Take out Sadaam?

Should we take out Saddam

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 64.9%
  • No

    Votes: 13 35.1%

  • Total voters
    37

Needaham45

Spaceman
Originally posted by Ghost
1. Of course Israel had the necesity of a buffer zone to prevent the terrorists to enter Israel from Lebanon, and to quote Shaddam IV to Baron Harkonnen *Your lack of action called me here*
Israel needed a buffer zone... that makes it ok for them just to take other people's land... right?

2. explain *diplomacy*, Syria rules Lebanon, they (Syria and Lebanon) don´t want to make the peace with Israel.
There have been attempts made at treaties, that's what I'm refferring to.

3. Isn´t Israel fault that Lebanon allowed Arafat to move his HQ to Beirut, and thus allowing the terrorist to live in Lebanon.
Israel just defend itself by killing terrorist who attack Israel and it´s population.
So it's ok to attack another country's capital because a political leader is now working from there.... duffman says no.

4. Wrong again, they don´t fly and bomb runs to scare people, they fly and make bomb runs to kill terrorists.
I reffer to the mock bomb runs... where they fly the planes over Lebanon low and in a bombing pattern, threating to bomb. What purpose does this have but to scare people. (Last I talked with my relitives living in Lebanon it was happening at least 3 times a week).

and *don´t be stupid* about what?, please explain. you express in a matter that i can´t understand. [/B]
Lebanon hates the Jews... that's just an absurd statement to make. I have some relitives who are Jewish even... so what... a Lebanese Jew hates themself? Besides... most (to keep from generalizing and saying all) Lebanese have nothing against Jews... to say they do is just rediculous.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by Needaham45
Israel needed a buffer zone... that makes it ok for them just to take other people's land... right?
If it is land of people that attacks them, yes
BTW the south of Lebanon was under control of the Christian Militia (as the east and north is in control of Syria) they seeked help from Israel so they made an alliance (just like the one that Hizbollah and Syria made).
And if someone want to hurt you, you try to put at least some distance.
The Lebanese goverment failed to control the terrorrists. and this is understandable because Hizbollah has some members in the lebanese congress (around 8 i think).
That surely represent some of people opinion


Originally posted by Needaham45
There have been attempts made at treaties, that's what I'm refferring to.
Yes, i know what Diplomacy is, i just want to know what kind of treaties, what Hizbollah/Lebanon/Syria offered and what was the
proposal of Israel.

Originally posted by Needaham45
So it's ok to attack another country's capital because a political leader is now working from there.... duffman says no.
And by work you mean how/when/where hijack planes, makes terrorist attacks,kill people,etc.
Don´t listen to Duffman he is always drunk...what can you expect from someone who drinks beer all the day....good advices? :(


Originally posted by Needaham45
Lebanon hates the Jews... that's just an absurd statement to make. I have some relitives who are Jewish even... so what... a Lebanese Jew hates themself? Besides... most (to keep from generalizing and saying all) Lebanese have nothing against Jews... to say they do is just rediculous.
hehe, it´s fun, i´m not calling you an anti-semit, but often those people says *i have jewish friends* or *i have jewish neighbours* to try to make their statements more valid or not so *anti jewish*
And i thought that you said that (That Lebanes hates jews) in a post below (about why Lebanese people hates jews)
And what says your jewish-relatives about the attacks from Hizbollah (lebanese,arabs,palestines, call them as you wish) to Israel? and the attacks from Israel to Lebanon?
Boy, they must have very big eggs (guts), surely is dificult to find a jew in Lebanon (but surely is more dificult to find a jew in Syria,Irak,Sudan,Germany or Poland)


