• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The defense of Israel

Red Robin

Well-known member
I hope Israel pours it on those terrorists. Israel has been very patient , yet every country almost without exception is urging Israel to use restraint. I think it's silly. They have every right and the obligation to defend their citizens. I just hope they bomb Irans nuclear sites in the process.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
I hope Israel pours it on those terrorists. Israel has been very patient , yet every country almost without exception is urging Israel to use restraint. I think it's silly. They have every right and the obligation to defend their citizens. I just hope they bomb Irans nuclear sites in the process.

Wonder what the odds are of Israel using a nuke or two or three?

We could send them some extra's, and I know George wants them too!
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I listened to the Michael Reagan Show on XM Radio tonight while we
were hauling hay bales into the stack. He says G.W. Bush understands why Israel had to make a stand and Michael says G.W. Bush is correct in his statement about Isreal.

We need to get real in this country. It is all the same war.
And we are in it.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
I wish Isreal would have given Lebanon an opportunity/burden to return the soldiers. I don't think Lebanon could comply because the hezbollah is out of control. Once this fact is established, rain hell on hezbollah.

I can't criticize Isreal because they've been more restrained than the US would ever be.

If this situation grows, those nuclear programs in Iran will be targets.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Are you war mongers NUTZ or what????? This is bigger than your average back door ' pissin' match!!!

Israel has over reacted WAY too strongly. We've never reacted like that in Iraq when our soldiers were captured.......are their guys more valuable than ours????


Bush is wanting a war with Iran....this way he gets it cause he will let Israel pull the first punch and then we'll rush in to help out!!!
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Are you war mongers NUTZ or what????? This is bigger than your average back door ' pissin' match!!!

Israel has over reacted WAY too strongly. We've never reacted like that in Iraq when our soldiers were captured.......are their guys more valuable than ours????


Bush is wanting a war with Iran....this way he gets it cause he will let Israel pull the first punch and then we'll rush in to help out!!!
Yes, I'm sure I'm over reacting. If I had 4 history majors from college, I would realize if they gave the gaza strip away for peace, and they gave the west bank away for peace, and the U.N. and Lebanon promised to keep the peace in exchange for the land, they probably could have just given hezbolla telaviv and they would have been happy. Why is it that everyone knows we're at war with a facist muslim crazy bunch if idiots and you liberals want the good people to use restraint? I don't hear your cries for the palestinians to use restraint and quit shooting rockets into Israel or return the soldiers they took for no reason. Use what brain God gave you and make a good decision Kolan. You want to kill some fool for stealing your blooming truck. What if they kidnapped your kid or family member? Good grief. You are actually crazy if you think hezbollah took the soldiers to help George Bush attack Iran. Wow.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Israel has over reacted WAY too strongly.

There is no "OVER REACTION" when you are dealing with terrorists like this.

You must not remember all the grief that hezbollah has dealt the USA.

You are siding with France here. Tells us about your convictions.

Do a little studying on hezbollah before you make these types of remarks please.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
kolanuraven said:
Are you war mongers NUTZ or what????? This is bigger than your average back door ' pissin' match!!!

Israel has over reacted WAY too strongly. We've never reacted like that in Iraq when our soldiers were captured.......are their guys more valuable than ours????


Bush is wanting a war with Iran....this way he gets it cause he will let Israel pull the first punch and then we'll rush in to help out!!!
Yes, I'm sure I'm over reacting. If I had 4 history majors from college, I would realize if they gave the gaza strip away for peace, and they gave the west bank away for peace, and the U.N. and Lebanon promised to keep the peace in exchange for the land, they probably could have just given hezbolla telaviv and they would have been happy. Why is it that everyone knows we're at war with a facist muslim crazy bunch if idiots and you liberals want the good people to use restraint? I don't hear your cries for the palestinians to use restraint and quit shooting rockets into Israel or return the soldiers they took for no reason. Use what brain God gave you and make a good decision Kolan. You want to kill some fool for stealing your blooming truck. What if they kidnapped your kid or family member? Good grief. You are actually crazy if you think hezbollah took the soldiers to help George Bush attack Iran. Wow.

easy to read history web sites....It is amazing how involved Britain was in the middle east....



http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/history.html


http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/middleea.html#ter
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Anyone who gives safe harbor to terrorists deserves the chaos they get. It is unfortunate that Iran is the chief supporter of hezbollah and they should be held accountable for it. Its all that oil money and crazy religious fanatacism.

