The Middle East part 2

[Mr_Tea 0]

If the Hesbollah is not a terrorist group, than they are the private army of warlord Nasralla. They build schools and hospitals, so what.

Millions of dollars was pumped into Hesbollah every month, it was easy for them to do "good". Somehow you have to pull the majority of people on youre side. Remember, a suicide bomber can only make one strike.

When you look at theire goals, and read theire statements there is no doubt left, that they are terrorists.

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Because they got bigger guns they may kill more people"? I somehow fail to see how that logic applies to a modern civilised democratic state.

A bomb dropped by an aircraft has a bigger blastradius then a chestrig, and also runs a risk of missing it's target, no matter how advanced it is, where as most suicide bombers activate their explosives when they are exactly in place. Bigger weapons do more damage, both intended and accidental.

I give it up. You either don't want or you can't see the point.

[kakagoegie 0]

I doubt that Hezbolah's goal is to kill Israeli civilians, or the leader wouldn't have appologized when one kid died.  Of course there will be casualties because Hezbolah doesn't have much control over their rockets.  But pretty much everywhere they fired, they tried to aim for infrastructure (like what the IDF does).  Haifa has a lot of infrastructure especially by the port area.

1) The only reason the Hezbollah leader did apolagize was because it was an Arab-Israëlian (Muslim) child (actually it were 2 children). source

2) from wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]The weapon was not accurate but was extremely effective in saturation bombardment. Katyusha batteries were often massed in very large numbers to create a shock effect on enemy forces.

Katyusha rockets aren't very accurate. Hezbollah can't aim them at specific targets. They can only target a single village/city. So saying they target the infrastructure is just not right. I think their primary target is to scare the Israelis.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Because they got bigger guns they may kill more people"? I somehow fail to see how that logic applies to a modern civilised democratic state.

A bomb dropped by an aircraft has a bigger blastradius then a chestrig, and also runs a risk of missing it's target, no matter how advanced it is, where as most suicide bombers activate their explosives when they are exactly in place. Bigger weapons do more damage, both intended and accidental.

You got to be kidding?!?!

What an uncivilised way of looking at the world and the lives of these poor people.

Very sad indeed

[deanosbeano 0]

hypocrisy

i cant believe the front on this woman, the three planes that landed before her was carrying smart bombs, how the hell can she broker a piece deal knowing that ?.The worlds gone mad.

[JdB 151]

What an uncivilised way of looking at the world and the lives of these poor people.

Since when are war & terrorism civilised?

I wouldn't call mankind civilised at all, not even during what we call "peace". We still grab our clubs to hit someone else in the head when they do something we don't like. The weapons have just gotten a little more advanced.

Still if the people condemning Israel for their actions had a neighbouring country that harbours these kind of people, they would be forcing their politicians just as well after some terrorist attacks to attack them with all possible force. It's easy to talk about "protecting another countries civilians during a war as much as possible" when it involves a country halfway across the globe, but it's a different matter when your own country is under regular terrorist attack (if this creates the impression that I am Israeli, or even Jewish, I'm not).

All that has changed since the dawn of mankind is the invention of the media, and the ability to take a closer look through tv and internet, mankind was, is and will always be more prone to violent then reason. Through these media it has become easier to influence people, and terrorists can commit as many attrocities as they want while "civilised" countries can't even make a mistake because their civilians will freak out.

As Supah said, you can't win a war without getting up and close with the enemy and defeating them. If that means operating in civilian areas that means civilian casualties unfortunatly. You can't blame the Israelis for the fact that terrorists willfully hide in the civilian population. The same thing is true for Iraq where civilians get hurt when allied forces go after insurgents.

During WW2 this was accepted, Germans and Russians whiping eachother and their civilians out was perfectly acceptable because the Germans were the enemy. What is the difference between the nazi's that wanted to control the world and have everyone believe in their nazi beliefs and whipe everyone off the face of the earth that don't comply to their idea of the ideal people (jews, gipsy's, homosexuals) and islamic terrorists that want to control the world and have everyone convert to islam and whipe everyone off the face of the earth that doesn't want to cooperate?

