Print

[pug_ster]

Israel spends most of percentage of their budget on the military anyways, even more than the US.  So you expect so see that kind of firepower on Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, and other unfriendly neighbors.  Everybody except the US condemn this Israel attack.  That is why these Muslim terrorists love us so much.

[pug_ster]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13841307/

Notice only Bush says 'Israel has the right to defend itself' while other g8 countries urged restraint.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jul 13 2006, 02:05 PM)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13841307/

Notice only Bush says 'Israel has the right to defend itself' while other g8 countries urged restraint.

It might have something to do with the fact that he's familiar with the feeling since a similar incident happened to the country he leads. It may also have something to do with the fact that it's the only logical choice in the matter. It's the same as somoene picking on someone else at school. If the kid getting picked on doesn't stand up for theirself then they will keep getting picked on. The best way to stop it is to smash the bully relentlessly. It's the same no matter how you look at it. For a lot of people they were fortunate enough to never have had to deal with something like this so they have no clue how to deal with it.



I always say though, if you feel something is a wrong decision, simply throw your idea on the table and we'll discuss it. I see so many people criticize our current administration but never propose solutions to the problems they are dealing with. It's fine to disagree, but throw out a better solution so the rest of us can more easily side with you. Until then you're just thinking about what's better for your political interests rather than what's best for your country or someone else's in this case.



Edit: I forgot to state my main point. Nobody has to prove whether or not they "have the right to defend" theirselves. It in an inalienable right. It doesn't have to be guaranteed by anyone's government. It is vital to one's existance. To take issue with Bush's statement is laughable by any rational thinking individual.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jul 15 2006, 04:12 PM)

Edit: I forgot to state my main point. Nobody has to prove whether or not they "have the right to defend" theirselves. It in an inalienable right. It doesn't have to be guaranteed by anyone's government. It is vital to one's existance. To take issue with Bush's statement is laughable by any rational thinking individual.

The same logic can then be applied to the N. Koreans, Iranians or Syrians. Soverignty is a two way street.

Bush has set a very dangerous precedant that is getting and will continue to get a lot of you "boys" dead.

That cowboy BS got thrown out with the bathwater. And he regrets those "Big Dumb Texan" remarks everyday.

But as long as he knows he was right popularity doesnt matter much to him.

And since you see everything in the contrast of Republican or Democrat even when no one makes mention of the two, you better rally troops in Sept.

Because Bush is going to get a present with a "peach" in the middle.

   

P.S. The Iranians are about to give the Euralis their very own Vietnam.  

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Jul 17 2006, 08:21 AM)

The same logic can then be applied to the N. Koreans, Iranians or Syrians. Soverignty is a two way street.

Bush has set a very dangerous precedant that is getting and will continue to get a lot of you "boys" dead.

That cowboy BS got thrown out with the bathwater. And he regrets those "Big Dumb Texan" remarks everyday.

But as long as he knows he was right popularity doesnt matter much to him.

And since you see everything in the contrast of Republican or Democrat even when no one makes mention of the two, you better rally troops in Sept.

Because Bush is going to get a present with a "peach" in the middle.

 

P.S. The Iranians are about to give the Euralis their very own Vietnam.

 

Thanks Mr. Knowitall!! What didn't you understand about don't knock a policy without making your own suggestion? You're too stupid to argue with as you've proven in almost every other topic in this forum. You make wild claims that you can't and won't backup. Just don't reply to anything I say anymore unless you are going to use factual information rather than your radical left-wing opinions.

[thewickedjester]

QUOTE

Because Bush is going to get a present with a "peach" in the middle.

Wait, he is going to get a peach pie? From whom? The Iranians? Isreal? Wait... its going to be a bomb isnt it! My god, they are going to kill the president with pie! Oh noez!

I'm sorry, I couldnt resist...

[PhatIrishBastard]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jul 17 2006, 08:01 AM)

Thanks Mr. Knowitall!! What didn't you understand about don't knock a policy without making your own suggestion? You're too stupid to argue with as you've proven in almost every other topic in this forum. You make wild claims that you can't and won't backup. Just don't reply to anything I say anymore unless you are going to use factual information rather than your radical left-wing opinions.

Dude, you need to lay off the O'Reilley show.  Everything with you is some grandeous political conspiracy.

But, jhadhur gets his rocks off from people like you.  And I can see why.


You are so DUMB, I bet you think jha'dhur is a negro.

You have to have a minimum IQ to even hold a conversation.

I myself thought it was comical how you just jumped in and expected him/anyone to hold your elfing hand on matters/facts discussed on news for the past 5 years.

I bet you didnt even catch how Chaneys comp (KBR) has been excluded from no bid awards in Iraq.

Or that Iraq comprises 30% of there overall business,

Or that there stock took of with troop deployments to Iraq.

I could provide links from the news cast, given the fact that you probably dont watch NEWS. But more importantly I will take my own advice given to jha.

I will just ignore you.  

You are a stereotype..

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(PhatIrishBastard @ Jul 17 2006, 10:43 AM)

Dude, you need to lay off the O'Reilley show. Everything with you is some grandeous political conspiracy.

But, jhadhur gets his rocks off from people like you. And I can see why.


You are so DUMB, I bet you think jha'dhur is a negro.

You have to have a minimum IQ to even hold a conversation.

I myself thought it was comical how you just jumped in and expected him/anyone to hold your elfing hand on matters/facts discussed on news for the past 5 years.

I bet you didnt even catch how Chaneys comp (KBR) has been excluded from no bid awards in Iraq.

Or that Iraq comprises 30% of there overall business,

Or that there stock took of with troop deployments to Iraq.

I could provide links from the news cast, given the fact that you probably dont watch NEWS. But more importantly I will take my own advice given to jha.

