mid-east situation about to explode

[Randall]

Before Iraq votes aound the world said who is the greatest threat to world peace?

 

Saddam

George Bush

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush won by a landslide. They were right. Why are american voters so clueless?

 

23-24% of voters here would never vote for anyone else. They like that abusive father figure who says he knows what is best for us even though he is always wrong.

 

Explain that one to me.

[cre8tiff]

Explain that one to me.

 

 

I'm taking bets on how many posts before a con calls Randall a name. PM them to me.

[cre8tiff]

spain?

 

And don't forget, there is oil in the Middle East...er...I mean...freedom loving people that need help...

 

 

[dmarc117]

Before Iraq votes aound the world said who is the greatest threat to world peace?

 

Saddam

George Bush

Bush won by a landslide. They were right. Why are american voters so clueless?

 

23-24% of voters here would never vote for anyone else. They like that abusive father figure who says he knows what is best for us even though he is always wrong.

 

Explain that one to me.

 

 

 

stoopid lib!!!

 

(did u win cre8tiff?)

[Azazello1313]

I seriously doubt Israel would be stupid enough to nuke a country next door - remember distances are far smaller in the Middle East than what we're used to. Not only that, there is no need. Fighting terrorists with nukes is the same as fighting mosquitoes with a sledgehammer.

 

 

true to a point. but when the terrorist "mosquitos" are running two large nations with significant military capabilities, the sledgehammer is something you definitely want in your back pocket.

[cre8tiff]

stoopid lib!!!

 

(did u win cre8tiff?)

 

 

yup!

[Azazello1313]

Before Iraq votes aound the world said who is the greatest threat to world peace?

 

Saddam

George Bush

Bush won by a landslide. They were right. Why are american voters so clueless?

 

 

what was that you're saying about "clueless", lulu?

[dmarc117]

yup!

 

 

 

im pm'ing my paypal info now.....

Edited July 15, 2006 by dmarc117

[Duchess Jack]

Web Exclusive

By Kevin Peraino

Newsweek

Updated: 7:54 p.m. ET July 14, 2006

 

July 14, 2006 - Israeli hawks were having a told-you-so moment this week. After Hizbullah militants crossed the Lebanese border to kill eight Israeli soldiers and capture two others—a raid echoing a similar Hamas operation last month—hard-liners crowed that forceful military reprisals were the only way to deal with the Jewish state's Islamist enemies. Israel's military, already hitting Hamas targets in Gaza, widened its retaliation by imposing a naval blockade on Lebanon and attacking its airports and highways.

 

As the attacks escalated, NEWSWEEK's Kevin Peraino spoke with Uzi Arad, a former Mossad official and adviser to Israel’s right-wing former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Excerpts:

 

NEWSWEEK: Do you think [former prime minister] Ariel Sharon would have responded to the kidnappings as vigorously as the current government has?

 

ARAD: My suspicion is no. Sharon's policy at the end of his term was very, very defensive. His last act of policy [before suffering an incapacitating stroke] was essentially to engineer the retreat from Gaza, which, in some ways, may have triggered this outburst of violence. I don't think that Sharon, at this stage of his formidable career, was going to take the bold action that the present Israeli cabinet and government is taking.

Why do you think Olmert broke with that policy?

 

This was clearly an escalation that could not go unanswered. Reality has forced itself on the Olmert administration. Being more attentive to the military and defense officials than Sharon was, that reality must have impressed itself on the prime minister. Once they had to address that reality, I think the outcome was inevitable.

 

Some critics say, "Wait a minute, Israel is punishing the good guys. They're hitting a Lebanese government that is now controlled largely by anti-Syrian figures." Do you risk alienating the moderates there?

 

The concept of "good guys" is a relative one. In effect, they are accomplices. They are giving aid and comfort and sanction and sanctuary to the terrorists. The Hizbullah are members of the Lebanese government. The Lebanese cannot refrain from taking charge of their sovereign territory, and then claim innocence. Either they act responsibly … or if they fail that, they cannot enjoy the relative adjective of being good guys. They are good only in the sense that they are not the worst of criminals. But they are certainly accomplices to an active crime.

 

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has announced a U.N. mission to try to resolve the crisis. Will that have any effect?

 

This is not the time to take stock of the very sorry and very disappointing role of the U.N. in Lebanon over all those years. The U.N. had forces in Lebanon. That came at the expense of billions of dollars wasted with forces who did essentially nothing in the face of continuous attacks against Israel. And the diplomatic role that the U.N. is playing when it comes to bringing about quiet in southern Lebanon is very, very melancholy. The credibility of the U.N. here is less than zero.

 

Is there any bitterness in Israeli policy circles about Bush's push for democracy in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories?