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again saying "Israel should use better ways" is a bit lame. There are no better ways. If you know of one come up with concrete examples. If you can't perhaps that is because there arent any. You seem to expect Israel to just lay down and die. Israel has to attack and destroy the terrorists if they are to survive as a country. A situation where israel is continually subject to incursion,terrorisme and aerial bombardement by missiles is NOT an acceptable end situation. If the Arabs want to live in peace then they should show their will to do so by stopping terrorists operating from their territory and with their consent and funds. You can not expect Israel to negotiate when the other parties starting position is the death of all jews and the destruction of Israel. What should Olmert do? Accept a deal where all the Israeli's commit suicide and the country is dissolved and handed away? Because the destruction of Israel is what organisations as Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran's government (who is behind Hezbollah) have as their main stated objective. But none of this will happen because the Muslim politicians have whipped their people into too much of a frenzy with years of antisemetic propaganda aimed to distract from their own failures. Their propaganda has taken on a dynamic of their own and now that they are being forced to cooperate with the US and Israel if they want to remain in power their behaviour is seen as weakness by their people who still believe in the old propaganda.

According to experts in how to fight terrorism, you can only destroy a terrorist organization with a full scale invasion. The only way they could destroy Hizbollah with airstrikes and artillery is if they blow the whole country up with all it's people. And I would think this would be quite obvious, at least that was what I meant before I heard the experts opinions.

You say they had to react, I agree with that, but seeing how the situation is now, they don't seem to have anything to win on keeping up with airstrikes and artillery. What have they managed so far? Have they destroyed Hizbollah? Certainly not. Have they weakened Hizbollah? Possibly a bit, but to this point it doesn't show, as the amount of rockets launched by Hizbollah is about the same as it was in the early stages. Have they gained any support in the Lebanese people or the rest of the world? No. To this point the only thing they've managed that is worth mentioning (at least that I can think of) is they've killed a lot of civilians, they've ruined a whole country, turned much of the world against themself and they've shown that they're going to react to terrorist acts. Of those things only the latter is positive for Israel, all the others are partly or fully positive for Hizbollah.

The airstrikes and artillerystrikes was a ok move in the early stages, but at this point they don't got much left to gain from them, and they should have stopped long time ago. So to answer your question on what they should have done. They should have sent in ground forces. Not a full scale invasion, as that would provoce other countries to possibly enter the conflict, but raids on Hizbollah positions. AFAIK Israel have been using ground forces already, but they should focus on ground forces, best would be to use special forces as much as possible. Then they could limit the use of airstrikes to when they were sure that they didn't target a position that was full of civilians. And they should have done this at least a week ago.

If they keep up this bombing, and actually do it because they expect only Hizbollah men to be left (that's what they alledgly said, according to a newspaper here), they're just gonna keep killing civilians, keep playing the ball into Hizbollahs hands by increasing Hizbollahs support in the Arab world and decreasing their own support.

[JdB 151]

Quote[/b] ]According to experts in how to fight terrorism, you can only destroy a terrorist organization with a full scale invasion. The only way they could destroy Hizbollah with airstrikes and artillery is if they blow the whole country up with all it's people. And I would think this would be quite obvious, at least that was what I meant before I heard the experts opinions.

Another way is taking the support for islamic extremism away by showing the population the good sides of the people coming to help them, like has been shown to be successfull in some parts of Afghanistan with Dutch troops. Unfortunatly that is impossible due to the deep hatred all sides have for eachother.

UN peacekeepers that might be sent in will be attacked as well, even islamic countries Turkey and Egypt for example as extremists will claim that they are the extension of the UN (which they see as the United States Axis Of Evil).

Edit: since when does Israel have support amongs muslims? (not counting US supported regimes that are hated by their own countrymen)

[Donnervogel 0]

If the Hesbollah is not a terrorist group, than they are the private army of warlord Nasralla. They build schools and hospitals, so what.

Millions of dollars was pumped into Hesbollah every month, it was easy for them to do "good". Somehow you have to pull the majority of people on youre side. Remember, a suicide bomber can only make one strike.

When you look at theire goals, and read theire statements there is no doubt left, that they are terrorists.

Is this directed at me?

If yes then I must beg you to answer to my postings in context.

But to answer you. Yes Hesbollah as a whole can be considered a terrorist organisation as it maintains a military wing that carries out terror attacks against Israel.

You can also consider Switzerland as a land of cheese, chocolate and watches as those products are famous export products of Switzerland.

But is would be kinda wrong to claim every Swiss person is producing cheese, choclate or watches, wouldn't it? Infact the large majority doesn't.

Same goes for Lebanses civilians. It is wrong to consider them all being terrorists and every bridge and street in Lebanon a Hesbollah exclusive installation. Because the large majority insn't. Because even supporting Hesbollah doesn't neceseraly make you a terrorists. As I said this can have various reasons. Only your actions can make you a terrorist.

