Do you support the actions of Israel or Hezbollah?

voting for Hezbollah means i'm anti-semitic? nice conclusion.

 

So, what is your quota then? Obviously 2 isn't enough.

Lebanon is in the condition it is in because of wishy washy leadership and wishy washy people who do not want to deal with evil. They have not separated themselves from mad men, full of hatred, whose only goal in life is to destroy another nation. Instead, they have played host and covered their eyes and acted as if nothing was happening, while Syria and Iran trapsed through their land, delivering bombs, rockets, and the machinery of war to a militant group that is not supposed to be armed who thrives on a hate doctrine.

What would you think if our government closed their eyes and let a militant hate group build a terrorist state right here in the United States? Then that group decides to attack Mexico, or Canada, or China and kidnap their soldiers. Would you blame those nations if they attacked the United States? Would you blame those nations if they attacked this militant group that was holed up in your neighborhood? Would you stay in the neighborhood or would you get out? What would you think of a government that let that happen to its citizens?

The reason why the Lebanese people are suffering is because their leaders do not understand the value of freedom nor are they willing to fight to the death for it. They'd rather ignore terrorists and shake their hands, thinking that they are preserving their own life and dignity, while they are eroding away their nation's sovereignity and freedom.

Are you willing to let terrorists win and continue to threated civilization and eventually blow up the whole planet because they are standing behind some women and children? What good is it to save those women and children if those terrorist groups are allowed to continue doing evil until the acquire the means to distribute mass destruction to the whole world?

Hezbollah could have laid down their arms and become a part of a peaceful Democratic society. They could have done this voluntarily. They didn't. Lebanon could have disarmed Hezbollah, maybe not by themselves, but by aligning themselves with the purveyors of freedom and getting our help in disarming Hezbollah. Lebanon has not done this and now, unfortunately for them, something had to be done about it.

What do you think is going to happen in Iran, Syria, and North Korea when they are dealt with? We are going to come to a head with all those nations. And the choice will be, quit acquiring or attempting to acquire nukes and quit harboring terrorists and promoting terrorist activity or we will make sure you quit. Are the people going to suffer? Why, yes. THEY ARE ALREADY SUFFERING!

All the people that are killed each day with those acts of terrorism though, pale in comparison to all the people murdered by Saddam's regime.

In war, innocent people die. That is WAR. It CANNOT be avoided. I'd rather a couple thousand people die now as to watch a couple million people die later on.

 

I have no problem with having differing viewpoints. That's what makes this place great. However, there is no intelligent reasoning I can come up with for racism. I will not tolerate racism.

 

yes... yes it does...



It's ok to call you an anti-semite because I posted a smiley face. You failed to do so on your post.

 

The problem with your argument is that Jews have always lived in the Holy Land -- and lived there in relative peace, if I might add. Israel is a political state that only came into existence less than six decades ago, Jewish people have been living there FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR longer than that. The only thing which changed over the past few decades is that a movement (we call it Zionism) made up of mostly European Jews masterminded and successfully pushed for a race-based 'state' in the Holy Land, which could not be accomplished without taking land away from some of its present inhabitants ('present' at the time, that is).

Look, I support Israel's right to exist, it's a reality that has to be dealt with, we can't go back in time and I don't want to see endless conflicts and massacres in attempting to 'remove' it from existence. The Arab world, Cohen, has collectively reached that conclusion, and put it into writing with their proposal to Israel at that 2002 Arab League summit in -- ironic I know -- Beirut.

There has to be some give and take, Cohen, nothing else will work. Some compromise has to be made, and I am a firm believer that the 'Land for Peace' approach to settle this prolonged conflict once and for all is the right way to go. Past American and Israeli leaders have supported that approach to peace in the Middle East, I think with some good faith it can be done, but not as long as both sides continue to let extremists have full control over their destinies.

As we stand, however, the Israelis continue to expand their settlements, build a wall in an overt attempt at a 'land grab', make life as dismal for as many Palestinians as they can through their policy of 'collective punishment', and in return demand 'peace' and acceptance from Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups...that's a policy doomed to failure, any way you look at it I guarantee you it will fail.

 

Wouldn't it be better for the Jews and Arabs of Israel if we just let the Jews immigrate here? I would love to share my neighborhood with my Jewish brethern. The Arabs should not have to give up their land for a population that is very welcome here.

 

To pretend that one side isn't at fault just doesn't make sense. Prior to Israel's existence their troops had already occupied Arab villages outside the mandated land for the nation of Israel, they occupied it nad killed the people who resisted their occupation. That was prior to ISrael even being officially a country, so that certainly could be a first punch.

Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers. That could be a first punch. Israel has never left Sheba Farms area, that could be a first punch. ISrael expands its lands on the west bank. That could be a first punch. Palestinians blow up civilians with suicide bombings. That could be a first punch.

From the very beginning both sides have been doing things that could be considered a first punch. In the past Hezbollah has targeted civilians. This time around they aren't.

They initially targeted military targets and captured soldiers. That was not a terrorist action. The fact does remain that their missles they are firiing now are not targeted enough to avoid civilian casualties makes them responsible.

Israel is doing the same thing, and dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas, and they too are responsible.

To blame Lebanon for not getting rid of Hezbollah is no justification. Lebanon had been trying and was in the process of trying to get rid of Hezbollah. They weren't trying militarily because they knew that those efforts were doomed, and futile. They were trying through negotiations, and that process to disarm Hezbollah. It was an ongoing process that may or may not have worked.

Israel will not be successful in defeating Hezbollah militarily. Unfortunately they have hampered other negotiating tactics which might have had a chance.

What we need to get away from is the simplistic notion that not acting militarily means not acting at all. It doesn't one can act toward a solution if it isn't done militarily.

 

I understand Israel's attempt to take care of Hezbollah. I don't think Hezbollah should be starting conflict with Israel. I am not sure what I think about Israel's actions. I'm not sure which answer in the poll that fits into.

 

This current situation has made me look at the big picture more closely.

In the past it was simply terrorist trying to kill Jews because they hate jews. Getting most of my news in 10 second sound bites it was easy to justify that position. But when you actually stop and listen to the other side you realize that there is alot of gray -- everythings not so black and white.

I don't have an answer, in fact I am becoming more confused.

 

best response on this message board i've read in a long, long time!!

 

A condescending post about self-righteousness?

 

You have made all my posts here on D&D worthwhile. Thanks for taking heed.

 

I would never support Hezbollah. They are terrorists.

But Israel is WAY out of hand. I understand what they are doing. But they are wiping out innocent people and seem to not even give a ****. I mean, please. Who the hell has the technology here? Can you hit the right freakin building! The right targets?

I am all for wiping out Hezbollah. But Israel is out of freakin hand. If I were US President, I would of stopped it already. Not because of Hezbollah in any way. But do the job right, for Gods sake.

And as usual, our great Prez is doing an admirable job with the situation. Again, I just CAN'T BELIEVE I voted for this guy...TWICE! Can Clinton be re-elected elected? What about GW's pop?

 

Not happening.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=116401

But it seems you're already convinced it is.

 

Hezbollah did not start the conflict with Israel, it was an already on-going conflict, the Israelis just decided to carry out an all-out aerial campaign against Lebanon this time around when they hadn't done so in similar situations in the past. It was a matter of choice to 'escalate' the conflict, which leads us to where we are today...

You could say that Hezbollah 'provoked' the Israeli reaction, but it would be a false assertion that Hezbollah 'started' the conflict.

 

No, its not a false assertion. Hezbollah and Israel were not fighting, then were fighting. Why? Because of Hezbollah's raid on Israel (in the same way the Revolution and the War of 1812 were separate conflicts). I think the perspective you advance removes culpability from Hezbollah and that is a step I think it unreasonable.

 

Not at all, technically speaking, Hezbollah and Israel have been in a 'state of war', it just went 'cool' for a while (although not completely 'cold', if I might add, for there were regular 'skirmishes' between the two sides ever since 2000). Now, it's 'hot' again.

Your assertion that Hezbollah 'started the conflict' is an incorrect one, it's merely the latest episode in a decades-old conflict. In other words, technically speaking, you're wrong.

 

Technically speaking, I'm not. If North Korea invaded South Korea, I could reasonably say North Korea started the conflict. Not because they invaded in 1950, but because they invaded today. Your problem is that you are defining 'the conflict' differently than I am. I am speaking of the current conflict, you are not. Not sure why you get to define 'the conflict' for me.

 

You mean like how we let Pancho Villa conduct raids in Mexico from the safety of Texas? Or how we trained Cubans in Florida to invade Cuba? Or the Abraham Lincoln Brigade throwing their hat in the Spanish Civil War? The US has a luxury that Lebanon does not in being too powerful to be attacked. But, if you want to look for countries that won't tolerate international rogue organizations within its borders, don't look to this country.

Incidentally, it seems like the crux of the disagreement implicitly revolves around how much people think Lebanon is able or willing to control Hezbollah. Pro-Israelis insist that Lebanon should have reigned in Hezbollah, while the anti-Israeli crowd thinks they did not have the power to do so. That seems like it is worth a poll.