Print

[puckSR]

QUOTE

Both sides conduct military operations against each other, each side cross's the border to carry out there operations.

True....
but in this case one of the sides is a govt sanctioned military organization.
The other side is guerilla group that is outside the control of their govt.

The point, which I was trying to make earlier:
Israel MUST attack Hezbollah, and in turn parts of Lebanon.
Hezbollah cannot sign treaties or call for a cease fire....nor will they.
If the military actions of Hezbollah were sanctioned by the Lebanese govts then diplomatic channels might exist.
But, as Lebanon has already explained...Hezbollah is not an stratified political organization(in the sense of being a govt)...but rather a guerilla force that acts autonomously.

If Lebanon was OFFICIALLY sanctioning Hezbollah then I might have a different perspective.  In that case we might be able to talk about who is right, we might be able to discuss morality and political agendas....
However...this is a case of a non-authorized guerilla force attacking a soverign nation.
That nation has EVERY right to defend itself, especially if it means going into another soverign nation to discipline the aggressors(if the other nation cannot discipline the aggressors itself).

Go back to my Texas/Mexico analogy.
We used to have a problem with Texas forces crossing the border to attack banditos.  They frequently were accused of excessive force, however....that is the price a nation pays for not being able to control its own people.

[Arvarden]

Your right Hezbollah must be attacked and crushed but not at the expense of civilian lives on the scale we are witnessing.  If Israel was serious about removing Hezbollah they would need to take out the elements that support them in Iran and Syria.  Also they would have to launch a ground invasion in Lebanon to secure the borders which will allow UN peace keepers to take watch.  

In the past Lebanon was promised help to combat Hezbollah which never materialized.  How can you expect them to remove/sanction Hezbollah now there country lies in ruins?

You are asking the impossible.

[_iffy]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 03:24 PM)

If Lebanon was OFFICIALLY sanctioning Hezbollah then I might have a different perspective.  In that case we might be able to talk about who is right, we might be able to discuss morality and political agendas....
However...this is a case of a non-authorized guerilla force attacking a soverign nation.
That nation has EVERY right to defend itself, especially if it means going into another soverign nation to discipline the aggressors(if the other nation cannot discipline the aggressors itself).

I agree that israel has every right to battle with hezbo, but they should have had permission from the lebanese government to enter their land. They never did that and that's why I feel isreal is acting wrong.

It's kind of like police planting evidence to catch a suspect they know to be guilty but can't prove. When fighting terrorist (which in actuality are just criminals or law breakers) you must follow your rules which you say are improtant. Otherwise your no better than who your fighting, and get no simpathy from me.

What isreal is doing to lebanon is wrong. But i agree isreal must fight hezbollah.


BTW - what ever happen to the isrealy soldier who was kidnapped in gaza. It happened before hezbollah kidnapped their two isrealy soldiers.

Is isreal just taking advantage of what they wanted to do all along? Invade lebanon? - just a thought. I don't know if i even believe it.

[melon]

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Look at the greatest example of this as Nelson Mandela.

and will idiots stop mentioning friggin 9/11?

that was the saudis not the Lebonese.

you just come accross as a retard who believes everything you see on fox news.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Jul 31 2006, 03:52 PM)

I agree that israel has every right to battle with hezbo, but they should have had permission from the lebanese government to enter their land. They never did that and that's why I feel isreal is acting wrong.

It's kind of like police planting evidence to catch a suspect they know to be guilty but can't prove. When fighting terrorist (which in actuality are just criminals or law breakers) you must follow your rules which you say are improtant. Otherwise your no better than who your fighting, and get no simpathy from me.

What isreal is doing to lebanon is wrong. But i agree isreal must fight hezbollah.


BTW - what ever happen to the isrealy soldier who was kidnapped in gaza. It happened before hezbollah kidnapped their two isrealy soldiers.

Is isreal just taking advantage of what they wanted to do all along? Invade lebanon? - just a thought. I don't know if i even believe it.

well at the same time you think, if the police come to your house and say 'we know for a fact there is a criminal hiding in here, can we come in a take a look?" and you say no and shut the door, they are gonan break down the door and look anyway

 

by not giving israel permission to enter their land lebanon is committing the equivilent of obstruction of justice

 

 

although a question that has to be asked is, did israel attempt to secure permission, or did they just move in?