And of cousre all the political activites serves Hesbollah's propaganda. But that is not exclusive to them. Infanct almost any party on this planet coordinates all their action to serve their purpose... which in Hesbollahs case is, among others, the destruction of Israel.

I support taking action against Hesbollah's Military wing and parts of the Leadership. It is a good thing to fight aggressors that threaten your borders. And Lebanon needs to disarm Hesbolla eventually. But one needs to apply reason and proportion. Because it is a very delicate matter.

It's important to realise that it is much more in Israel's interest to spare civilian lives than in Hesbollah's. I sometimes get the feeling people see this the other way around.

[Garcia 0]

What an uncivilised way of looking at the world and the lives of these poor people.

Still if the people condemning Israel for their actions had a neighbouring country that harbours these kind of people, they would be forcing their politicians just as well after some terrorist attacks to attack them with all possible force. It's easy to talk about "protecting another countries civilians during a war as much as possible"  when it involves a country halfway across the globe, but it's a different matter when your own country is under regular terrorist attack (if this creates the impression that I am Israeli, or even Jewish, I'm not).

Not the exact same situation, but did you see England bomb the shit out of certain areas in northern ireland or did you see spain bomb the shit out of that area that I honestly don't know how to spell in english?

Quote[/b] ]As Supah said, you can't win a war without getting up and close with the enemy and defeating them. If that means operating in civilian areas that means civilian casualties unfortunatly. You can't blame the Israelis for the fact that terrorists willfully hide in the civilian population. The same thing is true for Iraq where civilians get hurt when allied forces go after insurgents.

But you can blame Israel for dropping a bomb on the civilians just to get a possible terrorist.

The thing that makes it all worse is that Israel too often blames civilian casualties on the civilians or Hizbollah. Sure, Hizbollah is to be blamed, but Israel is too, but they never accept this. It's always someone elses fault, like with the appartmentbuilding. Do Israel really think they will gain any sympathy or support by saying things like "They weren't supposed to be in the south, they were all supposed to have moved north..."? As stealth said, they should at least take responibility for their actions, and not blame it on someone else.

Quote[/b] ]Edit: since when does Israel have support amongs muslims? (not counting US supported regimes that are hated by their own countrymen)

They probably didn't have any to start with, but if they did have one or two "supporting" them, then they certainly don't got any left now.

[JdB 151]

The non-military wing of Hezbollah makes for one of the biggest problems. Destroying it will cause famine and desease as they support and feed alot of civilians. However, leaving it intact will leaving them active as recruiters for extremists (although destroying them might very well serve the same purpose)...

Quote[/b] ]but did you see England bomb the shit out of certain areas in northern ireland or did you see spain bomb the shit out of that area that I honestly don't know how to spell in english?

English troops weren't exactly angels either when they ended uprisings and protests in the 19th and early 20th century...

[Garcia 0]

English troops weren't exactly angels either when they ended uprisings and protests in the 19th and early 20th century...

No, but in that time they meant that negros were less worth than white people and other bad things. And at that time Israelis performed terrorist attacks. So shall we come to the conclusion that english troops today are savages and that Israelis are terrorists? Or shall we acknowledge that 19th and early 20th century is so long ago that the moral and opinion to different groups of people at that time isn't the same as it is today?

[*Pete* 0]

Correct me if I am incorrect..

but is it true that Hezbollah started to launch rockets on civilian targets 3 days AFTER Israel started to kill Lebanese civilians?

i read somewhere (sorry, no links) that Hezbollah was firing rockets strictly at Israeli military positions the first 3 days of the conflict and did not kill any civilians during that time?

also, the bodycount so far to my knowledge

50 israelis, of those 32 were military (64% military, 36% civilian)

750 lebanese, unknown amount of Hezbollah.

Israel claims 100 Hezbollah killed (13% military, 87% civilian)

Hezbollah says 34 Hezbollah killed (4.5% military, 95,5% civilian)

also, even now (i might be wrong), Hezbollah is said to launch 100 rockets per day towards Israel but only a few are reported to hit Israeli towns, do the rest land in the sea or desert, or are they aimed at the military? (if anyone knows, id like to hear more about it)

and finally, the incident with 50 civilians that was bombed, reporters at location says that there is NO sign of any Hezbollah equipment among the ruins.

also the claim that rockets were launched from right next to the building is also very strange, as everyone already knows, that a rocket launch is soon to be followed by either an airstrike or an artillery barrage...why should anyone in there right minds stay in that location AFTER hearing/seeing a rocket launched?

the building was not bombed becouse of Hezbollah, it was bombeb becouse Israel is infact dealing out collective punishment towards nonfighting part of the conflict, the civilians.