 

There's no uniformity. There are those like Netanyahu who have cautioned again and again about the disengagement from Gaza, arguing that inevitably it would bring about the strengthening of Hamas. But that was Netanyahu's position. I don't think we should pass judgment on Washington on this accord. The Sharon government record on this is not much different [from Bush's].

 

What lessons has Israel learned from the last Lebanon war?

Israel should learn that escapism is not a productive strategy. It could be a feel-good strategy because it gives you the sense that you're taking the initiative, that you are being magnanimous and that you're investing in peace. But escapism, in this particular case, was escaping realities. Reality will force itself on you sooner or later. In 1995, we withdrew from the populated areas of the West Bank, allowing [Palestinian leader Yasir] Arafat and his ex-terrorists to implant themselves in the hope that they would change their colors. It took a short time for them to turn against us. Then in the year 2000, we retreated from Lebanon in the belief that Hizbullah would turn its attention to domestic affairs. Actually, Hizbullah kept harassing us from day one.

 

What about tactical or operational lessons?

 

Tactically, it shows that we can sometimes evacuate territories and rely primarily on air power and air-derived intelligence, which is an encouraging finding which allows you greater flexibility. At the same time, however, the tactical lesson is that we have to establish the cordon sanitaire. We simply cannot walk out and ignore what's happening behind us.

 

How closely—if at all—have Hamas and Hizbullah collaborated in the past?

 

They are comrades at arms in the great radical offensive against the West. They do have operational contact, and they employ similar violent means—suicide bombings, kidnappings, firing rockets into civilian areas. And they also have similar contacts with Iran and Syria. It's not a strictly hierarchical organization, but they're all members of the same alliance.

Does Israel have the resources and public support to wage war on two fronts—or maybe more?

 

Israel has no choice. It has to do whatever it can. It does have the resources. But this is a larger struggle than Israel's alone. The threat that Syria poses, or the threat that Iran poses, to the region and the activation of these groups is a regional, global threat. To cope with that global threat, we have international efforts now under way—be it at the G8, when it comes to containing Iran's march to nuclear capabilities, or Syria, which defiantly acted in a catastrophic way both in Lebanon and with Saddam. These are regional and international problems.

 

Do you think the military campaign will extend in the near future to Syria?

 

Inevitably, sooner or later, if Syria persists in what it has been doing, yes, it will. I can't say when or how. As long as you have this festering of negative, destructive and essentially aggressive forces, as long as they feel they enjoy immunity in their sanctuaries or because they perceive a Western weakness and reluctance to confront that challenge, they will persist. Sooner or later, the Western world will have to face up to this problem

[Ursa Majoris]

true to a point. but when the terrorist "mosquitos" are running two large nations with significant military capabilities, the sledgehammer is something you definitely want in your back pocket.

 

Not convinced about the "significant military capabilities" - my views on Arab armies have been made known. However, the very existence of the Israeli nuke is plenty to deter any of Israel's neighbors from full military action:

 

If they try and they lose, then they lose - military defeat.

If they try and they win, then they lose - total annihilation.

[wiegie]

Not convinced about the "significant military capabilities" - my views on Arab armies have been made known. However, the very existence of the Israeli nuke is plenty to deter any of Israel's neighbors from full military action:

 

If they try and they lose, then they lose - military defeat.

If they try and they win, then they lose - total annihilation.

 

just wait until one of those countries puts a leader in charge who thinks that total annihilation is something that Allah wants

[Ursa Majoris]

just wait until one of those countries puts a leader in charge who thinks that total annihilation is something that Allah wants

 

Time for the Mossad to field their assassination teams if that happens.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Not convinced about the "significant military capabilities" - my views on Arab armies have been made known. However, the very existence of the Israeli nuke is plenty to deter any of Israel's neighbors from full military action:

 

If they try and they lose, then they lose - military defeat.

If they try and they win, then they lose - total annihilation.

 

 

Hezbollah is lobbing rockets into Israel without great affect while the Israelis pound Lebanon modern guided missles. Other than Iran, I don't think there is a lot of military in the middle-east that Israel needs to worry about. Those azzholes use suicide bombers with small amounts of explosive because it's about all they have.

 

Using nukes is problematic for Israel as well because of the close proximity to their enemy neighbors. Anybody know what the prevailing wind patterns are in that neck of the woods? Could Israel nuke Syria or Iran without real fear of fallout carried by the wind?

[Ursa Majoris]

Using nukes is problematic for Israel as well because of the close proximity to their enemy neighbors. Anybody know what the prevailing wind patterns are in that neck of the woods? Could Israel nuke Syria or Iran without real fear of fallout carried by the wind?

 

I don't believe nukes are relevant right now, except as I described above - as long as Israel can defeat aggressors militarily, which is pretty much in perpetuity, nukes will not appear in the equation. The only two circumstances I can think of where Israel would go nuclear are:

 

a. If they are attacked with a nuke (hence the need to keep nukes out of loony Arab hands)

b. If they are about to be swept into the sea militarily (not gonna happen).