[_iffy]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Jul 31 2006, 07:06 PM)

by not giving israel permission to enter their land lebanon is committing the equivilent of obstruction of justice

That's only if lebanon follows isreals laws. Which they don't. There an independant and sovern nation. Not a provence of isreal.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 07:46 PM)

Ok...
_iffy...not to be mean...but your analogy SUCKED.
This is very different.  They didnt "plant" evidence.  Police and countries also play by COMPLETELY different rules.

I think you mis-read my analogy wrong or i didn't explain it well enough. My point had nothing to do with planting evidence, it was meant to show how breaking your own laws to catch a law breaker makes you no different than who your trying to bring to justice.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 07:46 PM)

Israel doesnt have to "ask" permission in this case.
Israel only has to request that Lebanon "cease hostilities".
Since Lebanon did not cease hostilities...this can be viewed as an act of war.  A country ALWAYS has a right to defend itself from foreign aggression.  There is absolutely no question that rockets fired from Lebanon are landing in Israel.  According to almost every international law I am familiar with....Israel has every right to attack Lebanon as long as a "military force is acting aggresively" towards Israel.

First Isreal has the right to defend itself. Not invade other countries.


Second, essentially hezbolah are criminals. In this case foriegn criminals.

analogy...
This happens quite a bit so...
a chinese theif flees china and makes america his new home. China calls america and say hand him over. The thief says to america if you do this they will torture me. America, which doesn't believe in the corporal punishment, tells china we'll give him if you promise not to torture him. China says no. Internation lawyers and courts are heard, until a comprimise can be made.

Imagine if china didn't ask america to hand him over. Imagine if the chinese army just invaded US soil kicking down doors and opening fire on people who resemble the thiefs mugshots. What would the rest of the world think and do?



Isreal should have asked lebanon for permission to enter their land and hunt down hezbollah. Lebanon would have said yes. Lebanon could have helped isreal with intel, logistics and supplies. IMO.

[puckSR]

QUOTE

First Isreal has the right to defend itself. Not invade other countries.

Wrong...if the only way for Israel to defend itself is to invade another country....then they are perfectly within their rights.

QUOTE

Second, essentially hezbolah are criminals. In this case foriegn criminals.

analogy...
This happens quite a bit so...
a chinese theif flees china and makes america his new home. China calls america and say hand him over. The thief says to america if you do this they will torture me. America, which doesn't believe in the corporal punishment, tells china we'll give him if you promise not to torture him. China says no. Internation lawyers and courts are heard, until a comprimise can be made.

Still a horrible analogy.
1.  Lebanon says that it cannot catch the "criminal"
2.  This is not a singular person...but an entire organization
3.  These criminals are CURRENTLY commiting crimes against another country.  Once your "thief" leaves China...he is no longer robbing Chinese.  In this case Hezbollah is still attacking Israel.
4.  Lebanon is not refusing to hand over the criminals because of objections....Lebanon has claimed a complete inability to apprehend or stop the criminals

 

QUOTE

That's only if lebanon follows isreals laws. Which they don't. There an independant and sovern nation. Not a provence of isreal.

Right...which means that they both follow international law....
Which means that they have the right to attack a country that is attacking them.

QUOTE

Isreal should have asked lebanon for permission to enter their land and hunt down hezbollah. Lebanon would have said yes. Lebanon could have helped isreal with intel, logistics and supplies. IMO.

1.  Lebanon would not have said "Yes".  Hezbollah is very popular in Lebanon...and Israel is very unpopular.  Any govt that supported Israel hunting down Hezbollah in Lebanon would have been immediately removed from power.
2.  Lebanon cannot provide anything.  The reason Hezbollah can continue these attacks is because most Lebanese support or at the very least do not oppose the violence.
3.  Why ask for permission?  This is really getting silly.  What country has ever asked for "permission" to attack another country...from the country they were attacking?

Your missing the entire picture iffy.
The Lebanese govt cannot attack Hezbollah.  They cannot stop Hezbollah.  Hezbollah is popular.
Lebanon cannot support Israel.  They cannot assist Israel.  Israel is not popular.
The Lebanese govt is stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Either do the right thing...and piss off all of your country....or do the wrong thing and provoke a war with Israel.
Israel had absolutely NO CHOICE.  They were being attacked.  The attacks became worse.  Israel now must either defend itself or surrender.  I dont expect them to surrender....