I can agree to that Israel did not know anyone was in the building, but i do not agree on it being a mistake, or a legit target becouse of Hezbollah presence.

those kids died becouse there is no power (USA, UN, EU)in the world that has the guts to stand up and tell Israel "to finally leave ALL the illegally occupied areas that are the cause of the terrorism, or face the consequences in form of sanctions."

Yesterday i came home and saw a dozen small flies in my kitchen, instead of running to the store to get bugspray and then to kill the flies, i looked around and saw a banana that had gone bad on the kitchen desk.

i removed the banana, and today the flies are gone without a trace...funny how things sometime are much simpler than they seem to be, dont you think?

if...just if, Israel would retract itself to within the internationally recogniced borders, and mind its own business as every other country....it would be intresting to see what would happen.

(what is there to lose??..the settlements??..they are stolen goods anyway)

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]English troops weren't exactly angels either when they ended uprisings and protests in the 19th and early 20th century...

err and when terrorists from the south crossed the border to kidnap british soldiers, did the RAF go and bomb southern ireland ?. NO because for a democraticaly elected civilised government to do that would be wrong.Please dont insult Britain by making any comparisons with the israeli government.lets stick to the middle east and the 21st century huh ?

[scary 0]

Since when are war & terrorism civilised?  

I wouldn't call mankind civilised at all, not even during what we call "peace". We still grab our clubs to hit someone else in the head when they do something we don't like. The weapons have just gotten a little more advanced.

The weapons being used are putting an increasing distance between one side and the other, it would be very different if they were seeing the damage caused. Do you think an infantry section would open fire on a group of civilians because there may or may not be a terrorist amongst them? What soldier on this planet would shoot a six-year-old to get to the man behind them?

If the IDF had to look the people in the eye before shooting them it would be a completely different ball-game.

Quote[/b] ]Still if the people condemning Israel for their actions had a neighbouring country that harbours these kind of people, they would be forcing their politicians just as well after some terrorist attacks to attack them with all possible force. It's easy to talk about "protecting another countries civilians during a war as much as possible"  when it involves a country halfway across the globe, but it's a different matter when your own country is under regular terrorist attack (if this creates the impression that I am Israeli, or even Jewish, I'm not).

The IRA has carried out attacks in Germany, ETA in France and the many Pakistani groups, often supported by the government, 1000's of attacks in India.

Quote[/b] ]As Supah said, you can't win a war without getting up and close with the enemy and defeating them. If that means operating in civilian areas that means civilian casualties unfortunatly. You can't blame the Israelis for the fact that terrorists willfully hide in the civilian population. The same thing is true for Iraq where civilians get hurt when allied forces go after insurgents.

The 'but they're terrorists' argument is wearing thin. Hizbullah may well be a terrorist organisation, but their actions in this war have been military, not terrorist. They've used the same tactics any state military would use. They didn't bomb a bus, or a shopping centre, they attacked and captured IDF personnel: a military operation against a military target. Perhaps they are trying to become more 'legitimate' and Israel is helping them.

Quote[/b] ]During WW2 this was accepted, Germans and Russians whiping eachother and their civilians out was perfectly acceptable because the Germans were the enemy. What is the difference between the nazi's that wanted to control the world and have everyone believe in their nazi beliefs and whipe everyone off the face of the earth that don't comply to their idea of the ideal people (jews, gipsy's, homosexuals)

This is not WW2. The civilians in WW2 were just as much a part of the war as the service personnel on the front-line. They built the ships, tanks and guns; grew the food; manned the AA equipment; staffed the listening and intelligence posts. There were no real civilians in WW2 nations.

Quote[/b] ]and islamic terrorists that want to control the world and have everyone convert to islam and whipe everyone off the face of the earth that doesn't want to cooperate?

Could you show were this is the stated aim of Hizbullah? Whilst looking for that, consider the fact that the most active terrorist organisation in the world is FARC, and they are secular.

Quote[/b] ]English troops weren't exactly angels either when they ended uprisings and protests in the 19th and early 20th century...

