Middle East Continued Again...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Yes. Did you see the part where the fighting of the "current mess" started with Hezbollah firing rockets at civilians?

Actually, the rocket fire was a diversion (that killed no civlians) for the ambush that killed 3 soldiers and captured 2.

Israel was the first to kill civilians with its actions.

[GePap]

What ever happened to the IDF? I predicted that a ground operation would be necessary from day 2 of this mess. It has taken the Israelis 19 days to finally make my prediction come true..sheesh, you guys are ****ing slow nowaday.

As for Israel's aims, any massive military strike was bound to be a long term failure, just as the 1982 invasion was a long term failure. Hizbullah, unlike the PLO, comes from the people of Lebanon. The most Israel could have achieved with a massive invasion is, besides a possible new major middle eastern war, is to severaly degrade Hizbullah's power back to the point they were back when they were a resistance to Israeli occupation. BUt Israel could no more wipe Hizbullah out today than it could over 18 years of occupation. Once Israel ended its campaign, Hizbullah would come back, maybe wityh a new set of leaders, but back they would be, feeding off Shiite suffering in the south, and their ideology, if anything, would be come more radical, and Syria and Iran would again arm them.

Bush's idea of a "sustainable peace" is a nice one, but he and the morornic ideologues in his admin. are the last people in the world who will be able to bring it about. And the US will pay a price for this foolish campaign.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, the rocket fire was a diversion (that killed no civlians) for the ambush that killed 3 soldiers and captured 2.

Israel was the first to kill civilians with its actions.

I assume that you then would have found it acceptable that israelis kills civilians if that specific rocket attack had killed civilians.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BlackCat


I assume that you then would have found it acceptable that israelis kills civilians if that specific rocket attack had killed civilians.

NO, not really. I prefer to measure people's actions to a set standard, not in a relativistic manner.

Hizbullah launched a diversionary rocket attack. Was it meant to kill Israeli civilians? I don't know. I do know it didn't.

[BlackCat]

Well, then that comment wasn't really worth the space it takes up in this thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Hizbullah launched a diversionary rocket attack. Was it meant to kill Israeli civilians? I don't know.

That's because you're clueless.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Hizbullah launched a diversionary rocket attack. Was it meant to kill Israeli civilians? I don't know.

That's because you're clueless.

Pathetic.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Well, then that comment wasn't really worth the space it takes up in this thread.

That is were you are wrong. There is a reason why Israel lost the "hearts and minds" campaign on day 1. The world hears of IDF soldiers killed and captured. Within 24 hours they hear of Lebanon blockaded, the international airport bombed, and dozens of Lebanese civilians dead.

Israel continues to try to say it is the vitcim, but the immense disproportion of damage and destruction between northern Israel and southern Lebanon (and southern Beirut) makes Israel's statements look overblown and self-serving. NO doubt Israeli civilians in the north are suffering and HIzbullah's subsequent rokcets attacks aimed at large population areas are immoral , as they have no way of actually aiming at military targets, but fire indescriminately. Israel thought has failed to be more cautious with airpower than it should have been, given that airpower, even in the age of "smart weapons" remains a very blunt tool. NATO killed hundreds of civilians in it's campaign against Serbia, Israel was bound to kill hundreds of civlians with its campaign.

[Kuciwalker]

There is a reason why Israel lost the "hearts and minds" campaign on day 1.

It's because no one outside America gave a damn about Israel's right to exist, anyway. Most of the world considers Israel a problem that would be solved if it just disappeared.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

There is a reason why Israel lost the "hearts and minds" campaign on day 1.

It's because no one outside America gave a damn about Israel's right to exist, anyway. Most of the world considers Israel a problem that would be solved if it just disappeared.

You think people in China or India even give a ****?

Most of the world doens;t give a **** about either side. To them its an issue they see in the papers every so often. They have no reason to care anymore than the world cares about the millions dead in the Congo.

Of course, if this is true, then Israel will disappear and its just a matter of time. Hopefully for Israel you are wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Most of the world doens;t give a **** about either side. To them its an issue they see in the papers every so often. They have no reason to care anymore than the world cares about the millions dead in the Congo.

That rather supports my point.

Of course, if this is true, then Israel will disappear and its just a matter of time. Hopefully for Israel you are wrong.

History seems to demonstrate otherwise. Attempts to wipe out Israel have been pretty miserable failures. Add that to the fact that it has hundreds of nuclear weapons... no sane person wants to see Israel disappear. No sane person wants to see a nuclear country face an existential threat.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That rather supports my point.

Ah, actually, it doesn;t. You claim most people in the world think Israel should be destroyed. If they actually don't care, then they don;t think anything of Israel, ergo, you are wrong.

See how simple that was.

History seems to demonstrate otherwise. Attempts to wipe out Israel have been pretty miserable failures. Add that to the fact that it has hundreds of nuclear weapons... no sane person wants to see Israel disappear. No sane person wants to see a nuclear country face an existential threat.

Actually, Israel is one form or another has been destroyed several times.

Also, the USSR lasted 70 years. It had more nukes than anyone. Where is it now?

Israel has been around only for 58 years. Maybe it may be around for 50 more if this condition does not change, but the idea that Israel will retain some kind of nuclear monopoly in the area, or that the world won't change and leave Israel in the losing end iof history is rather funny. Besides, who needs nukes when you have babies? demographics alone will do it long term/

[Kuciwalker]

Ah, actually, it doesn;t. You claim most people in the world think Israel should be destroyed.

No, I said most of the world would be perfectly happy if Israel disappeared and solved that little problem in the Mideast.

Also, the USSR lasted 70 years. It had more nukes than anyone. Where is it now?

Terrible example. They had a bloodless internal revolution and peaceful transfer of power. That's a bit different from Arab armies marching through the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov This argues that Israel should learn to live with a constant (though "small" by some standards) level provocation aginst it self.

Doesn't sound so good to me

Does to me (but not permanently) if the alternative is killing 500 civilians, some of whom I recognize are probably not really civilians.

[Kuciwalker]

The rockets aren't exactly falling on your hometown.