IN OTHER WORDS>>>
Israel had NO CHOICE.
If you want to discuss motive, purpose, decisions, etc....discuss the motives and decisions of the Lebanese govt.  Discuss the motives and decisions of Hezbollah....
But leave Israel out of it....they had no choice...they did what any country or person would do and defended themselves from attacks!!!!

[Arvarden]

Wrong.

Britain did not bomb civilian infrastructure during the IRA's campain of terror.  So when you say "they did what any country or person would do and defended themselves from attacks" you are plainly grabbing at straws to defend the Israeli's.  I'll give you another example, when Argentina invaded the falklands we didn't bomb the mainland nor did we go out of our way to cause civilian casualties.

Israel had a choice, they could either start negotiations regarding prisoner releases or they could do what they are presently doing.  Like the wall they have built and the bombs they are dropping none of them seem to be working towards a lasting peace plan.  If the Israeli's wanted peace with her neighbours they would have abided by various UN resolutions and the land grabbing for the iron certain would be a pipe dream for the hardcore in Israels society.

Infact if Bush and his poodle stopped shipping bombs to the middle east the Israeli's would not be able to bomb civlians on the scale we are witnessing.  Talk about giving a rogue nation <that refuses to acknowledge it's own WMD program>the green light....sigh.

[nickthegreat]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Aug 1 2006, 12:50 PM)

Britain did not bomb civilian infrastructure during the IRA's campain of terror.

Good point  
PuckSR - you say they have no choice, -  this is the black and white vision that bush and all religious fanatics have. Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Us and Them, all that shit. "no choice but to defend themselves"? - Turd  
Their actions are merely reinforcing Hezbollah's belief that they too are 'Right' - as the evidence of 'Israeli Evil' can be seen all around: the death of innocents. This makes a mutual resolution much less likely at any point in the future.
If the Israeli government appealled to the international community, or perhaps even (heaven forbid) the UN, y'know, maybe follow some international laws once in a while rather than getting the US to veto them, then perhaps at least they could start engendering some sympathy within the arabic populace: I mean they are fucking pissed off with this shit too.
Or back to the UN point; if they told the US where to go perhaps one of the many Resolutions that have been created and accepted by the international and arabic world could be enacted: the basis for a long term solution perhaps? at least it would be a perspective thats detatched from their ingrained conflict and thus might hold some legitimacy.

In any case, after years and billions of dollars pumped into a failed ICBM defense system ('star wars'   ) I think that the US could perhaps give the Israeli's weapons to negate the rockets being fired into their nation, rather than those that are naturally used to seek vengence (apache/tanks etc). (Im not sure if this is possible - but I do know the US has the ability to shoot down certain rockets already - theatre missile defense - so why they couldn't shoot down the ice age looking shit thats heading Israel's way I don't know - perhaps because they too see in black and white and would rather categorically 'win') - So no, I don't think 'they have no choice'

nick

edit: damnit, new reply when typing...............

QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 1 2006, 04:31 PM)

Israel has every right to attack Hezbollah....and to enter Lebanon without permission to attack Hezbollah if Lebanon claims "inability".
The issue of civilian casualities is seperate....

No, its not - otherwise the British would have every right to have invaded the US due to the massive funding that Irish Americans were providing the IRA - after all, the US govt turned around and stated they had an 'inability' to do anything about it...... (not that we would have achieved much, but my point is there would still have been no legitimate reason to attack your nation)


- fair play on the giving back land point, but they have to distance themselves from what looks like an empty gesture: by allowing a 3rd party to intervene that is impartial (to a greater degree)

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(nickthegreat @ Aug 1 2006, 11:47 AM)

No, its not - otherwise the British would have every right to have invaded the US due to the massive funding that Irish Americans were providing the IRA - after all, the US govt turned around and stated they had an 'inability' to do anything about it...... (not that we would have achieved much, but my point is there would still have been no legitimate reason to attack your nation)
- fair play on the giving back land point, but they have to distance themselves from what looks like an empty gesture: by allowing a 3rd party to intervene that is impartial (to a greater degree)

These days that will land you in Gitmo. US is tongue lashing Iranians over the same game that they invented.

