You are right. But why not put Israel back in the land from where it came (the original piece of land) and explain that if a Jew looks to "expand" the land they will be bombed. And if an Arab looks to blast a Jew they will be bombed back.

Stop giving Israel an upper hand in the form of US dollars and weapons... take both their bombs and and guns away (or give them equal power and let them kill each other). Simple as that. If a Jew dresses up like an Arab and blows up a bus all the Israel land goes to the Arabs by default (Extreme Jews are known to do this, sadly). If an Arab dresses up like Jew to sneak onto a Jewish bus and goes boom -- the same deal.

Done Deal.

(P.S. NO I'm not serious)

US Marines are back in Beirut today, evacuating American residents.

First thing I heard when I turned on the TV this morning was that US Marines had landed in Lebanon. I thought, "Oh, crap! That can't be good." Once they explained that it was an evacuation mission, I felt better about it.

The remarkable thing about it is how unremarkable it seems to have our Marines just showing up in a foreign country. Imagine any other country trying to land their soldiers in the US.

We wouldn't have precipitated the need, as have Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Lebabnon and the US are literally worlds apart.

Thickheaded but surprising Pat Buchanan was lamenting on the Scarborough show t'other night the Israeli bombing of a Lebanese army barracks holding troops who were kicking back and being held out of the conflict so as not to stir things up.

Funny, didn't this start cause Israeli soldiers who were minding their own business were needlessy attacked and killed?

Like Pat said, we've been pretty much giving Israel the green light on everything it's done for the last 50-60 years and that might not have been too smart.

Peragro, I wouldn't expect the self-loathing Americans to understand difference between the two situations.

Lets see, you harbor an enemy who uses your house for a base and what does that make you? An innocent bystander?

You mean like they were bombed in 91 and held back? It does work both ways. They want something back for their restraint then.

It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to place soldiers or military supplies and equipment in civilian populated areas.

Since we all know that the brave patriots of Hizbollah (like the 'freedom fighters' in Iraq and Afghanistan) follow the conventions, then we know there that there is no way they would do something so despicable as to endanger innocent civilians to hide weapons.

B

Odd bit of bloody trivia whilst browsing the web,aren't we humans wonderful?

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/rnr/184098587.html

Assuming everything you say is true, we know Isreal would be at fault when civillian casualties mount up. After all, if they hide weapons in civillian areas, those are no longer civillians but also in the cause and therefore fair game. So, if weapons are found in most of the spots Isreal hits, life is good. Carry on. If not, there is a problem. You aid a terrorist, you are also a terrorist. Simple as that. No "Ands, Buts or Ifs".

It's cool. We used to write messages to others when we bombed the enemy in WWII. If the kids are important to the parents, maybe they should try staying out of the business of harboring those people. Lets see, I don't want to be dragged to jail so maybe I won't agree to harbor my cousin who is a known escaped felon.

!!

Well now,that all depends upon "mitigating circumstances"did he rape,murder or steal?and if so,there must be a reason which will absolve him from personal responsibility,so the lawyers say.............:silly:

No doubt.

Well, that is something the mindfux will have to get involved with then. They will probably trace it down to a traumatic event in childhood where Daddy didn't give Sonny a new bicycle. Or maybe Mommy didn't show Sonny enough TLC.

Indeed.

Every morning as I awake I look out toward the harbor,I do not see any dead children floating about,nor can I discern any warships nearby discharging their lethal cargo,guess I'm lucky.:(

Of all the silly Hannityesque patriotic slogans, "self-loathing Americans" is probably the silliest.

Dunno. Seems to me that happens quite often. We are often the first to blame ourselves and others seem happy to join in. What would you call it when say the Kyoto Treaty was going on? Others didn't join in or had limited participation and because we didn't want to participate, we were the bad guys. Little was mentioned about others I suppose because it was all us.

The harboring you speak of is difficult for them to stop. Dose the Iraq we occupy harbor terrorists? Why don't we do something about it? Did we harbor terrorists before 9/11, the ones who ultimately attacked us?

What I'm referring to is Israel's attacking of the Lebanese army which was not, had not, attacked them. Smooth move. Repurcussions ahead.

The Hannity brigade never considers that we have made the bed we lie in. We're the greatest nation on earth -- end of story.

If you keep pointing out the facts they're going to start calling you an anti-semite.

Arabs are bad. Jews are good. FOX told me so.

Got to raise them chilluns right.

This will be all over very soon.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.N. chief Kofi Annan called on Thursday for an immediate end to the fighting between Israeli and Hezbollah forces.

Now that Mr. Kofi has spoken, all will be OK. They'll listen, right?
If not, maybe the UN will condemn the fighting. oooooooooh.

I'd be alright with the UN's (lack of) action if they didn't take up 1/2 the available parking spaces in Manhattan.

I have to disagree with you here. What I see in those pictures is decidedly uncool.

I dunno. I suppose it is difficult to stop terrorists WHEN YOU INVITE THEM IN. Refresh my memory. Did we raise the banners and welcome mat for the 911 terrorists? Yes, if they sneak in I cannot expect you to get each and every one. However, when you know they are there and invite them in, what do you expect me to think? That they are there for the water and scenery?