British, not English. And both sides were equally unpleasant. And there were no Geneva conventions. And it's irrelevent to Northern Irish terrorism as Northern Ireland didn't exist then and the terrorism didn't start until 1969.

You may as well compare the aggressive practices of the Vikings.

[Stealth3 0]

Whats ironic is that Rice called for ceasefire (coming from Bush) after a few days ago she said ceasefire cannot and will not happen unless Hezbolah gives up. Now a ceasefire is possible even though nothing changed except more civilians killed. Way to be a hypocrite.

Terrorists or no terrorists, that doesn't matter anymore. Because what you consider terrorists, not everybody does, and just because you think so doesn't make it so. Let me repeat that Hezbolah is only cosidered terrorists by the US and Israel.

If you really look at the definition of a terrorist, Hezbolah is no more of a terrorst than IDF is. According to the arguements that label Hezbolah as terrorists, every militia out there, and every resistance group are terrorists.

That means the VC in Vietnam were terrorists, the founding fathers of the US were terrorists, etc.

Hezbolah terrorizes civilians with rockets which is true, but they are doing that after Israel terrorized the Lebanese civilians with bombs. The initial strike was on military targets, and we know the IDF was doing that for years with spec op raids, etc.

And why would Hezbolah condemn the 9/11 attacks if they are terrorists?

I'm not trying to defend them, sure they are at fault. But so is Israel, and they are trying to direct all the blame to Hezbolah which is not right. Kind of like blaming all the civilian desths in WW2 on the Germans. We know the Russians, Brits, and Americans commited bad acts and admit it and took responsability. But Israel is blaming it on somebody else all the time.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Again saying "Israel should use better ways" is a bit lame. There are no better ways. If you know of one come up with concrete examples.

Supah, that statement is pure bullshit. Militarily speaking, the aerial bombardment and destruction of a country has never led to a successful destruction of a terrorist organisation - a guerilla-type war can only be hoped to be won on the ground - if you want an example: AFGHANISTAN. The russians tried bombing, even mounted an invasion. Did they win? When the coalition forces invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, they bombed, also went into a ground war. Is there such a thing you could call a "lasting peace" in Afghanistan today?

The only way I can view Israel's reaction, is being the biggest military coward I've ever seen in history (though please correct me if I'm wrong   ). Israel has finantial power, and one of the best-equipped armies in that corner of the world. Israel could choose which way it wanted to respond, and it did respond in the most cowardly way. Israel attacked with aerial bombardments and shelling, laying waste to an entire infrastructure, following the "if it moves, kill it, because it could be a terrorist" motto. All this could have been avoided if the israelis weren't so chicken-shit afraid of committing ground troops to an invasion of Lebanon. After all, after the coalition forces invaded Afghanistan just to go after the Taliban regime, and the U.S. and U.K. going into Iraq just because they thought that Saddam might get into a "terrorist vibe" and launch some supposed WMDs at... I don't even know where he wanted to strike with WMDs, but whatever, I bet nobody would blame Israel for invading Lebanon because the Hezbollah was firing rockets at them. If they had invaded Lebanon, they could at least be respectful and say: "Hey, the Lebanese government wasn't able to or just simply didn't disarm Hezbollah before it endangered us again, so we're here to do the job and to make sure it's done once and for all". In that way, Israel would be able to selectively strike at terrorists, sparing the infrastructure, and keeping civilian casualties and collateral damage to a bare minimum. But that's not the option they chose, right? What the Lebanese government had as infrastructure, the damns, the the tourism industry, and all other non-lethal assets, the israelis just couldn't live with the Lebanese having that, could they? So they did their worst, cowards as they are. And that's why they're being liked less and less.

Blaming others or saying it was an "accident" whenever there's collateral damage is also too stupid for an advanced country like Israel to do - I mean, who are they trying to fool, anyway? They only make themselves look childish that way. I mean, with so much money, they can decide exactly which munitions they use. To deal with terrorists in Gaza they mostly use Apaches, but to deal with terrorists in Lebanon they have to use F-16s, why is that? Well, that's because, as JdB so enlighteningly put it,

Quote[/b] ]A bomb dropped by an aircraft has a bigger blastradius then a chestrig, and also runs a risk of missing it's target, no matter how advanced it is, where as most suicide bombers activate their explosives when they are exactly in place. Bigger weapons do more damage, both intended and accidental.