I saw that traitor Oliver North in the DC airport and I told him THANKS.  

We are battling the Islamic forces North, Reagan and Bush Sr created to stop spread of communisim.

[sunker]

ya

[_iffy]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 09:44 PM)

Still a horrible analogy.
1. Lebanon says that it cannot catch the "criminal"
2. This is not a singular person...but an entire organization
3. These criminals are CURRENTLY commiting crimes against another country. Once your "thief" leaves China...he is no longer robbing Chinese. In this case Hezbollah is still attacking Israel.
4. Lebanon is not refusing to hand over the criminals because of objections....Lebanon has claimed a complete inability to apprehend or stop the criminals

Now, i am sure i explained my analogies correctly. And i'm sure now you missed the point of the analogies.

1. If lebanon says they cannot catch the "criminals" Isreal can ask to do it for them.
2. Your reading the analogies too literally(sp) so much that you miss the message.
3. Once the thief leaves china he is still a thief. Still an outlaw. Cops won't stop chasing you if you stop commiting crimes.
4. see point #1

The point of this analogy is by simply talking to the nation where the criminals are in, an expedition treaty can be easily aquired. If the prosecuting nation, doesn't even ask for one, and invade the hosting nation with force, they're breaking international laws.

QUOTE(me)

That's only if lebanon follows isreals laws. Which they don't. There an independant and sovern nation. Not a provence of isreal.

 

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 09:44 PM)

Right...which means that they both follow international law....
Which means that they have the right to attack a country that is attacking them.

No sovern nation, has attacked isreal. You are right with international laws though - Did lebanon sign an agreement to abide by those laws (really don't know - don't flame for this)

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 09:44 PM)

IN OTHER WORDS>>>
Israel had NO CHOICE.
If you want to discuss motive, purpose, decisions, etc....discuss the motives and decisions of the Lebanese govt.  Discuss the motives and decisions of Hezbollah....
But leave Israel out of it....they had no choice...they did what any country or person would do and defended themselves from attacks!!!!

I had a lot more quotes from you(puck) and rather repeat them because most of them are the same, i'll just sumerize(spelling i know). puck your points all take a view of Isreal haveing no choice, they have to attack the country of lebanon, in order to get hezbollah, so they can get their two kidnapped solders (which are probably dead now) back because they can't sacrifice their lives.

Which is fine.

My view is that isreal shouldn't attack lebanon to get to hezbollah. They should work with lebanon or get lebanon permission to enter their land.

Isreal didn't even try, so what i'm saying is isreal is no different from any other terroist organisation that uses violence to get what they want.

ANALOGY ...YAH!!...
what hezbollah did to isreal is like what brazillian cab drivers do to american tourists. Kidnapping. America hasn't declared war on brazil have they? Stealth bombers aren't nukeing rio de janeiro right now are they?

puckSR, argueing with you is always good. You bring up points that i haven't thought of and you read everyones replies. However, your not going to change my mind on this issue. If i can't convince you, than i'll agree to disagree.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 09:44 PM)

Black and White, Good and Evil??
Look....when anyone is being attacked they have 2 basic options
1.  Fight back
2.  Run away
Since a country cannot "run away"...what other option did they have?

3. talk

[sidewinder33]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Aug 1 2006, 03:37 PM)

talk

Heres an analogy I think summarizes this situation or any situation with Muslims, a starving bear is chasing you through the woods, despite your best efforts to calm the bear, and negotiate, the bear is still relentless, it does not care about your feelings, it does not want to stop, it just wants to devour you. You have the ability to kill the bear but that isn't the PC thing to do, you must either kill or be killed in this situation, you can't run forever and the bear is locked onto you. These terrorists are the same way. They do not want to talk; you cannot talk to someone who would just as soon shoot you if they could. Terrorists are terrorists for a reason, they do not wish to take any formal steps that the civilized world has setup for aggressions between nation or beliefs. They only want to eradicate Israel, not make a deal. Talking is not an option.