And in another question: when you and Quarto said that Lebanes hates *Israel but not jews*, you include inside *Israel* the arab-israeli,Druseans,Bedouins and other ethnic minorities, right?
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
How does what the US does or does not do/done have a bearing on whether or not it's okay for some Quarto organization to bomb civilians?
Hm... I can't understand that, so you'll have to live without an answer. And don't call me a troll. It's one of the first signs that you should spend some time in a refrigerator-room.
If a group of oppressed muppets attacks representatives of their oppressors, there's at least some moral support for their actions (somewhere, anyway, though little). Just bombing any civilians you can find just because you can is a different story. That's also the main difference between resistance-fighters and terrorists. If some (fairly sensible) group think terror is the only means of getting things done, it's... regrettable. Very.
Now, if USA takes a swing at Iraq, americans will have to expect the same demonizing and response they 'awarded' Hussein with from Iraq. Whether the population is brainwashed or not, they will fight back to defend their homes (not necessarily Hussein himself). And if UN says it's ok for USA to attack Iraq, what about other nations who feel threatened by their neighbours (India/Pakistan in particular - two countries where at least one has nuclear bombs)? Why not go after countries that really does (confirmed, that is) present a threat? Like North Korea and their secretly developed nukes?
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Ghost
What the fuck are you talking about?, are you insane? do you know what that association did/does or didn´t? You know what is the purpose of that asociation? have you proofs?, do you know about what are you talking?
You provided the link to the website, so why don't you take a look? A photo of the AMIA president talking to Shimon Peres says they have active links with Israel. Plus, anybody who erects memorials for those who died in the defense of Israel is *clearly* not uninvolved in the conflict. This would also be confirmed by the fact that they set up the "Comité Central de Solidaridad con Israel" when the Six-Day War was launched. So, yeah, what the fuck am I talking about? Am I insane? :rolleyes:

Yes, shame on Israel, they must let to be wiped from the planet. Of course is nobody faul that the terrorist hide between the civilians, poor terrorist, they just want to enter to Allah´s paradise with those 70 virgins.
And your suggestions are to send a SEAL or another team class to wipe them and increase the possibility of more deaths for Israel, good strategy General!
The bombing is the easiest way and the safest for Isreali soldiers.
Wow, I thought you said you had respect for the lives of others? Apparently, you lied. But your opinion is irrelevant in this case, because the IDF frequently states that they *pride* themselves on avoiding civilian casualties. That being the case, it's not unreasonable for me to demand that they actually demonstrate this restraint. And when you drop a bomb on a terrorist while he's in his home in a densely-packed neighbourhood, that is anything but restraint.
I also find it insulting that you would imply that the only alternative to being 100% supportive of everything Israel does is to want Israel to be wiped off the face of the planet. Especially since I have made it clear that while I consider Hezbollah to be a legitimate resistance movement, my opinion of Hamas is very different indeed.

Heh, nobody expected Israel to survive after the Independence War, tell that to the Arabs who started the war and all of this problem.
I'm confused why you would even say this. It's got nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Not to mention that it ignores vast amounts of issues. I'd be quite happy to discuss the whole "let's blame the Arabs for starting this" issue with you, but not in this thread.

Now I'm going to reply to a few bits of your other post.

hehe, it´s fun, i´m not calling you an anti-semit, but often those people says *i have jewish friends* or *i have jewish neighbours* to try to make their statements more valid or not so *anti jewish*
And i thought that you said that (That Lebanes hates jews) in a post below (about why Lebanese people hates jews)
Boy, they must have very big eggs (guts), surely is dificult to find a jew in Lebanon (but surely is more dificult to find a jew in Syria,Irak,Sudan,Germany or Poland)
Well, see, that's exactly why he pointed out that he has Jewish relatives. Not to show that he's not an anti-semite, but to show that they exist. Indeed, a quick look at the CIA's World Factbook page for Lebanon reveals that while the number of Jews in Lebanon is negligible, they are nonetheless there. Oh, but I'm sure everybody wants to kill them :rolleyes:.
And don't attribute your own statements to people who are arguing the opposite :).