So I'll wait for you to retaliate for running into your country before I shoot you. Sure. I would neutralize the army before I send troops in, if it were me. After all, you have shown your hand by being hand in glove with these people. What do you expect me to believe your army will do? Just stand by idly and watch from the sidelines?

sorry. Never watched that show. I never said we are infallable either. However it seems to me that when someone else does a certain thing, well, it is ok. When we do the same thing, suddenly we condem ourselves as the bad guy that caused the world to collapse.

We invited them here when we decided to support Israel.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

It's called war -- and we got involved.

The problem is that it is all global now. If we support Isreal, it gets us some benifits. Namely a staging ground for other wild and wonderful things, intelligence, etc, etc. We can send people there for questioning and wash our hands of what happens to them too. We also got them to hold off shooting back at Hussien during Gulf War I. However, NILIF, so you have to pay for it at some other time. If we didn't support them, well, that is also a decision that will have some bad consequences. Everything you do is a decision that will have impact of some sort. You can support, oppose or remain neutral. However it is also a decison that will come back with some unpleasant side effects. There is no free lunch which will allow you to stand back and do nothing and have all the benifits. Think about it. If my wife treated me like anybody on the street, would she be special to me and hence get some of the benifits that the other guy on the street won't get? I think not.

OK. Using that logic, Lebanon invited Isreal to do something. Since the enemy of Isreal is harbored by Lebanon that makes them the friend of their enemy and therefore an enemy of Isreal.

We will get involved one way or the other. There are no simple answers that will transcend time. It is all about the right answer for NOW. Regimes change, things change. Today's right answer may be tomorrow's wrong answer and vice versa. IT would be nice to say "If I do this, that happens and so it will be for all time." but reality bites.

Kyoto seems much more complicated than that, but your point is valid. Plenty of Americans loathe their own country, but consider how silly BenzLGB's comment was. I said:In response, peragro pointed out the difference between the US and Lebanon. BenzLGB said that self-loathing Americans would not be able to see the difference. Now, you and I are going to disagree on most issues, but we should be able to agree that my innocuous comment has nothing to do with self-loathing. Right?

True.

You know this how? Some Lebanese welcome Hezbollah cause they provide more social services than the gub-mint. People are weak like that. Does the Lebanese govt. welcome them?

Eleven Lebanese soldiers died in an Israeli airstrike on an army barracks, and one Israeli was killed by Hezbollah rockets fired into northern Israel, sources said. From:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/mideast/

LOL :D Ain't that the truth.

And we just created a new batch of bad Arabs for another generation. Like the ones growing up in Iraq weren't enough for us :rolleyes:

If both sides were treated equally by the USA what do you guys think would have changed in terms of our response?

Well, NILIF. Nothing In Life Is Free. They got the services and now they are paying for getting bought off. Guess they should have no complaint then. You dine at a 5 star restaurant and you have to expect a big bill at the end of the meal, right?

I was looking briefly at wiki and this is what I saw:

Hezbollah is regarded by the Iranian and Syrian governments, as a legitimate resistance movement and is a recognized political party in Lebanon, where it has participated in government. The civilian wing participates in the Parliament of Lebanon, taking 18% of the seats (23 out of 128) and the bloc it forms with others, the "Resistance and Development Bloc", 27,3% (see Lebanese general election, 2005). It is a minority partner in the current Cabinet.

So tell me that they are just tourists.

When both sides are valued equally they will be equally treated. If I, a mailroom clerk, were to walk up to the CEO bringing a dispute with the VP and demand that one of us has to go, who do you think will go?

Blaming the whole hatred of the US by arabs in general on Israel is an extremely naive way of looking at things. To begin with, we, the US are the Great Satan. Israel is but the Small Satan. Violence against them is but an appetizer with hopes of a greater meal.

This method of thinking ignores completly the dynamic of fuedal leadership; there is a Lord and there are vassels and then peons. In this type of government, as if that word fits, the despotic leader rules his populace through fear. However, fear is not enough. There must be some common enemy and a vehicle to foster hatred of this enemy. It's how you divert the population from noticing that life in your country sucks. If Botswana were the leading power in the world rather than us, they would be the enemy du jour.

Radical Islam in this case is the vehicle. The West is the common enemy. The West would still be the enemy regardless of what has happened historically. This is why groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida and so on fund the religous schools at the expense of any other type of education. Look to your European history for analogous examples. They were'nt called the Dark Ages for nothing.

Saying that the US wouldn't stand for foreign troops on our soil like the Marines are in Lebanon today is pretty much a pointless statement. It can only be taken as justification for continued violence in the region on the part of Hezbollah and possibly Lebanon. The fact is that the US, it's goverments and citizens, would not allow a state within a state to attack a neighbor - as the Lebanese army and government should not allow rocket attacks from thier soil into Israel. What they have done would be akin to us allowing the Dakota Indian tribe (closest thing we even have to a state within a state) to lob missiles into Winnipeg. I submit that we would take care of that situation before Canada did but if we didn't they would be completly justified in doing so. Equating the US and Lebanon in this case is at best pointless and at worst taken as it was earlier in this thread, snide political comments aside.

