat,
You misinterpret my pragmatic analysis of the current situation with my opinion of what should be done.

Stated simply, we should completely abandon the region. Stop all payments to all parties and let the locals sort it out between themselves. Do it today. No arms sales, no troops, no money, not even any "humanitarian" aid that usually is used to enable the local dictator to install a gold toilet. I'm even willing to accept the consequences of such a policy even if it's as drastic as nuclear war in the region between Iran and Israel, or as relatively benign as gas going to $20/gallon. My biggest concern with such a policy is that the vacuum of our presence would be filled by China. But that's for another thread.

You are right, I can't see things from an Israeli perspective any more than I can know what it feels like for a slave to be flogged. I don't want to, but even if I felt the sensation it would NOT have the same mental or emotional impact. Poorly aimed rockets did minimal damage to Israel, but it wouldn't have taken a 1,000 of them to get the same reaction from me. Yet even that didn't instigate this, as you know, the rationalized excuse was the kidnapping of two soldiers. Which, as you know, was caused by the beach bombing. Which, as you know, was caused by a rocket being launched 300 yards away. Was that my lack of objectivity or history?

You don't have to agree with what is going on to know pragmatically what is going on. Only in denying are you doomed to ignorance. That's the problem with the current administration and the problem with every administration since Carter. They place western ideas of democracy and justice on a people and region that has 3,000 years of unjust and dictatorial rule. Not even the Romans could change that with all their brutality. Benign diplomacy wont change that history, nor the current situation.



IronBear -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 2:56:42 PM)

Exactly..... Control, befriend or whatever you choose, the peasant population and watch the cities fall into line....  The Celts did this. Sheesh they are the only people to invade Rome.. 



Alumbrado -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 2:58:58 PM)

You are just now getting around to reading a book that has been a 'must read' for half a century? 


BTW, since the population of Iraq is almost 80% urban (as opposed to Vietnam's demographics), what exactly would be secured by troops sitting around out in the desert?



CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 3:10:40 PM)

Alumbrado,

Unlike self important nimrods I admit when I haven't read something.  There are thousands of "must read" books I haven't gotten to.  I try not to be a self important ass, others clearly haven't mastered that skill.

As for Iraq's population, us adults were speaking of metaphorically about the rest of the country as Baghdad has the bulk of Iraq's population but the source of the opposition is elsewhere.



Alumbrado -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 3:15:21 PM)

On the contrary, let me compliment you on your obvious mastery of self importance in the face of overwhelming reality.

If you ever get out from behind the glass teat into the real world, you might actually learn something besides childish word games.



CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 3:25:03 PM)

So then you are saying you have read every relevent book on every important subject that is relevant in the modern world and anyone who hasn't deserves ridicule?

And I am the one who is self important?



amastermind -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 3:53:56 PM)

Nice analogy with the IRA, almost.  To begin with, I am almost always amused by analogies.  They are usually invoked, as in this case, a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the issue at hand.  Invariably, primae facia, the two situations seem similar enough so that the analogy seems to illucidate some point. But also invariably, there is a difference between the situation in the analogy that makes an argument hold in that case when in fact it doesn't hold in the original situation.  We have before us, a case in point.

There are fundamental differences between the situation between England and the IRA and between Irael and its arab neighbors.   For one thing, the IRA and Hezbollah do not have the same goals.  The Irish had legitimate issues that could be resolved by negotiation.  Hezbollah does not.  However,  the most significant difference as pertains to the question at hand is that the IRA was not launching katusha rockets at Birmingham  (if that is the third largest city in England).  Israel commenced its bombings in response to the rockets, not in response to the suicide bombs that have been exploding in Israel for decades (the situation most analagous to the IRA's locker bombs.) 

But I will answer your question directly.  The English government, the Israeli government, or any other government for that matter, has an obligation, maybe a paramount obligation, to protect its citizens.  If the IRA were using human shields or launching rockets from houses of maybe willing or maybe unwilling inhabitants and the most effective way of stopping the IRA bombs from being used against civilians in England were to bomb Dublin, I would say the English government would have that right.



amastermind -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 3:57:10 PM)

I most certainly am saying that.  Anyone who has done any investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing will have little doubt that some Iraqi nationals played a role. 



Alumbrado -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 3:59:12 PM)

quote:

So then you are saying you have read every relevent book on every important subject that is relevant in the modern world and anyone who hasn't deserves ridicule?

And I am the one who is self important?


I've at least read the laws on prostitution....[:D]
And I read 'The Ugly American' in 1962)

Yet you are the one who tried to pass yourself off as an authority and demanded links proving otherwise. (Which were provided, and to which you couldn't respond).

Then you started a thread on the same topic elsewhere, asking people to take your side, and when they didn't you declared their links irrelevant and quit posting.

Now you try to expound knowledgably and critically on matters of military strategy, and when the basic facts right out of the encyclopaedia refute you, you again start with the tap dancing and denial.

Yeah, I'd say that your track record clearly shows that you are a firm believer in your own self importance...

And that it is an erroneous belief.



amastermind -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 4:37:19 PM)

Crappydom,

Thank you for proving my point. 

