So did Isreal do the right thing?

[Mr Peabody]

Kex, thanks for that info.

[kexodusc]

Kex, thanks for that info.

Sure,

Not sure what that discovery solves, but I got called on it just last week in a discussion about audio cables of all things - the objectivist was telling me science is absolute and LCR suggests all cables sound the same - I used the ol' "bee flying line" and he slapped a freakin' magazine article out of his briefcase on the table.

If someone figures out how to turn sh*t to champagne I'll have no snappy remarks left in my arsenal...

[ForeverAutumn]

What I'd really like to know is why Noah didn't let the Unicorns onto the arc?

[Feanor]

As things in the Middle East have progressed over the last week, I can't help but think back to our conversation a short while ago when two US soldiers were killed and beheaded, about whether the US should have retaliated and, if so, how?

So, did Isreal do the right thing when two of their soldiers were captured? Is this how the US should have responded when it happened to them? What are your thoughts on the current situation in the Middle East?

The only thing that will quarantee security for Isreal in the long run is peace with its neighbours, including the Palestinians. I've said this for 40 years. It would involve consessions from Isreal followed by acceptance by the other parties.

But Isreal has never been prepared to make meaningful consessions. How come? Basically is that they feel they are negociating from strength: military if not moral. Why given in while we're winning they ask, (implicitly)? But you aren't "winning" if you can't win in the end. And Isreal can't bring the issue to an end using the strategies they have.

There is a lot of hypocracy in Isreal's position. They say, "Palestine Authority, get rid of Hammas, and we'll talk". And they say, "Lebanese Government, get rid of Hezbullah, and we'll leave". Apart from the fact that these supposed authorities simply cannot do those things, whose histoic actions motivated and gave pretext for these organizations? The answer this question is complex, but it begins with the Zionist movement.

[JoeE SP9]

The only thing that will quarantee security for Isreal in the long run is peace with its neighbours, including the Palestinians. I've said this for 40 years. It would involve consessions from Isreal followed by acceptance by the other parties.

But Isreal has never been prepared to make meaningful consessions. How come? Basically is that they feel they are negociating from strength: military if not moral. Why given in while we're winning they ask, (implicitly)? But you aren't "winning" if you can't win in the end. And Isreal can't bring the issue to an end using the strategies they have.

There is a lot of hypocracy in Isreal's position. They say, "Palestine Authority, get rid of Hammas, and we'll talk". And they say, "Lebanese Government, get rid of Hezbullah, and we'll leave". Apart from the fact that these supposed authorities simply cannot do those things, whose histoic actions motivated and gave pretext for these organizations? The answer this question is complex, but it begins with the Zionist movement.

How can you negotiate with a group that denies your right to exist?

[Feanor]

How can you negotiate with a group that denies your right to exist?

The "negociation" always needed to be with the Palistinian people, not necessarily with Hammas or Hizbullah. The situation now is that these extremist groups increasingly have come to represent the majority of Palistinians. The recalcitrant Isreali attitude drove them to increasingly more extreme positions. Isreal has largely sqandered to possibility of dealing with moderate Arab opinion.

What can be done now? I don't know. Perhaps stronger UN intervention than has been tried in the past is possible, but past measures haven't been very helpful. What I do know is that Isreal cannot "win" by force. And they should not be encouraged to try; the US needs to end (or threaten to, for a start), military assitance to Isreal worth upwards of $2 billion a year. Instead, the US might, say, quaranteed against invasion by neighbouring states. If Isreal cannot deal with that reality, then let the chips fall where they may.

[JoeE SP9]

Israel should use some of their nukes and bomb the rest of the Middle East. The only way to have peace there and by extension the world is to get rid of Muslims.

[Feanor]

Israel should use some of their nukes and bomb the rest of the Middle East. The only way to have peace there and by extension the world is to get rid of Muslims.

Yep, sounds like the "final solution" to me.

Or the US could nuke Isreal and be heros to the Muslim world, take your pick.
Let's do some math: 6 million Isrealis, (some of them Arab, granted), or 1.126 billion Muslims. Which would yield the greater approbation?

[Geoffcin]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...d_destruction/

[Feanor]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...d_destruction/

Anyone paying attention?

Is the situation beyond redemption? Perhaps it is.

[Geoffcin]

Anyone paying attention?

Is the situation beyond redemption? Perhaps it is.

If there ever was a time for devine intervention this is it.

[Mr Peabody]

I heard this morning that the United Nations failed to follow through with sanctions against Iran as threatened. That's why these countries can feel free to do as they please. It's also why at some point, whether Isreal, the U.S. or any other country who feels they have justification, has to take action. A well overlooked fact, is that there were several ignored U.N. resolutions with Iraq before the U.S. ever invaded. I'm not saying it was right or there might not have been other motivators, but when you make a resolution or threat of sanction you'd better back it up or just shut up.