outrager 6 #1 July 16, 2006 In order to keep things balanced, just and fair, Hamas will now need to work overtime to kill another hundred+ of israeli civilians. By the same token, USA deserves another terrorist act with about 10000..50000 civilian casualties just to keep things fair and square with iraqis. bsbd! Yuri. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #2 July 16, 2006 QuoteIn order to keep things balanced, just and fair, Hamas will now need to work overtime to kill another hundred+ of israeli civilians. Hamas and Hezbolla are capable only of digging their own graves -- and a fine job they are doing. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #3 July 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteIn order to keep things balanced, just and fair, Hamas will now need to work overtime to kill another hundred+ of israeli civilians. Hamas and Hezbolla are capable only of digging their own graves -- and a fine job they are doing. You might be surprised when Iran and all the other arab nations join up. Not to mention the other conflicts. Me thinks the world is tired of USA policy. On how many fronts can we fight? Maybe some of those politicians will send their sons into battle to help outI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
outrager 6 #4 July 16, 2006 QuoteHamas and Hezbolla are capable only of digging their own graves -- and a fine job they are doing. That is a foolish statement. They are and will be perfectly capable of killing israeli civilians, just not on the same scale as IDF. There will be plenty more blood, but that's not the point. The point is: any killings of civilians in Israel now look justified, fair and well-deserved. Edited to add: now looks like Canada ought to bomb the shit out of Israel? bsbd! Yuri. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #5 July 16, 2006 QuoteEdited to add: now looks like Canada ought to bomb the shit out of Israel? Well it is the off season, maybe so! . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #6 July 16, 2006 QuoteYou might be surprised when Iran and all the other arab nations join up. No surprise at all. I'm thinking this haystack is going up in flames, but hope I'm wrong. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawkins121 0 #7 July 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote You might be surprised when Iran and all the other arab nations join up. An organized conflict would be ideal. I hope that happens. It wont though. So your post was pointless. Mine was too but hey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hawkins121 0 #8 July 16, 2006 when its all said and done. Israel will occupy Leb and be in a position to invade Syria. I wouldnt be surprised if this was the spark that sends us and israel into iran and syria. If we could destroy hezbollah for good it would be worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #9 July 16, 2006 Welcome to WW3. I don't think there's going to be any backing down this time. The drums of war have been beating for many years now. I just hope this doesn't turn into a nuclear conflict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,254 #10 July 16, 2006 QuoteAn organized conflict would be ideal. Ideal? How can an all out war ever be ideal.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hawkins121 0 #11 July 16, 2006 Our boys are trained for organized conflict. That and organized groups are better targets for our smartbombs Much better than trying to fight gurriella forces. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #12 July 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteAn organized conflict would be ideal. Ideal? How can an all out war ever be ideal. Being able to identify the enemy is better than having one who hides behind civilians and then uses their deaths for propoganda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #13 July 17, 2006 QuoteWelcome to WW3. I don't think there's going to be any backing down this time. The drums of war have been beating for many years now. I just hope this doesn't turn into a nuclear conflict. I'd agree, but the Middle East is bringing a knife to this gun fight. They don't have what it takes to create WW3. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,254 #14 July 17, 2006 Quotebetter than Better than /= Ideal. Successful diplomacy is usually the ideal solution that people hope for. QuoteMuch better than trying to fight guerrilla forces. And when the identifiable enemy is defeated? What do you think might happen then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #15 July 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteAn organized conflict would be ideal. Ideal? How can an all out war ever be ideal. War should always be the last resort. However, if you're pushed into it, fight with speed, surprise, and violence of action. Overwhelming force and intimidation. Finish it. Especially, if you've got an advantage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites outrager 6 #16 July 17, 2006 You guys are not getting it. We are not talking about who has more firepower. We are talking about the fact that now, once "we are at war", it is fair and morally right to kill 100 israeli and 10000 american civilians in a well-justified eye for an eye attack, using whatever means necessary. If you want to reply, please state why it would not be fair, just and morally right. bsbd! Yuri. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #17 July 17, 2006 QuoteYou guys are not getting it. We are not talking about who has more firepower. We are talking about the fact that now, once "we are at war", it is fair and morally right to kill 100 israeli and 10000 american civilians in a well-justified eye for an eye attack, using whatever means necessary. If you want to reply, please state why it would not be fair, just and morally right. bsbd! Yuri. I don't disagree with you. Hopefully, our enemies aren't dumb or fanatical enough to believe a major terrorist or military attack on the US would result in their survival. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #18 July 17, 2006 QuoteQuotebetter than Better than /= Ideal. Successful diplomacy is usually the ideal solution that people hope for. QuoteMuch better than trying to fight guerrilla forces. And when the identifiable enemy is defeated? What do you think might happen then? Unfortunately, this has gone beyond a diplomatic solution IMO. It is impossible to negotiate with an enemy whose stated goal is to wipe you off the face of the Earth. Most of the attempts Israel has made over the last 30 years have only been accepted to demonstrate a sign of weakness. You can only poke the big dog so many times before he bites you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #19 July 17, 2006 QuoteSuccessful diplomacy is usually the ideal solution that people hope for. Yea. Maybe they could talk themselves to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,254 #20 July 17, 2006 QuoteUnfortunately, this has gone beyond a diplomatic solution IMO. Thats more what i'm getting at. A diplomatic solution would have been ideal. Large scale conflict is never ideal, it should be (as Paj said) a last resort.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites misaltas 0 #21 July 17, 2006 QuoteYou guys are not getting it...it is fair and morally right to kill 100 israeli and 10000 american civilians in a well-justified eye for an eye attack. Could be your premise is flawed. Israel isn't attacking targets in Lebanon for the reason of "eye for an eye". Rather they're attacking an organization which is hell-bent on Israel's destruction, whatever it takes. These strikes come from a position of defensiveness, in that they're defending their right to exist.Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #22 July 17, 2006 QuoteBy the same token, USA deserves another terrorist act with about 10000..50000 civilian casualties just to keep things fair and square with iraqis. Except for the fact that many of the civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by the insurgents, not the coalition troops. The insurgents have no motivation to avoid civilian deaths. Actually, it helps their cause if they just keep everything fucked up & have the Shiite and Sunni kill each other. The insurgents don't actually have to build or create anything workable at all. They just have to keep the violence going. BTW, I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq, but I believe that what I've posted above does need to be kept in mind. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #23 July 17, 2006 Quote Except for the fact that many of the civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by the insurgents, not the coalition troops. That is a completely meaningless statement. It is equally true to say " many of the civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by the coalition troops, not the insurgents".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #24 July 17, 2006 QuoteMaybe some of those politicians will send their sons into battle to help out You gotta be shitting me.. with this group of Chicken Hawks... they are REAL brave with the other peoples lives.. just like they were back in the Vietnam War when they managed to avoid it.. all the while being HAWKS........wrong then.. wrong now. Cowards have always managed to hide from conflict... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #25 July 17, 2006 > Rather they're attacking an organization which is hell-bent on Israel's destruction, whatever it takes. Israel should take em out completly, winning absolute victory and the US should do all they can to insure they have all the support necessary to complete this task. I'm choosing sides and I choose Israel over terriorist and Governments that provide safe haven and financial, and military support to blood thursty killers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Hawkins121 0 #8 July 16, 2006 when its all said and done. Israel will occupy Leb and be in a position to invade Syria. I wouldnt be surprised if this was the spark that sends us and israel into iran and syria. If we could destroy hezbollah for good it would be worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #9 July 16, 2006 Welcome to WW3. I don't think there's going to be any backing down this time. The drums of war have been beating for many years now. I just hope this doesn't turn into a nuclear conflict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #10 July 16, 2006 QuoteAn organized conflict would be ideal. Ideal? How can an all out war ever be ideal.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawkins121 0 #11 July 16, 2006 Our boys are trained for organized conflict. That and organized groups are better targets for our smartbombs Much better than trying to fight gurriella forces. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 July 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteAn organized conflict would be ideal. Ideal? How can an all out war ever be ideal. Being able to identify the enemy is better than having one who hides behind civilians and then uses their deaths for propoganda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #13 July 17, 2006 QuoteWelcome to WW3. I don't think there's going to be any backing down this time. The drums of war have been beating for many years now. I just hope this doesn't turn into a nuclear conflict. I'd agree, but the Middle East is bringing a knife to this gun fight. They don't have what it takes to create WW3. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #14 July 17, 2006 Quotebetter than Better than /= Ideal. Successful diplomacy is usually the ideal solution that people hope for. QuoteMuch better than trying to fight guerrilla forces. And when the identifiable enemy is defeated? What do you think might happen then?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #15 July 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteAn organized conflict would be ideal. Ideal? How can an all out war ever be ideal. War should always be the last resort. However, if you're pushed into it, fight with speed, surprise, and violence of action. Overwhelming force and intimidation. Finish it. Especially, if you've got an advantage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