There is nothing at all cool about a picture of a dead child, whether he or she be Israeli, Palestinian or otherwise. I see my child in that picture. He is the same size and looks exactly that way when he sleeps. The child in the picture will not wake up and this is a tragedy, regardless of the nationality of the boy.

That's true. Did somebody do that in this thread?

I don't know, you tell me.

Not that I have seen, although I read quickly and might have missed something.

Is there a dispute here as to whether it is a remarkable thing that our Marines entered Lebanon today? I would think that everyone from Sean Hannity to the most self-loathing Hollywood liberal (;) ) would agree that what our Marines did today was a remarkable thing.

The State of Israel is not and never has been the crap of the Arab states - It is a U.S. ( mAJOR SUPPORTER ) created puppet State, supplied with latest arms weaponry and supported by the U.S. taxpayers to9 a large degree.

The remarkable thing about it is how unremarkable it seems to have our Marines just showing up in a foreign country. Imagine any other country trying to land their soldiers in the US.

Peragro, I would imagine that this is the quote that you were referring to?

Seems like to me like a straight-up comparison between the U.S. and Lebanon. Maybe some folks don't know how to rightly use the English language, but aw shucks, that sounds like a comparison to me...

Incidentally, I think it is only fair to quote your entire passage which, inmy opinion,makes perfectly good sense when not taken out of context.

Peragro, here is more of what you wrote:

Saying that the US wouldn't stand for foreign troops on our soil like the Marines are in Lebanon today is pretty much a pointless statement. It can only be taken as justification for continued violence in the region on the part of Hezbollah and possibly Lebanon. The fact is that the US, it's goverments and citizens, would not allow a state within a state to attack a neighbor - as the Lebanese army and government should not allow rocket attacks from thier soil into Israel. What they have done would be akin to us allowing the Dakota Indian tribe (closest thing we even have to a state within a state) to lob missiles into Winnipeg.

Once again Peragro, your point is very well-taken.

(PS and not tot change the subject, have you taken your kids on that steam train ride?)

As far as I could tell, it was just Fox talking about WWIII.

Read it last year in the non-partisan, "Wilson Quarterly." Also, various military scholars have been squabbling over the numbering schemas for decades. Until recently I thought that academicians and military types were the only folks who gave a flip.

Turns-out there's a whole bunch of people who seem to think it is an earth-shakingly important source of controversy.

B

To think I've been missing the war until now. Wow.

Of course it's a comparison. Any knucklehead can see that. Is there some problem with comparing the US to Lebanon?

Peragro didn't suggest that anyone had compared the US to Lebanon. He spoke of "equating" the two countries, which is what prompted my question to him.

What's your point, other than to be a dick? Are you saying that it is not remarkable that our Marines landed in Lebanon today?

If you're interested in this stuff from a less contentiously partisan, more reflectively academic perspective, here's a great place to start.
http://policyreview.org/000/corn.html

I haven't read this one but it looks interesting from skimming it:
faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/merupert/ BACEVICH%20The%20Real%20World%20War%20IV.pdf

This one will make most people's hair stand on end:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05spring/payne.htm

I tried the WQ but unless you're a subscriber they wont let you access their archives. A good library should have it. It's a great read for quiet moments on the porcelain throne.

We were not the great Satan until we manipulated Iran for fun and profit in '53 and armed the Shah to the teeth for about 26 years. Our support for Israel exacerbates the sentiment.

Nope, not yet. Work has been sending me on travel quite a bit this summer, Japan, Chicago, Maryland twice and maybe Boston for a day coming up. I'm getting to know the names of folks at LAX.

I'm thinking I might shoot for the train ride some time in the Fall. It's hotter than hell up here now, in the low 100 teens plus humidity. The only thing I want to do is be as still as possible.

The crap I am talking about is their own religious intolerance. Theres no room for that anymore in this world. As far as major supporter of Israel, that started when Europe was gettin back to its feet. I think it has continued much longer than necessary, now that the EU has the ability to kick in a bit more than in the past.

You are (still) missing the point. It's about cultural differences on one level and out and out greed and power on a higher level. The Mullahs and the politicos in charge of groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and so on play on the hatred engendered by the religous zeal according to the Mullahs. Both the politicos and the Mullah's live high on the hog (if one can do that in a Muslim culture) and grow rich off of the pain of their populace. Meanwhile the arab public for the most part don't have things like Greenpeace or Hannity and Colmes to keep themselves occupied; just some bizarre self-propogating hatred of "the Great Satan" nurtured by thier leadership. Great Satan is a job title.

Radical Islamic countries hate us because we stand for all the things that their leadership fear. They do an admirable job of changing that fear of thiers into hatred on the part of the people they rule. It would'nt matter if it was the US as a super power or Norway. Whoever it is will be hated by them simply for the sake of what they represent. When will you catch on that this is a fight between cultures and not because of what one country did or did not do decades or centuries ago?

Your continued excuseing of Muslim violence by blaming it all on the US helps the problem how? Unless your intent is to further the hatred by dredging up every wrong deed done by anyone who has ever associated with the US. What useful purpose that serves is beyond me.