And in another question: when you and Quarto said that Lebanes hates *Israel but not jews*, you include inside *Israel* the arab-israeli,Druseans,Bedouins and other ethnic minorities, right?
Absolutely. In fact, one (or two) of the four Israeli hostages Hezbollah currently holds is a Bedouin. Many Druze and Bedouin work in the Border Patrol and the IDF, and whenever they showed up in Lebanon, they too, were shot at without hesitation.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by Quarto
You provided the link to the website, so why don't you take a look? A photo of the AMIA president talking to Shimon Peres says they have active links with Israel. Plus, anybody who erects memorials for those who died in the defense of Israel is *clearly* not uninvolved in the conflict. This would also be confirmed by the fact that they set up the "Comité Central de Solidaridad con Israel" when the Six-Day War was launched. So, yeah, what the fuck am I talking about? Am I insane? :rolleyes:

Mmhhh...erecting a war memorial is being involved in a war?. having a *Solidarity central comite with Israel* too, try to give work to any Argentine that need it too?, make money and food collects for ther people who lives in settlements in any province of Argentina?, having links with israel?
Good reasons indeed for a terrorist group to attack.
I like how you justify the terrorist actions, it´s interesting to know if they attacked for the same reasons that you said or not.
But you are trying to justify the unjustificable , making the victims of a terrorist attacks the guilty ones.
 

Mad Hatter

Spaceman
I'm a little surprised at you, Quarto, that for someone so very well versed in middle eastern affairs, you claim the Hezbollah is scaling down it's attacks on Israel, while every couple weeks they fire anti-tank missiles and mortar shells at IDF outposts on Mount Hermon inside Israeli territory (or if you want to be difficult - Syrian territory, as clearly stated by the UN). If nobody gets hurt in these attacks, it has more to do with pure luck than much anything else.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of nuclear weapons, weren't the Palastinians (aided by Hezbollah operatives, I might add) the ones who attempted to detonate a TRUCK bomb inside an Israeli fuel silo complex in the middle of the Tel-Aviv metropolin? Had they not been stupid enough to detonate a deasel fuel tanker instead of regular petrol fuel, the blast would result in the death and destruction of anyone and anything in a three kilometer radius plus expenses. I'd say that's equivalent to a small nuclear weapon, wouldn't you agree?
It would make September 11 look like an average "dozen-dead-hundreds-wounded-terrorist-attack" that happens, oh, only once a week or so...

They may not have the weapons that we Israelis have, but you can be sure that if they had, they'd use them to their full extent, and that's where we differ from them, because if we wanted to, we could erradicate half the planet with the weapons we have.

So please don't try and make Hezbollah look the legitimate ressistance group they are clearly not.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
They did use to fire a lot more often, MH, and directly into Israel. Besides, like you said, they fire at IDF outposts. I know your take on this is bound to be very different, since you actually were an IDF soldier, but as long as Israel holds Lebanese prisoners, the IDF is definitely a legitimate target for the Hezbollah.

As for the fuel silo attack, I do not believe I have read or heard about any concrete evidence of Hezbollah involvement, and given the current political atmosphere in Israel and the world at large, I am very sceptical. It just wouldn't make much sense for Hezbollah to do something like this after having seen what result September 11th had for the Taliban.

And, once again, I want to highlight the fact that I do not like seeing people die any more than you. My point of view is simply that if the IDF has the right to defend Israel, then Hezbollah has the right to defend Lebanon. If the IDF has the right to attempt hostage rescues in other countries, then so does Hezbollah. Can you think of even a single act that Hezbollah committed which was any worse than the actions of the IDF and their Phalangist allies in Lebanon?

Note however that my acceptance (not approval) of the validity of Hezbollah's actions does not mean that I accept all similar actions committed against Israel as being valid. The fuel depot attack, and indeed all those weekly suicide bombings are examples of actions which I do not accept as valid, because they clearly contribute more to continuing the war than stopping it. If I am more critical of Israel than of the Palestinians, it is merely because Israel been in a position of power over the past 35 years, and has spent most of this time trying not to achieve peace. To quote an Israeli news article, "imagine how different things would have been if, in 1967, Israel had told the Palestinians 'we have come to free you from Jordanian misrule' - and meant it".
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Ghost
I like how you justify the terrorist actions, it´s interesting to know if they attacked for the same reasons that you said or not.
But you are trying to justify the unjustificable , making the victims of a terrorist attacks the guilty ones.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps I am trying to justify the unjustifiable - I'm not completely sure either, though I think we'd both think and act like them in a similar situation. And to them, it really is justified by those reasons, and not by a blind hatred of Jews - that, I feel, is a very important distinction. It means that if Israel offered an acceptable peace to Syria and Lebanon, it would get peace in return. Heck, it would be an amazing opportunity for Israel - in helping the Lebanese rebuild their country, they could finally become a real part of the Middle East, both politically and economically.
 