And this is somewhat on topic but people who don't believe in good and evil are idiots. Yes there are different points of view in the world, and that’s fine but when one point of view it to eradicate another nation or race, that is ..... thats right evil. Iran has openly made aggressive statements towards America, and in the old days shit like that was fight'n words, you mess with the bull you get the horn. Even if you can't seem to see good and evil how can you side with a nation who's goal is now to destroy you. Iran hates America its a given I'll bet if you walked into the Iranian capital and said "you know what Im and American and I support you fuck America I hate them all too", right after you got past I'm an American you'd be dead. They do not think the same way we do. The world cannot "get along and talk things out" when one side is only going to be settled when you are dead. I bring I ran into this because they are using this shit in Lebanon to take heat off of them so they can keep working, on getting nukes, we need to stop pussy footing around. The UN is the biggest crock of shit, they cant even wipe their own ass. These other nation just don't quite seem to get the picture, America is #1 in the crosshair of all these psychos, but Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Western Civilization are next in line. Instead of fearing America, maybe you guys should realize that we are the only thing keeping the shit from hitting you guys right now.

IMHO the real problem is that the world has been trying to appease these people for decades and now they are getting cocky (Hitler) its only a matter of time before history repeats itself.

[nickthegreat]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 1 2006, 07:29 PM)

Hmmm...
NO
First, if that was proper justification, then Israel would be attacking many more countries right now.  Hezbollah is being funded HEAVILY by other countries...
Secondly, a few of you need to realize the difference between "having the right" and "actually doing something".
I may have the "right" to do something, but may decide not to do it for many alternative reasons.
America does not 'have the right', it assumes it does, but within the international scene the 'right' is dictated by 'law', something that the US frequently overlooks. Something cannot just be 'moral' or 'right' from your (as in a nations) own singular viewpoint
Ok...think about it nick
Israel had 3 choices:
1.  Attempt to physically stop Hezbollah
2.  Negotiate with Hezbollah
3.  Do nothing
4. Attempt to find a peaceful solution outside of direct negotiation? The UN is only impotent because, as I have said, the US blocks any Resolutions that provide the potential for peace.

Since Israel labels Hezbollah a terrorist organization....they WILL NOT negotiate hence black and white. Israel labels them a terrorist organisation ( and i admit that they act that way) but alot of the middle east see the inverse of this, hence Israeli occupation, hence hezbollah as a political party (a large one at that). Back to my earlier point: technically the US can be viewed as a 'terrorist organisation' - based upon some of its international behaviour and internationally accepted definitions (hence why I mentioned Geneva and Nuremburg), but that should not prohibit rational discussion between it and other nations. Labelling each side is unproductive - you are instantly placing yourself on the moral high ground

Obviously, while "do nothing" is an option...it doesnt seem like a very good option
So, in a practical world Israel is left with the option of defending itself/attacking Hezbollah
Now, Nick, you and a few other people are arguing against the WAY that Israel is defending itself and attacking Hezbollah.  That is fine, I am not even discussing method.   But you should, as this is what will lay or destroy the ground work for a reasonable outcome

Black and White, Good and Evil??
Look....when anyone is being attacked they have 2 basic options
1.  Fight back black
2.  Run away white
Since a country cannot "run away"...what other option did they have?

terrorism is a non conventional type of warfare, so 'run' or 'fight' is a completely impotent example, what about internal terror? non conventional warfare requires a non conventional response. And until both the US and Israel accept this they will perpetuate the situation.

Oh right

Hmm...I am pretty sure that there is a reason that they are not using "missile defense shields".
Maybe they arent safe in populated areas
where as the current situation could be described as 'safe' for both sides
Maybe the rockets being fired are too low-flying to be picked up on radar.
maybe. AA guns then? my point is I doubt this has even been considered
I doubt it is because "they see in black and white".
I quote both Condi and Bush "the creation of a new Middle East". Not the "creation of a new middle eastern 'peace', a new middle east.

Right...maybe they should have pulled out of certain areas!!!  Wait...they did that
Maybe they should cease hostilities towards arabic countries!!!  Wait they tried that
Maybe they should try something DIFFERENT then: my point entirely.


If anything, I would be willing to bet that Israel has no problem making concessions.  The problem is that when your enemy is full of terrorist cells and religious fundamentalists...they take a all or nothing attitude.
Hezbollah doesnt want Israel out of certain areas....Hezbollah wants Israel completely destroyed.
There is an old skit where a salesman is negotiating with a customer
"How much for that stereo?"
"$300"
"How about $1?"
"Hmmm...you drive a hard bargain...how about $250?"
"How about $1?"
"Ok, Ok...your killing me...$200?"
"How about $1?"

