World War III

aaharvel

Let's talk something else? I should've never responded to Read-Alot.

How about the cease-fire resolution?

cheddar

I think the original point of all this was that there exist CURRENTLY, this day, the most prominent religious and political leaders of muslim countries advocating the destruction of Israel and deaths of Americans in their god's name. And there are no mass protests or hand-wringing from the 'average' muslim population against this. Argue all you want about what religion did what in the past in whoever's name. Today, the fanatical muslim's are in charge of the nuthouse and finding what Jews or Christians have done in the past will not protect us from what the Muslims of the present will do to us now.

cheddar

Oh, and BTW, the Pharisees would love all the hardline interpretations of the OT given by all the Bible 'experts.' Too bad Christ was killed in part because of his constant 'arguments' with the Pharisees that turned many hardline interpretations of the OT on their heads. Christ was born as the fufillment of the old laws, just not how many hardliners chose to interpret them at the time. So taking the OT without the NT is very much like taking Christ out of the Bible.

ND13

cheddar wrote:

I think the original point of all this was that there exist CURRENTLY, this day, the most prominent religious and political leaders of muslim countries advocating the destruction of Israel and deaths of Americans in their god's name. And there are no mass protests or hand-wringing from the 'average' muslim population against this. Argue all you want about what religion did what in the past in whoever's name. Today, the fanatical muslim's are in charge of the nuthouse and finding what Jews or Christians have done in the past will not protect us from what the Muslims of the present will do to us now.

That's the best post I've seen from you.:cool:

irishaz

Skynut,

Don't know if you are still paying attention to this thread, but I wanted to thank you for the post about the Marine. This just in.....Hezbollah is claiming victory and the world (even some Israelis) is under the mistaken belief that Israel was too harsh.

You called it Sky....

Unbelievable..............

Skynut

The person who wrote the letter was right, I would like to take credit but I just posted it.

It is funny how dead on it was to what is taking place.

Demiurge

There was an article posted today in a widely circulated newspaper stating that rockets were launced again into southern Lebannon. Given that headline, the inference is drawn that Israel is attaching Hezbollah, when Israel was merely responding to the 10 rockets that Hezbollah launched into Israel. It's amazing the picture the MSM tries to paint of who the enemy really is. I'll have to try and find the article to post.

ND13

This **** is FAR from over.

The Muslim's didn't even have to release the Israeli military hostages that started this whole thing(this time). So in the eyes of the Muslims, they did win and I'm sad to say, that at this point, they have won this battle. BUT the war is just getting started.

God, I hope I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that Iran is very close to doing something horrific, in proportion to the latest violence.

Demiurge

They haven't won. They used to be a state within a state, and they've been thoroughly decimated. They still have the 2 soldiers (if they're even alive), but I don't think that counts as victory. I think they fact they're close to useless does.

(Getting close to 5K!)

jdhdiggs

It's OK, we are training even more anti terrorism fighters everyday!

PolkThug

Skynut wrote:

It is funny how dead on it was to what is taking place.

Exactly. I have reposted so others can avoid the large pictures of scantily clad men on that same page.

Clearly he has been reading his autographed copy of 'Military Success for Arab Despot Dummies by the late Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Ever since Nasser accidentally discovered the trick in '56, every subsequent Arab leader has stuck to his tried and true formula for military success: Instigate a war.

Once the war is well underway and you are in the process of having your **** handed to you... get a few world powers to force your western opponent into a cease fire.

Whatever you do, don't surrender or submit to any terms dictated by your enemy. That would ruin everything! All you have to do is wait it out and eventually the world will become sickened at what is being done to your soldiers and civilian population... and will force a truce.

Once a truce has been called you can resume your intransigence (which probably caused the conflict in the first place), and even declare victory as your opponent leaves the field of battle.

This tactic has never failed. Not once.

ND13

Demiurge wrote:

They haven't won. They used to be a state within a state, and they've been thoroughly decimated. They still have the 2 soldiers (if they're even alive), but I don't think that counts as victory. I think they fact they're close to useless does.

(Getting close to 5K!)

