its just sad to see a nation going to war with a few people and by doing so killing innocent men and women by the hundreds. it hits home when a soldier dies at war, and as bad as it sounds, were on the winning side. Imagine what Iraq goes through, they dont get 5 or 6 deaths a month, they report in the hundreds and most are innocent people I see the same happening here, but then again its just a part of war,,,,what a sad world we live in i dont agree with either side but agree to most in this thread by saying violence doesnt solve anything. It just plants a seed and develops a new generation of hate, on both sides. from a cnn article: The death toll in northern Israel stands at 25, including 13 civilians. Lebanese internal security forces said 183 people have been killed and 456 wounded in the country since the start of hostilities.
How is what Arabs think irrelevant? The ability to sustain a war depends upon the support of both the combatant populations and also the perception of potential allies or enemies. Regarding what's going on in Lebanon right now Arab opinion is very important.
Sigh. Put it in context, SC. Arab opinion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is a link between Hezbollah and Iran. Go back up the thread so you can see what the reference is about before you jump in.
I agree. That's a pretty jingoistic statement there, Hayes. (I've been waiting to use "jingoistic" for two years, lol. hope I used it right!) edit: I don't care... I'm using jingoistic anyway! Keep D&D Civil.
For this Bush administration, as long as you are muslims or communists, you are forever be evils!!!! China spend more money on weapon, Bush called the chinese are threatening the asia pacific region. Sorry Mr Bush, as an Asian, i found that only the Japanese and the Taiwanese feel threatens by the Chinese not Koreans, Malaysian, Singaporeans, the Middle East etc etc. Bush always claimed that he supports ONE CHINA policy yet he continues to supply weapons to Taiwan. Bush is the one threatening the stability of the region. To me, i dont see any different Syria or Iran support Hezbollah and US supplies the Taiwanese. If you support ONE CHINA policy then the taiwanese dont need weapons. Bush basically telling Taiwanese to declare independence and the US will support you at the back!!!! Just my 2 cents
Uh, except that one tiny detail that Hizbullah is a terrorist organization and Taiwan isn't. This is a grownups only area - perhaps you were looking to talk about Yao Ming someplace. Check the GARM.
Survey says..........."XXX." You're not using the word correctly. My statement doesn't have anything to do with extreme nationalism or fanatical patriotism. It doesn't have anything to do with the US at all. I'll suggest you do the same as SC and look back at the thread to put my statement in context.
Well, although the US did not create Israel, it has been the strongest force that has supported Israel over the years. The US supplies Israel with advanced military technology, with the planes and the rockets that it is using to bomb Lebanese civilians and Lebanon's universities and Lebanaon's airports. Also, Israel may be a state. However, it also has conducted many terrorist operations. For example, it routinely assassinates foreign leaders. It is currently occupying the West Bank and Gaza illegally. A UN Resolution was passed in 1967 outlawing this occupation, and Israel has not moved off of these lands. This is one of the longest illegal occupations in modern history. Israel also uses tanks and an army to enforce numerous checkpoints throughout Palestinian cities. These checkpoints are so ruthless that numerous women have actually died in childbirth because they were not allowed to pass through a checkpoint to go to a hospital. So Israel has been terrorizing the Palestinian population for the past 40 years or so. Another example of Israel's terrorism was in 1982. Israeli Defense Forces marching into Lebanon massacred about 3000 innocent Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila. Of course you may argue that because the Israeli army was doing the massacre, they are not terrorists. However, I think that anyone who massacres innocent civlians, be it Hezbollah or the IDF, is terrorists. Under this definition, I must assert that the IDF are terrorists.
Apparently, the world is like a ball of rubberbands... with any situation, anywhere in the world, able to be stretched to fit someone's tortured logic. Keep D&D Civil.
I don't think any of this denies my points. Again there is a massive difference between encouraging attacks on civilians and not. Iran does, the US does not. I think that's pretty apparent. There is a big difference between a state and a subnational terrorist organization. The US support of Israel is comparable to the US support of another state, not of a terrorist organization. The goals, actions, and guidelines are completely different between a state and a subnational terrorist organization. While you may be able to list out incidents that Israel has been involved in, those are not terrorist acts. They might be illegal, might even be war crimes, but direct military action is not terrorism according to any of the conventions that guide the conduct of states. Labeling state military action as terrorism doesn't serve any purpose. It's redundant, since there are already functional guidelines in place to judge state actions. You certainly can create your own definition of terrorism, but that blurs the line between the legitimacy of states and subnational groups. I think that is a dangerous precedent. Subnational groups do not currently have the legitimacy to conduct war - are not bound by the same conventions as states.
[more threadcrap] Yeah, China always talks diplomacy this and that, they're nothing like the US. Don't mind N. Korea and krazy Kim...let's talk it out!! But the moment Taiwan mentions independence, let's bomb the s*** out of them!!!
Well gee, the last time I checked, China's ultimate goal was peaceful reunification. Your pathetic comparison also fall far short of logical. North Korea is its own country whereas Taiwan is not. Diplomacy doesn't apply for the same reason why the US does not have diplomatic negotiations with Texas.
If that's China's "ultimate" goal, it wouldn't need to react through sabber rattling to whatever short term decisions Taiwan's party of the moment makes. Imtimidation through veiled threats only serves to weaken the peaceful reunification argument. The fact that China launched missiles before Taiwan's first official election establishes the pattern of agression that China is currently trying hard to sever. Who knew Texas had its own currency and has foreign offices in other countries.... Even if Taiwan isn't considered a country, it also isn't a state or province with the rights and priveleges it now maintains without any influence from China. While the two countries representives don't speak officially with equal footing, it doesn't negate the fact that they hold diplomatic negotiations with each other. The analogy with Texas and US is far from realistic. [/threadcap]
China's ultimate goal is the unconditional surrender of Taiwan, and my magic 8-ball says that it ain't likely. Taiwan is functionally a country. Because of our trade relations with China, we go along with the little charade that it is part of China, but we all know it isn't. As for your example, the US doesn't have much trouble stationing military personnel in Texas. The IDF most certainly did not massacre 3000 innocent Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila. They stood by while the Lebanese (specifically Maronite Christian militias) killed 3000 Palestinians, most of whom where innocent.
SO, ISRAEL IS SUPPOSED TO ALLOW ITS CITIZENS TO BE ATTACKED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT DEMOCRAcY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LEBANAON? Brilliant
Thus the silliness. We are only "warring on terrorism" when conveniant, politically acceptable, or monetarily rewarding. What a joke. I'm glad when I hear that some idiots were prevented from blowing themselves up in the name of some delusion-inspired religious idiocy, but there's hardly a moral upper hand here. How's that go, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" And shame on you Hayes, more of you're usual vitrolic banter, with all of my favorite tactics. My personal favorite, the "your opinion is mere opinion and not nestled in fact" while you stubbornly refuse to admit your own similar ignorance. You're like bigtexxx with a vocabulary. EDIT: Reread some other posts - think I got more of a handle on what Hayes is trying to say. But his "cease fire is useless" baloney is a great example of neocon war-mongering. But hey, that kind of thinking can be extended to justify civil war in Iraq as a good thing!