Mad Hatter

Spaceman
I cannot bring you distinct proof that the Hezbollah has been involved in numreous terrorist attacks on Israel done by the Hamas, since such documents are classified. but IDF spokespersons have declared on numerous occasions that they have proof of this. Whether you believe it or not, is a different matter.

It doesn't really matter if the Hezbollah has gone down from 3 attacks a week to one every 2 weeks. Fact is they still do it.
A murderer is still a murderer whether he kills every day or only once a week. Not to mention that they still fire occasionally on our northern settlements. Just because they haven't been succesful at actually killing anyone doesn't make it any less a severe.

Again, let me ask you: If we actually used all our power, do you really think we'd have anyone left to fight in southern Lebanon? If the Hezbollah had the weapons arsenal Israel has, there's no doubt in my mind they'd use it against us, and I don't believe anyone can honestly think otherwise.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Maybe I'm naive, but I do not believe the IDF spokespeople's claims of Hezbollah involvement in Hamas attacks. Considering the sort of bullshit that has come out of IDF Chiefs of Staff Shaul Mofaz and Moshe Ya'alon, I don't see how I could be expected to trust anything the IDF says unless they show proof. And as for other attacks by Hezbollah, what it comes down to is that Israel still does hold Lebanese prisoners.

Yes, I know that Israel's invasion was a response to attacks, but that's hardly relevant, because it all comes down to Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank eventually. Until 1967, there was only 150,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and they didn't attack Israel. The influx of new refugees changed all this, and it could have been avoided. So, how can you even try to criticise the Hezbollah, when Israel caused the problems that led to Hezbollah's creation in the first place?

And as for Israel not using all of its powers, that's not an issue. An unfortunately too-appropriate analogy is that if you shoot someone in the head with a rubber bullet from a close range, you can't expect him to be grateful for not using a normal bullet. It doesn't matter what means the IDF hasn't used - as long as it uses more than the necessary means, it's not sufficiently restrained.

Nor is what Hamas or other terrorists would do with such weapons an issue. The simple fact is, they don't. If you want so speculate about what if this, or what if that, speculate about what if Israel had tried to put an end to this conflict in the first place. Any discussion of terrorism against Israel needs to begin with that question.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Hm... I can't understand that, so you'll have to live without an answer. And don't call me a troll. It's one of the first signs that you should spend some time in a refrigerator-room.
If a group of oppressed muppets attacks representatives of their oppressors, there's at least some moral support for their actions (somewhere, anyway, though little). Just bombing any civilians you can find just because you can is a different story. That's also the main difference between resistance-fighters and terrorists. If some (fairly sensible) group think terror is the only means of getting things done, it's... regrettable. Very.
Now, if USA takes a swing at Iraq, americans will have to expect the same demonizing and response they 'awarded' Hussein with from Iraq. Whether the population is brainwashed or not, they will fight back to defend their homes (not necessarily Hussein himself). And if UN says it's ok for USA to attack Iraq, what about other nations who feel threatened by their neighbours (India/Pakistan in particular - two countries where at least one has nuclear bombs)? Why not go after countries that really does (confirmed, that is) present a threat? Like North Korea and their secretly developed nukes?
No, see, what you're doing here is *trolling*. Instead of replying to the actual topic (whether or not groups attacking Israel are terrorists) you've posted the caustic start-a-fight entirely-unrelated crap. That's trolling.
 

Mad Hatter

Spaceman
Originally posted by Quarto
And as for Israel not using all of its powers, that's not an issue. An unfortunately too-appropriate analogy is that if you shoot someone in the head with a rubber bullet from a close range, you can't expect him to be grateful for not using a normal bullet. It doesn't matter what means the IDF hasn't used - as long as it uses more than the necessary means, it's not sufficiently restrained.
Well, here, you see, that's exactly the kind of nonsense you're saying when you claim that the Hezbollah have scaled down their attacks on Israel, or let me put it in your own words "they're still doing it".