The Muslims don't use the same qualifications for victory as the rest of the sane world does, though. Lives aren't very valuable to them as it is with us and Israel. In their eyes, getting Israel to even stop for a few days, so they can gather themselves and more recruits, IS a victory. Just like the Vietcong did before the Tet offensive.

The UN should have never forced Israel to stop until the job was finished.

Demiurge

ND13 wrote:

The Muslims don't use the same qualifications for victory as the rest of the sane world does, though. Lives aren't very valuable to them as it is with us and Israel. In their eyes, getting Israel to even stop for a few days, so they can gather themselves and more recruits, IS a victory. Just like the Vietcong did before the Tet offensive.

The UN should have never forced Israel to stop until the job was finished.

I wasn't using their standards. That's what we're trying to get rid of. It's scary they actually have their OWN reality. From a military perspective Hezbollah got it's royal **** kicked.

BIZILL

it's that same mentality/fantasy world views that keep those people hating the way they do. they don't see things for what they truely are. you can't change the minds of those whom cannot see clearly to begin with.

irishaz

On a similiar topic, did anyone else see that interview with the president of Iran? Besides being an intolerable smartass and not answering any direct questions, he won't even acknowledge his past statements regarding wiping Israel off the face of the planet. That guy is flat out f-ing nuts and I don't know who is worse - him or Kim Jong Il. Either way, you are dealing with an insane person that has a narcissitic way about them. They feel they can take on the world, and I am concerned that they just might.

I'd like to take that little Iranian out myself. What a smug little jacka$$. I thought Mike Wallace was going to snap! I beleive he will be our next foe....between us and Israel we could turn that place into a parking lot pretty quick.

aaharvel

Mike Wallace threw softballs.

ND13

aaharvel wrote:

Mike Wallace threw softballs.

Yeah, in the back of his mind, all he could think about was...if I piss this crazy son of a **** off, I might have a car bomb waiting for me after work one night/day....or worse, my wife or kids.

irishaz

Mike Wallace threw softballs

.

This idiot wouldn't even answer the "softballs" Wallace was throwing at him. At least he wasn't slobbering all over him like Rather was with Hussein. That made me ill...

It was obvioius (to me) that Wallace knew there were limitations to what he could and couldn't ask. The fact that the guy wouldn't even back up the prior statements he made was obviously frustrating Wallace (and me while I watched it). I took it for what it was - a glimpse, however contrived, at our future enemy. They are formidable and their leader, at least the political arm of it, is a nut-job. I don't think there was any more Wallace could do.

Yeah, in the back of his mind, all he could think about was...if I piss this crazy son of a **** off, I might have a car bomb waiting for me after work one night/day....or worse, my wife or kids.

Exactly my point. This was a hostile situation. Just the fact that Wallace sat there with that a-hole shows he has some serious nads. In fact, ol' Mahmoud kept asking Wallace why he was getting angry - I'll answer for him -BECAUSE YOU WON'T ANSWER THE F-ING QUESTIONS!!!!!

Now, that an American camera is not in front of him, Mahmoud is lauding the terroists and saying that Hezbollah has "hoisted the banner of victory" and that "God's promises have come true". I wonder if God is the one that told him to have an army of suicide bombers (according to Wallace around 52,000) ready to strike the US? Of course he danced his way around this question, but I wouldn't expect anything else from him.

I think the little guy is really feeling his oats right now. Why else would he agree to the interview. He tried, unsucessfully, to show that he is no Sadaam. In my opinion, he failed. He may not be murdering his citizens, but he is power hungry, a fanatic and has the bully's pulpit to scream from. I don't mind saying, he makes me more than a little nervous.

aaharvel

ND13 wrote:

Yeah, in the back of his mind, all he could think about was...if I piss this crazy son of a **** off, I might have a car bomb waiting for me after work one night/day....or worse, my wife or kids.

Wallace knew the dangers of the assignment when he took it. He was fully aware of what the man is capable of, he knew the dangers, he accepted them. He shouldn't have gone softball, and if he thought it would have warranted it by keeping himself more safe, then he should have never accepted (asked for?) the assignment in the first place.

I respect Mike Wallace, and the fact that he put himself into a hostile position. But Mike Wallace is about the only journalist that Iran has been historically known to deal with. He should've been tougher on the questions. It has nothing to do with body composition or language. that's my opinion.

dylan

You_Should_Know.pdf

Attaching my public service announcement...