 

Oh yeah - Iran would have to cross a minimum of two countries to reach Israel on the ground, so that's impossible too. Not only that, Israel would turn them into hamburger inside a day.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Ursa Majoris

[Chavez]

 

I'm not going to post anymore in this thread, just regard me as nodding my head to whatever Ursa says.

[Azazello1313]

if israel ever uses a nuke, it will be on tehran. but we're still a long away from that happening. well, relatively.

[driveby]

To my Arab brothers: The War with Israel Is Over — and they won. Now let's finally move forward

 

By Youssef M. Ibrahim

 

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

 

With Israel entering its fourth week of an incursion into the same Gaza Strip it voluntarily evacuated a few months ago, a sense of reality among Arabs is spreading through commentary by Arab pundits, letters to the editor, and political talk shows on Arabic-language TV networks. The new views are stunning both in their maturity and in their realism. The best way I can think of to convey them is in the form of a letter to the Palestinian Arabs from their Arab friends:

 

 

Dear Palestinian Arab brethren:

 

The war with Israel is over.

 

You have lost. Surrender and negotiate to secure a future for your children.

 

We, your Arab brothers, may say until we are blue in the face that we stand by you, but the wise among you and most of us know that we are moving on, away from the tired old idea of the Palestinian Arab cause and the "eternal struggle" with Israel.

 

Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine, but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years. Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness.

 

At the moment, brothers, you would be lucky to secure a semblance of a state in that Gaza Strip into which you have all crowded, and a small part of the West Bank of the Jordan. It isn't going to get better. Time is running out even for this much land, so here are some facts, figures, and sound advice, friends.

 

You hold keys, which you drag out for television interviews, to houses that do not exist or are inhabited by Israelis who have no intention of leaving Jaffa, Haifa, Tel Aviv, or West Jerusalem. You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you. You fire ridiculously inept Kassam rockets that cause little destruction and delude yourselves into thinking this is a war of liberation. Your government, your social institutions, your schools, and your economy are all in ruins.

 

Your young people are growing up illiterate, ill, and bent on rites of death and suicide, while you, in effect, are living on the kindness of foreigners, including America and the United Nations. Every day your officials must beg for your daily bread, dependent on relief trucks that carry food and medicine into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, while your criminal Muslim fundamentalist Hamas government continues to fan the flames of a war it can neither fight nor hope to win.

 

In other words, brothers, you are down, out, and alone in a burnt-out landscape that is shrinking by the day.

 

What kind of struggle is this? Is it worth waging at all? More important, what kind of miserable future does it portend for your children, the fourth or fifth generation of the Arab world's have-nots?

 

We, your Arab brothers, have moved on.

 

Those of us who have oil money are busy accumulating wealth and building housing, luxury developments, state-of-the-art universities and schools, and new highways and byways. Those of us who share borders with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, have signed a peace treaty with it and are not going to war for you any time soon. Those of us who are far away, in places like North Africa and Iraq, frankly could not care less about what happens to you.

 

Only Syria continues to feed your fantasies that someday it will join you in liberating Palestine, even though a huge chunk of its territory, the entire Golan Heights, was taken by Israel in 1967 and annexed. The Syrians, my friends, will gladly fight down to the last Palestinian Arab.

 

Before you got stuck with this Hamas crowd, another cheating, conniving, leader of yours, Yasser Arafat, sold you a rotten bill of goods — more pain, greater corruption, and millions stolen by his relatives — while your children played in the sewers of Gaza.

 

The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?

[H8tank]

“The Lebanese resistance is preparing a retaliation parallel to Israel’s military actions. Hassan Nasrallah will address the people of Tel Aviv and warn them to evacuate the city within one hour. As soon as the delay ends, hundreds of heavy missiles will start landing in the city, which has been divided into squares in order to let damage reach every inch of the city. An estimated 500 missiles are expected to land in Tel Aviv in a short period of time.”

 

Get ready...

[tonorator]

Get ready...

 

 

????

[Furd]

Get ready...

 

 

Lebanese resistance.

 

Detroit and Tel Aviv have about the same chance of getting hit from a rocket lauched in Lebanon.

[Otis]

Get ready...

 

 

Update?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Update?

 

 

[TDFFFreak]

Kinda reminds me of something that should be on WWE.

[dmarc117]

Lebanese resistance.

 

Detroit and Tel Aviv have about the same chance of getting hit from a rocket lauched in Lebanon.

 

 

 

Carrying banners saying "Stop Israeli Terrorism" and chanting antiwar slogans, some 10,000 people rallied in the center of metro Detroit's Arab-American community in Dearborn on Tuesday, demanding that the U.S. government put pressure on Israel to halt attacks in Lebanon.

[AtomicCEO]

Kinda reminds me of something that should be on WWE.

 

 

Hezbolla is using a new kind of weapon