We have to guard against it ourselves.
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
Many pro isreal talking heads are saying that the bombing of the bridges in Lebanon is probably a bit much and the complete isolation of Lebanon by bombing Beruit international airport might not have been a good idea... I generally support what Isreal does, especially when they are dealling with Hezbollah and PLA crap that goes on in their country and for the most part I say rain living hell down apon Hezzbollah memebers. I just wish Lebanon could get themselves established to self police their nation. Too many years of strife and being compleely dominated by the Syrians and Assad.. Too many years of being the battle ground between three religions has just left that country in a world of hurt... Everytime it seems like they are going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps this stuff happens again.

Red Robin... I don't think Lebanon had anything to do with any westbank agreements.. You are think PLA (Palastinians). Completley different people/situation, unfortunately, both areas are rank with hezbollah.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Finally, Israel's patience was exhausted when Palestinians (presumably known to the Hamas government) dug a tunnel under the border and attacked Israeli soldiers, killing two and kidnapping one. Israel demanded that Hamas arrest the attackers, Hamas replied by hailing them as heroes. Being obvious that Hamas was not willing to do anything about it, Israel then invaded Gaza to rescue the kidnapped soldier.
Technically speaking, it was Palestinians of the Gaza Strip that invaded Israel, and now Israel has retaliated by invading the Gaza Strip.
The United Nations, that had never condemned the shooting of rockets against Israel, as if shooting rockets to other countries is a perfectly legitimate business, is now condemning Israel's invasion of Gaza. Too late, and too silly.
This is pretty close to what Hezbollah did also. They invaded a sovreign contry to kidnap/capture military personnel. Backed by the foreign states of Iran and Syria. Obviously Lebanon cannot control the Hezbollah. That or they are backing them, they do hold seats in the government, so in a sense, Lebanon invaded Israel.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Iranian money also helps hezbola develop infrastructure like hospitals and social programs so they can have a political base in the countries they are in.

Most of the money is arab oil money which really comes from us.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Econ101 said:
Iranian money also helps hezbola develop infrastructure like hospitals and social programs so they can have a political base in the countries they are in.

Most of the money is arab oil money which really comes from us.

Hezbollah are waging a war against Israel, regardless of what else they do, and it is a religious war which will not end until they are neutralized. I recognize that both Hamas and Hizbollah do charitable activities for their own people but they are driven by a single-minded deterimination to destroy Israel and kill or drive out all the Israelis and after that what? Europe?

I totally agree. I guess the bomb blast by the hospital in Lebanon was in the news and when I look at that news report I think about hezbolla's support structure and why they have it. The hospital is part of that support structure so I really had no sympathies for the hospital (I don't know how good the link was from hezbolla support to the hospital) although I am always sympathetic to the innocent.

If you take money from terrorist aren't you part of the problem? I think so.

You are right that there is a deep wahabi belief of world conquest and this excuses a lot of terrorists from the religious sector.

It is the belief that a community can force a society into "godliness" with force than reason and evangalizing.

To me this pits man's personal choice against a choice made for him by society. Does God get converts this way or is it just man's perception?

Our country is founded on the belief that God's conquest of one's heart is a personal matter, not a societal matter, hence the seperation of church and state and the protections for the church from the state.

The wahabi view is totally opposite of that and they will not stop until they get their way. Personally I believe this is just man's intervention into God's business for personal worldly gain.

What would you say, reader? Your stepfather, in being a writer, had to have some philosophical insights to these type of questions.
 

jigs

Well-known member
anyone unwilling to admit that we are in WWIII is a fool. these muslim extremeists are unwilling to stop until we are all dead. we need to get Washington out of the war business and tell our militry to just go get it over with. then and only then will the a-holes of the world know that we mean business.

and save me your "what about the innocent" drivel. civilian casualties, however sad, are not avoidable 100% of the time.

I do not believe in hitting first in a fight, but by God, I hit second and I hit hard enough that they other guy thinks about it before retaliating!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jigs said:
anyone unwilling to admit that we are in WWIII is a fool. these muslim extremeists are unwilling to stop until we are all dead. we need to get Washington out of the war business and tell our militry to just go get it over with. then and only then will the a-holes of the world know that we mean business.

and save me your "what about the innocent" drivel. civilian casualties, however sad, are not avoidable 100% of the time.