Hezbollah and other groups like them are not flexible...they want Israel gone...and when Israel concedes a piece of land...they continue to attack...
They hope that maybe Israel will concede even more land as long as the attack
This isnt a very fruitful negotiating system.
don't get me wrong, I do see your point, and it is a tough situation - but then why revert back to a prior negotiating system (one of violence) that patently hasn't worked either?

Thanks for the intelligent post though ...........................................

QUOTE(sidewinder33 @ Aug 2 2006, 09:12 AM)

Heres an analogy I think summarizes this situation or any situation with Muslims (and theres the problem - Muslims do not equal Terrorists, Bears, or any other problem, or at least no more so than any other religion) a starving bear is chasing you through the woods, despite your best efforts to calm the bear, and negotiate, the bear is still relentless, it does not care about your feelings, it does not want to stop, it just wants to devour you. You have the ability to kill the bear but that isn't the PC thing to do, you must either kill or be killed in this situation, you can't run forever and the bear is locked onto you. These terrorists are the same way ( no their not, at least PuckSR seems to realise demands are made, however unreasonable, as they were prior to 9/11 -whether you hear about them as a citizen is different)  . They do not want to talk; you cannot talk to someone who would just as soon shoot you if they could. Terrorists are terrorists for a reason,(.hezbollah are labelled 'terrorists' by a small number of nations only, correctly or incorrectly) they do not wish to take any formal steps that the civilized world has setup for aggressions between nation or beliefs ( Please, don't make me say this again; NOR DO THE US OR ISRAEL: your right, the civilized 'world' has set up formal steps, steps that neither country follows.) They only want to eradicate Israel, not make a deal. Talking is not an option.

And this is somewhat on topic but people who don't believe in good and evil are idiots. (Bush "your either with us or against us" - I don't believe in JUST good or evil. People who can't see situations with right on both sides, to whatever degree, are idiots ) Yes there are different points of view in the world, and that’s fine but when one point of view it to eradicate another nation or race, that is ..... thats right evil. Iran has openly made aggressive statements towards America, and in the old days shit like that was fight'n words, you mess with the bull you get the horn. Even if you can't seem to see good and evil how can you side with a nation who's goal is now to destroy you. Iran hates America its a given I'll bet if you walked into the Iranian capital and said "you know what Im and American and I support you fuck America I hate them all too", right after you got past I'm an American you'd be dead. They do not think the same way we do. The world cannot "get along and talk things out" when one side is only going to be settled when you are dead. I bring I ran into this because they are using this shit in Lebanon to take heat off of them so they can keep working, on getting nukes, we need to stop pussy footing around. The UN is the biggest crock of shit, they cant even wipe their own ass (because of the veto system and the US position regarding Israel). These other nation just don't quite seem to get the picture, America is #1 in the crosshair of all these psychos (you asked yourself why? given that your so far away and all), but Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Western Civilization are next in line. Instead of fearing America, maybe you guys should realize that we are the only thing keeping the shit from hitting you guys right now. (OMG you need a slap, sorry, but 'the shit' whilst devastating is not (yet) the signal that the end of the world is nigh and that the US is the saviour. If terrorism did escalate there would be nothing the US could do: the proliferation of nukes is widespread and uncontrolled: Rumsfeld's Red Report back in 98 (i think) declared the biggest international risk from locally based nukes - so why the concern now about Iran (a country ruled by a religious dictatorship with territorial boarders) - to be honest that seems like the perfect candidate for applying to the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction (the reason why the US will not attack them if they have any sense at all): they are not a nuclear threat in the strictest sense: the threat comes from those who treat nuclear powers like they are shit on their shoe. A similar view can be taken historically with N korea in peacetime. Fair enough religion is an extra factor in Iran; just as it is within your administration, and your personal viewpoint (hence the bear example). There are, however, many dangerous things in this world, and many dangerous ways to react to them. While PuckSR has some very valid points on Israel, I cannot agree with you on Iran, or terrorism in general. You, my friend, are poking the bear in the eye with a big stick.