Also, if our issues with Hezbollah were simply about how many prisoners we've taken and how many they have taken, we could solve everything in 2 seconds. We have no desire to hold people captive in our already overflowing prison cells for the sake of holding them prisoners. This isn't about prisoners, this is about territory. They simply don't want us in the middle east. Not as a self governed state, at least.

Now, it may well be that Mophaz and Ye'elon are masters of bullshit, but believing Nasralla instead, is just as bad, since he's just as bad a liar. if not worse.

If you want to start a discussion about who's at fault in this whole situation, let me remind you that it wasn't us who declared war against the arabs in 1948, in the first place.
 

Needaham45

Spaceman
Another one of the reasons why I have no faith in the UN is because I blame them as the cause of all this when they created Israel, and I blame them above Arabs and Israel.

I have nothing against Israel, or the creation of a homeland for the Jews. I just think that when the UN created it, they set the stage for war in where they put it and how they made it.

What it boils down to is yes, several Arab nations declared war formally. If you look beneath the surface though, you can see they had thier reasons. They had claims to the land that the UN used to create Israel. If the UN placed Israel in a different location where no one had claims to the land, or created it though treaties and making sure that anyone who had claim to the land gave up there claim, there wouldn't be a problem. I won't blame the Arabs or Israel for starting the conflict. I blame the UN for making the conflict inevitable. But of course, that's just my interpretation.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Well, most of the coast land was owned by Jews between the 1880-1940 aprox., some of the Galilee territory and the Jezraeel Valley
It wasn´t an arab state, just British Territory.Jews had/have the same right as the Arabs to have a state, i don´t see the problem.
So what is wrong with having a state there?
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by Needaham45

What it boils down to is yes, several Arab nations declared war formally. If you look beneath the surface though, you can see they had thier reasons.
Which were those reasons?
Even more which were the reasons of Lybia, Irak and the other Arab countries (that don´t have borders with Israel) to sent troops and other things ?

Originally posted by Needaham45
They had claims to the land that the UN used to create Israel. If the UN placed Israel
And the jews too, that is why the UN partitioned Palestine in 2 countries.

Originally posted by Needaham45
If the UN placed Israel in a different location where no one had claims to the land
Then It had not been Israel.

Originally posted by Needaham45
I won't blame the Arabs or Israel for starting the conflict. I blame the UN for making the conflict inevitable.
The problem existed many years before the UN made the partition.,even before the Balfour Declaration.
If you want i can blame the UN for it retreat from the Sinai in the 67 after Egypt asked them *politely* (and by politely, i mean go out of here or we will crush you)

edited-grammar
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Mad Hatter
Also, if our issues with Hezbollah were simply about how many prisoners we've taken and how many they have taken, we could solve everything in 2 seconds. We have no desire to hold people captive in our already overflowing prison cells for the sake of holding them prisoners. This isn't about prisoners, this is about territory. They simply don't want us in the middle east. Not as a self governed state, at least.
You know that's not true. Israel holds many Lebanese prisoners in 'administrative detention', without charging them for a crime or even sentencing them for a particular period - the claim is that releasing them would endanger Israel, but no explanation of this is provided, even to the judges who are asked to approve their continued detention.
The claim that they simply don't want you in the middle east is also false - if that was the case, then they would have increased their attacks after May 2000.

And don't worry, I don't believe Nasrallah any more than Mofaz or Ya'alon :). It's the overall impression that matters, however. He says all sorts of things, but the Hezbollah does not attack civilians any more - that's a fact. With the problems on the West Bank, Hezbollah could cause hell by stepping up attacks across Israel's northern border. But they do not. This supports my claims, not yours.