I do not believe in hitting first in a fight, but by God, I hit second and I hit hard enough that they other guy thinks about it before retaliating!

AMEN Jigs-- this attack on Israel by Hezbollah is just Iran trying to see how much they can get away with the US...We need to help Israel with whatever and hit back at Hezbollah, Iran and Syria- who is also just another Iranian puppet anymore.....Israel now claims that Iran has troops in Lebanon...

Jigs- I agree this is WWIII and we need to hit hard-NOW....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
jigs said:
anyone unwilling to admit that we are in WWIII is a fool. these muslim extremeists are unwilling to stop until we are all dead. we need to get Washington out of the war business and tell our militry to just go get it over with. then and only then will the a-holes of the world know that we mean business.

and save me your "what about the innocent" drivel. civilian casualties, however sad, are not avoidable 100% of the time.

I do not believe in hitting first in a fight, but by God, I hit second and I hit hard enough that they other guy thinks about it before retaliating!

My biggest criticism of the war in the beginning to an executive defense contractor (no not one I have mentioned before) was that I didn't think we were killing enough people to change their course of action. This is an unfortunate thing about war--that you have to use overwhelming force that suggests that you will not tolerate the kind of behavior again that started the war in the first place. It is kind of like having to spank a kid again because you were too much a pansey to do it well the first time (no, I don't spank my kids anymore--they are all past that juvinile stage--the youngest is 5).

You hate to spank the good in them, but you better spank the bad out.

We should have never allowed the power vacuum after the war and General Shenseki warned against it.

What was more outreagous was that we knew of Saddam's plan of dispersing and then fighting a different kind of war but still fighting.

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By Eric Schmitt
New York Times
February 28, 2003

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.

"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion." Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday.

"I think you're deliberately keeping us in the dark," said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia. "We're not so naïve as to think that you don't know more than you're revealing." Representative Darlene Hooley, an Oregon Democrat, also voiced exasperation with Mr. Wolfowitz: "I think you can do better than that."

Mr. Wolfowitz, with Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, at his side, tried to mollify the Democratic lawmakers, promising to fill them in eventually on the administration's internal cost estimates. "There will be an appropriate moment," he said, when the Pentagon would provide Congress with cost ranges. "We're not in a position to do that right now."

At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, many nations agreed in advance of hostilities to help pay for a conflict that eventually cost about $61 billion. Mr. Wolfowitz said that this time around the administration was dealing with "countries that are quite frightened of their own shadows" in assembling a coalition to force President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I've already decided that. It's not useful."

What I am not ready to give up in this "war" is my rights or freedoms unnecesarily.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
We should have never allowed the power vacuum after the war and General Shenseki warned against it.

I agree-- When we defeated Japan and Germany we had a military run government with a Military Governor for several years while we set up their movement to democracy and self rule- and they were a totally defeated people...While everyone thinks it would be nice- its idiotic to think that a people that have been controlled by a military regime or dictator most or all their lives can immediately develop Democracy...

Look at Russia- With the fall of the Soviet Union they tried to go way too fast to a Democracy and free market country and ended up with the Mafia and the Black Market running the country- they have had to clamp down with a more dictatorship setup to try and regain control...
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
IL Rancher said:
Red Robin... I don't think Lebanon had anything to do with any westbank agreements.. You are think PLA (Palastinians). Completley different people/situation, unfortunately, both areas are rank with hezbollah.
I'm sure you're right but I thought I could remember that part of the peace accord pertained to Lebanon and their policing of hezbollah. I'm probably wrong. Point is Israel has done everything asked of them and still people are calling for them to use restraint. I was disappointed in the vatican as well. I heard they called on Israel to use restraint. Any of you Catholics have any comment or reason why ?
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
To be honest, I question why Isreal backed off in a couple of the wars with the muslims. if you think of how much land would be Isreal right now but they bowed to international pressure back than is well, god knows the Muslims would not have stopped until their was no Isreal if they had won those battles. You are right, it is a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation with Isreal and their dealings with their neighbors... I often wonder why Europe tries so hard to appease the muslims, I know their populations have more arab/african muslims by percentage than the US but how well has appeasing/pandering to them worked for those governments?

The most classic part of this was how Arafat was treated in Europe... the man was a Terrorist, period and the PLO was one heck of a curropt organization. Oh well, that area is/was and probably always will be a cluster, much like the Balkans will probably be as well.
 
Top