ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Obviously - when looking at the planned UN-resolution - your government has a different opinion.

(At least according to John Bolton, United States of America Ambassador to the U.N. .)

I don't base my opinion what my government's or anybody else's opinion is.

0 Replies

That's okay, but since neither Israel nor someone else declared on Lebanon until now (and it doesn't look at all that some country would do it) .... well, of course you could do such.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Steve, I guess that is true in all wars. Israel, more than its enemies, avoids targeting civilians. However, there is always collateral damage, especially when enemies hide themselves among the civilians. I am curious; what would you have Israel do about its enemies?

1. Ceasefire
2. prisoner exchange (been done before)
3. trade land they have stolen for security of Israel proper.

not difficult.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Ever look at ANY of the pictures of German or Japanese cities after the firebomb raids of WW-II?

Any idea how many innocent civilians and children were injured and killed in those raids?

Are you claiming that we should have allowed Hitler and Tojo to simply take over the planet in order to avoid such suffering?

yes yes no

stupid questions

0 Replies

Steve, the trouble is that Israel doesn't hold any Lebanese security land. It exchanged prisoners before, and it wasn't very long until the Hez rockets were again launched. That's pretty intolerable.

Walter, how long do you think Germany would tolerate missiles from, say, Poland, before it hit back in a big way? I guess you feel that Germany would not retaliate because some civilians may be killed or injured.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Walter, how long do you think Germany would tolerate missiles from, say, Poland, before it hit back in a big way? I guess you feel that Germany would not retaliate because some civilians may be killed or injured.

That would be interesting: missiles from a NATO and EU country hitting another one.

I suppose, either Poland would declare war and we defend ourselves (according to our constitution, we can't start a war) or, if it would be some terrorists, police actions would be taken.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

3. trade land they have stolen for security of Israel proper.
....

Only problem is, according to slammite propaganda and dogma, ALL of Israel amounts to stolen land. The only thing Israelis could possibly do to satisfy the a$$holes would be walk into the med and drown.

Again, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, and Egypt are having zero problems with Israel at present because they hafve learned to live with one simple rule: Do not **** with Israel, and Israel will not **** with you.

Lebanon and the hezbullies are in the process of learning that the hard way.

0 Replies

Water wars: Part l - The Middle East

Sea of Galillee: Water in the Middle East is scarce

A war over water? Government ministers and experts will be gathering in The Hague at Second World Water Forum this weekend to try to avoid it. The BBC's Paul Welsh assesses the risks. In the first of a three part series, he travels to Israel.

Fishermen haul in their nets on the Sea of Galilee. Things seem to have changed little from biblical times, but they have.

I can promise that if there is not sufficient water in our region, if there is scarcity of water, if people remain thirsty for water, then we shall doubtless face war.

Meir Ben Meir, Former Israeli Water Commissioner
These waters are a source of great tension between countries, not because they are holy, but because they are scarce.

Yitzhak Gal from the Lake Authority showed me how the waters have fallen to a critically low level.

"Five years ago, the water arrived this line," he explains.

"Today you can see the lake is lower and the shoreline is in the far."

In the summer water levels went below the danger line where it is believed that salt waters may begin to cause damage to this lake, its supplies and its ecology. Meanwhile, demand for water grows.

As Meir Ben Meir, Israel's Water Commissioner prepared for retirement, he painted a gloomy picture of possible conflict over water between Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan and Syria.

"At the moment, I project the scarcity of water within 5 years," he says.

"I can promise that if there is not sufficient water in our region, if there is scarcity of water, if people remain thirsty for water, then we shall doubtless face war."

The Jordan Valley is not unique. In other ancient water systems - the Nile, the Tigris and the Euphrates - there is also a danger of conflict over water.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/677547.stm

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

Ever look at ANY of the pictures of German or Japanese cities after the firebomb raids of WW-II?

Any idea how many innocent civilians and children were injured and killed in those raids?

Are you claiming that we should have allowed Hitler and Tojo to simply take over the planet in order to avoid such suffering?
yes yes no

stupid questions

The questions aren't stupid, it's an exact analogy.

Israel is probably the most ethical and moralistic nation on the face of the Earth and it's positively galling to see the grief they get for their pains.

I mean, put ME in charge of Israel, and I'd almost certainly have figured out that three atom bombs on Lebanon would almost certainly stop the rocket barrages which are killing Israeli civilians, and guess what?

Israeli leaders have let something like a hundred Israelis including civilians die rather than do that, and you can be ****ing certain that if the hezbullies had ever had nuclear weapons for ten minutes anywehere in the last ten years, Israel would be gone.

Where do you losers get off blaming Israel for defending itself against all this crap while taking maximum possible pains to spare Lebanese civilians?\\

0 Replies

http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/7159/proportionalcrimeea2.jpg

0 Replies

Good Points - Gungasnake-

It would appear that France and the US are working on a deal in the UN to send a peace keeping force to Lebanon. That is a good step. It would appear that ONE OF THE PIECES OF THE RESOLUTION AGREES THAT ISRAEL WOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST ANY FUTURE HEXBOLLAH AGRESSION.