outrager 6 #16 July 17, 2006 You guys are not getting it. We are not talking about who has more firepower. We are talking about the fact that now, once "we are at war", it is fair and morally right to kill 100 israeli and 10000 american civilians in a well-justified eye for an eye attack, using whatever means necessary. If you want to reply, please state why it would not be fair, just and morally right. bsbd! Yuri. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 July 17, 2006 QuoteYou guys are not getting it. We are not talking about who has more firepower. We are talking about the fact that now, once "we are at war", it is fair and morally right to kill 100 israeli and 10000 american civilians in a well-justified eye for an eye attack, using whatever means necessary. If you want to reply, please state why it would not be fair, just and morally right. bsbd! Yuri. I don't disagree with you. Hopefully, our enemies aren't dumb or fanatical enough to believe a major terrorist or military attack on the US would result in their survival. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #18 July 17, 2006 QuoteQuotebetter than Better than /= Ideal. Successful diplomacy is usually the ideal solution that people hope for. QuoteMuch better than trying to fight guerrilla forces. And when the identifiable enemy is defeated? What do you think might happen then? Unfortunately, this has gone beyond a diplomatic solution IMO. It is impossible to negotiate with an enemy whose stated goal is to wipe you off the face of the Earth. Most of the attempts Israel has made over the last 30 years have only been accepted to demonstrate a sign of weakness. You can only poke the big dog so many times before he bites you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #19 July 17, 2006 QuoteSuccessful diplomacy is usually the ideal solution that people hope for. Yea. Maybe they could talk themselves to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #20 July 17, 2006 QuoteUnfortunately, this has gone beyond a diplomatic solution IMO. Thats more what i'm getting at. A diplomatic solution would have been ideal. Large scale conflict is never ideal, it should be (as Paj said) a last resort.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
misaltas 0 #21 July 17, 2006 QuoteYou guys are not getting it...it is fair and morally right to kill 100 israeli and 10000 american civilians in a well-justified eye for an eye attack. Could be your premise is flawed. Israel isn't attacking targets in Lebanon for the reason of "eye for an eye". Rather they're attacking an organization which is hell-bent on Israel's destruction, whatever it takes. These strikes come from a position of defensiveness, in that they're defending their right to exist.Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #22 July 17, 2006 QuoteBy the same token, USA deserves another terrorist act with about 10000..50000 civilian casualties just to keep things fair and square with iraqis. Except for the fact that many of the civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by the insurgents, not the coalition troops. The insurgents have no motivation to avoid civilian deaths. Actually, it helps their cause if they just keep everything fucked up & have the Shiite and Sunni kill each other. The insurgents don't actually have to build or create anything workable at all. They just have to keep the violence going. BTW, I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq, but I believe that what I've posted above does need to be kept in mind. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #23 July 17, 2006 Quote Except for the fact that many of the civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by the insurgents, not the coalition troops. That is a completely meaningless statement. It is equally true to say " many of the civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by the coalition troops, not the insurgents".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #24 July 17, 2006 QuoteMaybe some of those politicians will send their sons into battle to help out You gotta be shitting me.. with this group of Chicken Hawks... they are REAL brave with the other peoples lives.. just like they were back in the Vietnam War when they managed to avoid it.. all the while being HAWKS........wrong then.. wrong now. Cowards have always managed to hide from conflict... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #25 July 17, 2006 > Rather they're attacking an organization which is hell-bent on Israel's destruction, whatever it takes. Israel should take em out completly, winning absolute victory and the US should do all they can to insure they have all the support necessary to complete this task. I'm choosing sides and I choose Israel over terriorist and Governments that provide safe haven and financial, and military support to blood thursty killers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