As for 1948, do you really want to go there? Had the British in 1948 pursued the equivalent of Israel's politics, then your country wouldn't exist today, because Britain would still be there, refusing to negotiate under fire.
Let me remind you also, that Palestine was not one of the states that attacked you. Syria, Egypt and Jordan showed that they were hardly interested in creating a Palestinian state. Israel did not take advantage of the opportunity to show that it wants to coexist with a Palestinian state.

Now, surely you can understand why I find it difficult to support Israel's position - 30 years of relative quiet, and no negotiations. Now you have war, and you refuse to negotiate because it's not quiet any more? Something's wrong with that.
 
LOAF: Starting a fight? Pff, that's not starting a fight. As for trolling, I guess we just have different definitons. And I work pretty hard to voice my opinion in a calm and civilized manner (it's a little harder to concentrate on that when I'm tired, though...), which I believe I managed to do. *Looks at the topic-header* Eh... This topic was originally about that Iraq-mess, not Israel. Seems to have taken quite the turn...
Anyway, a wise man/woman/anything in between would've just dropped this a while ago, so I'll try taking one step closer to that now.
 

Mad Hatter

Spaceman
Originally posted by Quarto
You know that's not true. Israel holds many Lebanese prisoners in 'administrative detention', without charging them for a crime or even sentencing them for a particular period - the claim is that releasing them would endanger Israel, but no explanation of this is provided, even to the judges who are asked to approve their continued detention.
The claim that they simply don't want you in the middle east is also false - if that was the case, then they would have increased their attacks after May 2000.
You want to tell me you actually believe that this 20 year old war is all about prisoners? Excuse me but that's pure BS. The 2 sheikhs we're holding prisoner without any criminal charge were taken captive well after soldiers of ours were taken captive by the Hezbolah and Amal. This whole war started because of attacks against civillians and diplomats inside and outside Israel. This is about territory.
How can you say that the claim that they don't want us here is false, while all their propoganda has to do with continuing this war till they conquer Jerusalem. You really are Naive, as you said yourself.
Believe me, if I thought releasing these people would bring back our soldiers, dead or alive, I'd be the first to demand it from our government.

Originally posted by Quarto
And don't worry, I don't believe Nasrallah any more than Mofaz or Ya'alon :). It's the overall impression that matters, however. He says all sorts of things, but the Hezbollah does not attack civilians any more - that's a fact. With the problems on the West Bank, Hezbollah could cause hell by stepping up attacks across Israel's northern border. But they do not. This supports my claims, not yours.
Yes, they do. It hardly reaches the media because their shelling hasn't killed anyone yet. I guess these things don't reach Australia anymore.

Originally posted by Quarto
As for 1948, do you really want to go there? Had the British in 1948 pursued the equivalent of Israel's politics, then your country wouldn't exist today, because Britain would still be there, refusing to negotiate under fire.
Let me remind you also, that Palestine was not one of the states that attacked you. Syria, Egypt and Jordan showed that they were hardly interested in creating a Palestinian state. Israel did not take advantage of the opportunity to show that it wants to coexist with a Palestinian state.
Look, as militant as I may seem these days, I still consider myself left wing. I don't think we should wait for absolute quiet to start negotiations again, because that will never happen as long as the Hamas is still at power. You are right, we didn't take advantage of the opportunity when we could, but you have to understand that we were so suspicious of the other arab states, that it wasn't possible at the time, and that any other country would have acted the same.
Oh, and please don't use Britain as an example. Palestine was thousands of miles away from Britain, and our tactics were nowhere near as brutal as the Palestinians attacks against us today.

Originally posted by Quarto
Now, surely you can understand why I find it difficult to support Israel's position - 30 years of relative quiet, and no negotiations. Now you have war, and you refuse to negotiate because it's not quiet any more? Something's wrong with that.
30 years of relative quiet? Don't make me laugh...
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Excelsis
Hey all,

Should we take out Saddam?

Yes or no and then comment on why you feel the way you do.
Take 'im out?...Nah; I don't think he's our "type".

We're a manly bunch here in the US, and we like 'em to be gorgeous, slim & trim, lean & mean, with all the right curves in all the right places (if you know what we mean...), etc....
Saddam's too butt-ugly for us :D ...
 
Top