Given the destruction levelled on Lebanon, which, unfortunately, has not been able to keep the Hezbollah maniacs from making trouble, it is more certain now than ever that the Lebanese know the price they have paid in allowing the murderous guerillas to operate on their borders.

The British envoy to the UN commented that in the final analysis, the problem belongs to the UN because they did not or could not enforce previous UN mandates concerning Hezbollah.

Perhaps, leaving UN troops patrolling Southern Lebanon up to the river for the next twenty years would help.

In the meantime, the Israelis will continue to show the Lebanese that they must not allow gangsters to congregate in their Southern Borders or they will suffer damage which, as Olmert said is "very very painful"!!!

0 Replies

I think Gungasnake's comment on the Germans and Japanese in World War II is right on target.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of World War II is aware of some of what is called "dreadful" massacres which the allies indulged in.

The bombing of Dresden and, more significantly, the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the best examples although the enemy's massacres of civilians( in China and in Poland and Russia) certainly exceed the numbers killed in those massacres.

We were engaged in a life or death struggle in World War II. Our Presidents authorized Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It has been said that the "massacres" were necessary to prevent even more massacres and ultimately to insure our safety--The Nazis were not far from production of Nuclear weaponry.

The Israelis are engaged in a life or death struggle. I am hopeful that they will destroy even more of Lebanon's infrastructure in the days ahead before the cease fire goes into effect.

If I may quote Gungasnake( paraphrased)

Dont mess with Israel and Israel won't mess with you.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Steve, I guess that is true in all wars. Israel, more than its enemies, avoids targeting civilians. However, there is always collateral damage, especially when enemies hide themselves among the civilians. I am curious; what would you have Israel do about its enemies?

1. Ceasefire
2. prisoner exchange (been done before)
3. trade land they have stolen for security of Israel proper.

not difficult.

1. Ceasefire - Israel has done that many times. Doesn't seem to impress Hezbollah.

2. Prisoner exchange - Israel has done that too and the reason Hezbollah kidnapped their soldiers was so they would have somebody to exchange. There's a sick kind of reasonableness to that, but I think no sane country would agree that it is an acceptable diplomatic process.

3. Israel has done that and done that and done that and their reward is that their soldiers are kidnapped and their people are shelled with thousands of rockets.

Now, what is not so difficult again?

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Israel is probably the most ethical and moralistic nation on the face of the Earth ...

Only probably? Any other contenders? thanks for light relief reptile Laughing

0 Replies

One thing most people do not know about the Pacific war in 44 - 45 has to do with what a realistic assessment of the firebombing damage might be.

The claim is that something like 80,000 people died in the firebomb raid over Tokyo on March 9, 45, and that is almost certainly fiction.

Something like 16 square miiles of the most densely populated part of the city was incinerated and population densities were estimated at about a hundred thousand a square mile at the time, moreover, a person trying to flee the firestorm, would not even have had a way to tell which way to run; there would have been a fifty percent chance hed be running into it.

It seems unreasonable to me to think that fewer than a million people would have been killed in that one raid and, by wars end, around 70 of Japans largest cities had been torched in similar fashion.

The two atom bombs were a coup de grace; the bomb which utterly ruined Japan was a little thing weighing ten or fifteen pounds, with a crepe streamer behind it to guide it.

0 Replies

So, I consider, your war mongers are all against the new proposed resolution, especially point six?

Quote:

OP6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

- strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;

- full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

- delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Chebaa Farms area;

...

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So, I consider, your war mongers are all against the new proposed resolution, especially point six?

Quote:
OP6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent cease-fire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

- strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;

- full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;

- delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Chebaa Farms area;

...

I am for anything that will bring peace, Walter, and if this plan will do it, then great. But there has been plan after plan after plan after plan and still Israeli soldiers are kidnapped and their markets and busses are fire bombed and now Hezbollah fires thousands of Iranian and Syrian rockets at them. If the International community is going to get involved, then it needs to put its tanks and bombers where its mouth is or there will be no peace. It is quite obvious that terrorist organization neither respect treaties nor the people who make them.

0 Replies

So you are against such. Thanks.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So you are against such. Thanks.

That is insultingly absurd Walter.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It is quite obvious that terrorist organization neither respect treaties nor the people who make them.

You might be correct with such:
- Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah member of the Lebanese Cabinet, said after the announcement that his group would stop fighting, but only if Israel removed all its troops from Lebanon. The draft resolution makes no such demand.
- Israel has said it wants to continue fighting for up to two more weeks to seriously diminish Hezbollah's military capability.
-- Israeli Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog said the agreement was an "important development," but Israel won't halt its war against Hezbollah for the time being.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know