IMHO the real problem is that the world has been trying to appease these people for decades and now they are getting cocky (Hitler) its only a matter of time before history repeats itself.
Hitler = a major military threat. Terrorism = nasty, but more americans died in bathtubs (think that stat comes from 2000) than in terrorist attacks (troops at war do not count).

Phew. I might just resort to one word insults soon.......... its quicker

[puckSR]

QUOTE

America does not 'have the right', it assumes it does, but within the international scene the 'right' is dictated by 'law', something that the US frequently overlooks. Something cannot just be 'moral' or 'right' from your (as in a nations) own singular viewpoint  

America?
We are talking about Israel!!!!!!

QUOTE

Israel states that it has no quarrel with the government or people of Lebanon, and that it is taking extreme precautions to avoid harm to them. Yet a number of its actions have hurt and killed Lebanese civilians and military personnel and caused great damage to infrastructure. While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, and as I've said, Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned.--Kofi Annan

QUOTE

Israel labels them a terrorist organisation ( and i admit that they act that way) but alot of the middle east see the inverse of this, hence Israeli occupation, hence hezbollah as a political party (a large one at that). Back to my earlier point: technically the US can be viewed as a 'terrorist organisation' - based upon some of its international behaviour and internationally accepted definitions (hence why I mentioned Geneva and Nuremburg), but that should not prohibit rational discussion between it and other nations. Labelling each side is unproductive - you are instantly placing yourself on the moral high ground

Wrong....
America cannot be viewed as a Terrorist organization in the same way that Hezbollah can...
Terrorist is perhaps the wrong word....but it is commonly used in reference to violent negotiations.....
America has never kidnapped people and held them for ransom
Part of Hezbollah is non-terrorist....however, kidnapping soldiers and requesting prisoner exchange is a non-negotiable position.  No country on the face of the earth is going to negotiate in that situation

QUOTE

4. Attempt to find a peaceful solution outside of direct negotiation? The UN is only impotent because, as I have said, the US blocks any Resolutions that provide the potential for peace.

Just out of curiosity...could you give me an example???

QUOTE

terrorism is a non conventional type of warfare, so 'run' or 'fight' is a completely impotent example, what about internal terror? non conventional warfare requires a non conventional response. And until both the US and Israel accept this they will perpetuate the situation.

Hezbollah is truly not "terrorist", they are guerilla
They are fighting a fairly conventional war...last time i checked firing rockets into a country and having ground assault forces attack their troops is "conventional warfare"

QUOTE

mm...I am pretty sure that there is a reason that they are not using "missile defense shields".
Maybe they arent safe in populated areas
where as the current situation could be described as 'safe' for both sides
Maybe the rockets being fired are too low-flying to be picked up on radar.
maybe. AA guns then? my point is I doubt this has even been considered
I doubt it is because "they see in black and white".
I quote both Condi and Bush "the creation of a new Middle East". Not the "creation of a new middle eastern 'peace', a new middle east.

This link might be helpful
basically...it isnt an issue of "not willing" it is an issue of the technology being so antiquated that it makes modern defense difficult

QUOTE

Right...maybe they should have pulled out of certain areas!!! Wait...they did that
Maybe they should cease hostilities towards arabic countries!!! Wait they tried that
Maybe they should try something DIFFERENT then: my point entirely.

Hmm...THEY ARE...
BLOWING THE CRAP OUTTA THEIR COUNTRY
In all honesty...it is a new solution.  
You basically agreed with my point.
They have tried appeasement...
They have tried negotiations...
They have tried carefull targeted attacks...
They have tried counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism
Now...they are going to go with...blow you up till you stop or die

QUOTE

Muslims do not equal Terrorists, Bears, or any other problem, or at least no more so than any other religion

I believe he was trying to make the point that when dealing with a terrorist enemy who is Muslim
I dont believe he was trying to characterize ALL Muslims
He also might have been referring to Muslims opposed to Israel....

QUOTE

hezbollah are labelled 'terrorists' by a small number of nations only, correctly or incorrectly

The way in which you operate 'defines' you as a terrorist.
Hezbollah frequently operates as terrorists, and so does Hamas
The fact that they are also a valid political party, and hold some popularity is a different state of affairs.
They may not be "evil" terrorists...but they are terrorists