Half truth number 1:  "So then why are we in Iraq, a country that had less to do with 9/11 than almost any other country in the ME."

You are assuming that we are in Iraq in response to 9/11.  But we are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 and in Iraq for any other number of reasons, some of which may be valid and others invalid.  You do however admit that there were middle eastern involvements in 9/11 (it is impossible not to) and subtly admit that there may be a connection between the various terrorist groups scattered throughout the middle east.  Your use of the word "almost" reveals this.  For in that word you acknowledge that there are other middle eastern countries that had less of an involvement.  Therefore, Iraq must have had some involvement.


Lie number 1. "As for those cities in Israel, those use(d) to be Palestinian cities."

Oh really?  Tel Aviv and Haifa used to be Palestinian cities?  I won't dignify such an outrageous claim with  a response but will rather try to educate you slightly on the issue.  In 1900 there were about 90,000  jews and 450,000 arabs living in what is generally today Israel and Jordan   Around 1917 Transjordan, (what is now Jordan) was established by the British as the homeland for the Arabs whereas Israel was to be the homeland for the Jews.  There is no historical reference to Jordan whatsoever anywhere prior to this era.  So please tell me how were these great numbers of "Palestinians" displaced?  And who are they?

If you are at all reasonable, you will acknowledge that those who call themselves Palestinians are merely arabs from neighboring countries who came to squat in Israel only after the Jews began settling the country and building cities.  An accurate use of a Palestinian would be a jew living in Israel .  As Palestine is the name of the region given by the Romans and Romans referred to jews as palestinians.

Lie number 2: "Can I assume that if Mexicns drove you out of your city you would tuck tail and run and never do anything to right that wrong."

Noone was driven out of a home.  But even if one is to believe that people were driven out of their homes, I simply don't undersatnd what point you are trying to make or even what you ar trying to say in this sentence.  Are you saying that  Hezbollah consists of people who were driven out of their homes and they are extracting revenge?  Or are you saying that  the appropriate response to being driven out of your home is to break into neighborhoods and kill 5year old girls that are sleeping or elderly people observing a family religious dinner?  Or to strap a bomb on your grandchildren and send them to blow themselves and a bus full of people up?  Or just launch missles randomly on  crowded cities? 

However, I must emphasize that even if there were a point to your sentence, it would be based on a lie.

All in all not bad.  One half truth and two lies in a post that consists of only 7 sentences, one of which is introductory.
 



amastermind -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 4:47:25 PM)

ok.  So you are buying the stupid disproportional response argument.  Also your use of the term "slaughtering civilians" is loaded and inaccurate.  They weren't rounded up as civilians and put in front of firing squads.  You acknowledge that Israel was provoked (a rather weak word in contrast to the slaughter word to describe rockets falling on its third largest city with threats to launch them at its largest city) and that it had the right to TRY (emphasis added) to take out the fighters that were firing them.  How do you suggest they TRY, if not succeed?



amastermind -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 4:52:07 PM)

Kaufman and Straw are entitled to their assessments and opinions.  They don't like what Israel did.  So?



amastermind -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 4:54:39 PM)

ROFL



CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 6:55:34 PM)

Mastermind (almost as funny as my name...)

quote:

  They weren't rounded up as civilians and put in front of firing squads.


So when Saudis flew airplanes into buildings, they didn't massacre civilians either.  I suppose they were just "collateral damage" or is that a claim only Westerners get to make?

As for the rest of the drivel you posted, if your standards for invading countries is so low, why are we not occupying Saudi Arabia?  I mean they did provide the financing, the terrorists, and the various masterminds for 9/11?   



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 7:37:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amastermind

ok.  So you are buying the stupid disproportional response argument.


And this is a "stupid argument" why?  Practically everyone outside of Israel and the Jewish-run media of America says it's exactly that.




CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 8:15:21 PM)

Alumbrado,

Unless I missed a sudden rash of dungeon closings that somehow didn't make the papers, I simply use reality as the judge.

As for basic facts about warfare, you are welcome to use an encyclopedia as your foundation of knowledge, some of us prefer more in depth sources.  However, any chance you could stoop to making an actual counterclaim rather than simply hurling your normal personal insults?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 8:22:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: amastermind

ok.  So you are buying the stupid disproportional response argument.


And this is a "stupid argument" why?  Practically everyone outside of Israel and the Jewish-run media of America says it's exactly that.


The appropriate response would be kidnapping a couple of junior Hezbollah members and while "negotiating" lobbing a few antique rockets every day into Lebanon. That would have been okay by you?

This is a "smart argument" why?



ishane -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/31/2006 8:32:47 PM)

dose israel have the right to deploy over what?
i must say i just noticed the ignorant remark about jewish run media... some ppl...
ok, i sow the topic. well, ask yourself if some one were to come into your home and kidnap your relative what you would do... most likely you wont be verry forgiving.
hizbulla (alla's army) is a terorist group that took over half of lebanon, backed by seria and iran, and is part of el qaida, so you taell me...
truly, i dont have time to write long now, but most likely i will later.
feel free to comant



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.320313E-02