- and Israel wants to cause DAMAGE to Lebanon. The more the better, apparently. Why do the job with 2.75in hydra rockets when you can do more damage with 1,000 lbs "smart" bombs? Might as well not use smart bombs and use conventional bombs, or are the IAF pilots not good enough to hit a general area with a non-smart bomb? Almost makes me wonder... (To make a mean comparison, I bet nazi Stukas could be more accurate at delivering their ordenance than those IAF pilots deliver those smart bombs)...  

And on a final note: That the U.S. is delivering said smart bombs to Israel on one hand and on the other trying to get humanitarian aid into Lebanon, I don't know if it makes them being hated more or less, but I believe it could well be the former...

Edit: P.S.: Although a ground invasion hasn't yet led to the successful destruction of a terrorist organisation, it is the only military operation deemed to have any degree of success. ONLY waging an aerial bombardment campaign against a terrorist organisation is utter military nonsense.

[Garcia 0]

One funny thing came to my mind...all this mess is because Hizbollah seized 2 Israeli soldiers, and Israel want them back. Now, Israel then goes on a rampage, blowing up everything that may be Hizbollahs, be it a man, equipment or a house. So, are they so sure that their 2 soldiers are up in the north that they don't fear they may blow them to pieces along with some terrorists and civilians? I mean, with the amount of civilians dead through IDF targeting Hizbollah targets, IDF would probably blow up the soldiers too, if they are being hold too long to the south Now there's another blow to the arguments why airstrikes is the best approach...that is, if IDF don't know for sure that their soldiers is being held somewhere outside the targeted areas...

[Nemesis6 0]

Garcia, a sockpuppet for Hamas kidnapped two Israelis; A civilian in the West Bank and an IDF soldier somewhere else. The civilian was killed immediately by them. HizbAllah managed to kidnap one after killing several Israeli soldiers.

[Garcia 0]

Hmm, sorry, when you mention it I remember that it was Hamas that seized 2 soldiers, and Hizbollah 1. Thank you for correcting that

[Stealth3 0]

No, Hezbolah kidnapped 2 soldiers, Hamas 1 soldier and 1 civilian. Also an extreme Jewish group kidnapped 2 palestinians as a result.

[b_ringer25 0]

If anyone believe that Isreal is in the wrong doing or that they are using too much force you need to wake up.

If I had a bat in my hand and you come up and sucker punch me from behind, the bat is going to your head.  Its like a kid who is 5'0 100lbs vs Shaq 7'0 300lbs...  I think Shaq is going to win here.

Coalition Priorities

1. Russia needs to get their heads out of their ass

2. Iran -get rid of there nuclear capabilites w/Stealth Bombers

3. North Korea - trade embargo. No ships enter no ships leave and if china starts to send goods over then stop buying toys and other products from china. Make some factories in the US (that would decrease jobless people in the us) prices would go up but we can sacrafice that change for the greater good of our followers.

4. Border (National Guard) 5 of 50 states National Guard patrol the border and rotate every 3 months

Random States

ex.

January - March: Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, Nevada

April - June: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina

July - September: Virginia, New York, California, Michigan

and so on and so on.

[kakagoegie 0]

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]3. North Korea - trade embargo. No ships enter no ships leave and if china starts to send goods over then stop buying toys and other products from china. Make some factories in the US (that would decrease jobless people in the us) prices would go up but we can sacrafice that change for the greater good of our followers.

So, um... What totalitarian state do you live in? And more importantly: what the HELL does this have to do with the Middle East?

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]If I had a bat in my hand and you come up and sucker punch me from behind, the bat is going to your head. Its like a kid who is 5'0 100lbs vs Shaq 7'0 300lbs... I think Shaq is going to win here.

LOL So in your opinion, Israel is right using the amount of force they are using only because they can? Now that must be the worst argument for using that amount of force

Quote[/b] ]1. Russia needs to get their heads out of their ass

2. Iran -get rid of there nuclear capabilites w/Stealth Bombers

3. North Korea - trade embargo. No ships enter no ships leave and if china starts to send goods over then stop buying toys and other products from china. Make some factories in the US (that would decrease jobless people in the us) prices would go up but we can sacrafice that change for the greater good of our followers.

So it's like...USA don't like these coutries, USA and it's friends are the only one who should be allowed to have nukes...so use force to make sure nobody else don't get it...right?

And to quote a wise man ( ):

Quote[/b] ]So, um... What totalitarian state do you live in? And more importantly: what the HELL does this have to do with the Middle East?