I will just ignore you.

You are a stereotype..

 

Nowhere in your incoherent ramblings did it EVER have anything to do with what I've said in this thread or the topic. You've now made yourself and now Jha'dhur look dumber by even siding with him. Please do take your own advice and ignore me because you also are not intelligent enough to have a conversation with. Now... where's that ignore option..... AH here it is.

[PhatIrishBastard]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jul 17 2006, 11:23 AM)

Now... where's that ignore option..... AH here it is.

Use it with pride.

Bye, now.

 

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jul 15 2006, 09:12 PM)

Edit: I forgot to state my main point. Nobody has to prove whether or not they "have the right to defend" theirselves. It in an inalienable right. It doesn't have to be guaranteed by anyone's government. It is vital to one's existance. To take issue with Bush's statement is laughable by any rational thinking individual.

Yes true that Israel have a right to defend themselves.  And killing Israeli soldiers is wrong.  But they don't have to target innocent people and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jul 17 2006, 11:39 PM)

Yes true that Israel have a right to defend themselves. And killing Israeli soldiers is wrong. But they don't have to target innocent people and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

 

Neither I nor Bush made that comment. The only thing said was "they have the right to defend themselves". Nobody got into specifics on how they should do it or said they agreed with everything being done.

 

When you're dealing with non-uniformed enemies who are outnumbered, they hide among civilians. They do this so it's not easy to tell enemy from civilians and so if you do attack them the news can get ahold of it and create division rather than unity. There are a lot of people out there that would rather see their country absorb attacks than do what it takes to prevent future attacks. If there ever is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil maybe these people will be in it or near it so that if they they can understand that these people they are protecting are not going to hesitate to make them a casualty of war. That's no excuse to kill innocents. Nobody agrees with that across the board.... but what is the proposed solution?

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jul 18 2006, 02:18 PM)

Neither I nor Bush made that comment. The only thing said was "they have the right to defend themselves". Nobody got into specifics on how they should do it or said they agreed with everything being done.

When you're dealing with non-uniformed enemies who are outnumbered, they hide among civilians. They do this so it's not easy to tell enemy from civilians and so if you do attack them the news can get ahold of it and create division rather than unity. There are a lot of people out there that would rather see their country absorb attacks than do what it takes to prevent future attacks. If there ever is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil maybe these people will be in it or near it so that if they they can understand that these people they are protecting are not going to hesitate to make them a casualty of war. That's no excuse to kill innocents. Nobody agrees with that across the board.... but what is the proposed solution?

It is basically an arms race.  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and so some people in Lebanon do think that they do have a right to defend themselves.  Israel gets their arms from the US, so Hezbollah gets these rockets from Syria and Iran.  

We are not talking about US being attacked here, and fortunately that US don't have unfriendly neighbors like Israel.  The attacks won't help the situation and probably drive Lebanon to side with Hezbollah and there's no easy way out.

[pug_ster]

Problem is that Hezbollah runs much off the Lebanese government.  So it will be difficult to do that.  I don't know what Israel is thinking when they blow up airports, bridges and blocking water fronts, making it harder for innocent people to leave.

In a week from now, Israel will probably forget reason why they fight this war in the first place (ie, the kidnapped soldiers.)  Meanwhile innocents in Beiruit, Haifa and people from both countries are suffering.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jul 18 2006, 08:53 AM)

It is basically an arms race. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and so some people in Lebanon do think that they do have a right to defend themselves. Israel gets their arms from the US, so Hezbollah gets these rockets from Syria and Iran.

We are not talking about US being attacked here, and fortunately that US don't have unfriendly neighbors like Israel. The attacks won't help the situation and probably drive Lebanon to side with Hezbollah and there's no easy way out.

 

Well we're obviously not talking about the U.S. I gave the U.S. attack example simply so people could maybe understand. The attitude that retaliation will make things worse is silly. What do you propose they do?

 

I will use another U.S. example to hopefully illustrate what I mean.

Suppose there were a group of "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" in the U.S. and they attacked Canada. The U.S. would be obligated to flush them out. If they did not flush them out and took no action, they are effectively harboring terrorists and Canada will then have the right to retaliate.

 

The suggestion of taking no action or diplomacy in this case is not possible and is laughable. I've already covered why taking no action is silly. Diplomacy is silly because there is no one to reason with. Since you made no suggestion, this does not apply to you. I'll say it again, don't criticize or make predictions on outcomes without providing what YOU suggest to do.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jul 19 2006, 09:50 AM)

Well we're obviously not talking about the U.S. I gave the U.S. attack example simply so people could maybe understand. The attitude that retaliation will make things worse is silly. What do you propose they do?

I will use another U.S. example to hopefully illustrate what I mean.

Suppose there were a group of "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" in the U.S. and they attacked Canada. The U.S. would be obligated to flush them out. If they did not flush them out and took no action, they are effectively harboring terrorists and Canada will then have the right to retaliate.

The suggestion of taking no action or diplomacy in this case is not possible and is laughable. I've already covered why taking no action is silly. Diplomacy is silly because there is no one to reason with. Since you made no suggestion, this does not apply to you. I'll say it again, don't criticize or make predictions on outcomes without providing what YOU suggest to do.

The U.S. is in the business of harboring "freedom fighters", and has done so on several occassion in many countries across the world.

N. Ireland
Somalia
Afghanistan
Liberia
Cuba

Your examples are utterly useless and dont stand the litmus test.


We trained Bin LAden and his henchman/Mujahadeen/Al Qaeda.
The Bay of pigs was a failed coup by US trained terroists.
Not to mention Saddam Hussein, on the US payrol.
Mohmar Khadafi also on the US payroll at one time.
Manuel Noreiga.
Even Charles Taylor of Liberia.  

Go do some homework.