MacLeod

I dont blame Wallace for asking softball questions. Who among us would go into that barbarian's lair and insult him to his face?! Youd be beheaded within seconds!!

As for the latest "cease fire" dont worry. This one will turn out like all the others. There will be a lull in the fighting while the hezbos get rearmed and ready to fight again. Then the bombings will start up all over again just like they always do.

I dont understand. Israel was on the right track. They were going to take these animals out once and for all and now theyve stopped AGAIN and let them off the hook.

Im so sick of W I wish Id voted for Kerry! At first he was "give em hell Israel!" Now he's leading the charge for "cease fires". What a crock!

The bright side is that when these scum start car bombing Israeli restaurants again, maybe we'll have a President in office with balls and will let Israel do what needs to be done. You can only negotiate with savages that have sworn their lives to killing you when theyre at room temperature (i.e. DEAD).

aaharvel

MacLeod wrote:

Im so sick of W I wish Id voted for Kerry!

Oh Your Honor I object to the witness's statement!

ND13

When are people gonna learn not to vote for a party, but for the best candidate for each specific seat??? And no, I'm not inferring that Kerry was the better candidate by any means. It's just that I've seen complete morons get elected just because they were affiliated with a particular party or what their family name is. That's what's wrong with our GREAT nation and it seems that there is no end to this madness .

Maybe it's just the Libertarian in me.:(

MacLeod

Wow! Just when I thought this thread had covered every subject possible!

But on the subject of the parties I have a few opinions. First, I used to agree with and really still do, the 2 party system. That way, most people will be happy. I think it would suck to have 7 different parties. The winner of the election would only win with 20% of the vote. That leaves a lot of people unhappy. With a 2 party system, chances are at least 50% of the voters will be happy.

Second, I pretty much believe there are only 2 sides to an issue. Regardless of if youre right or wrong, youre either for something or against it.

Third, the problem with BOTH parties right now is that Bill Clinton taught them all that if you govern by polls instead of your core beliefs, youll get elected more by being "all things to all people". Plus there are a lot of people out there that vote for a living so you can go out and promise a whole bunch of new government handouts and BINGO! Youre in! So politicians now run out and take polls before making a stand on anything, they refuse to tackle anything controversial and they spend like drunken Democrats!

So basically, Im of the belief now that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the rhetoric and that there is NO conservative party in Washington and maybe only a couple conservative politicans left.

PolkThug

MacLeod wrote:

But on the subject of the parties I have a few opinions. First, I used to agree with and really still do, the 2 party system. That way, most people will be happy. I think it would suck to have 7 different parties. The winner of the election would only win with 20% of the vote. That leaves a lot of people unhappy. With a 2 party system, chances are at least 50% of the voters will be happy.

What about a 'no party' system? Candidates would disclose what their personal beliefs are and you pick the best one.

ND13

My point is that you should be voting on the best candidate, not the party. I never mentioned anything about 2 party or multi-party systems, just that I'm a Libertarian, which imo, is the only conservative(politically, not socially) party left.

ND13

PolkThug wrote:

What about a 'no party' system? Candidates would disclose what their personal beliefs are and you pick the best one.

That's just CRAZY talk. Better be careful, someone might put you in a rubber cell.

We could only hope, but it'll never happen and you'll hear why very shortly I'm sure.

cheddar

MacLeod wrote:

I dont understand. Israel was on the right track. They were going to take these animals out once and for all and now theyve stopped AGAIN and let them off the hook.

Problem is, not even Israel was prepared to engage Syria in all out war. Turn all of Lebanon into rubble and you'll still have plenty of people crawling out of the ash after Israel leaves, just waiting to get their hands on weapons from Iran and Syria.

The real question is, when are we going to get politicians who'll take down countries that are the source of all the terrorist supplies and funding? Not even Israel had the political will to do that. And they're on the front lines...so we're back to the half-solution...

At least W took down Afganistan and Iraq...better them killing each other than sending SCUDS into Tel-Aviv.

Demiurge

ND13 wrote:

My point is that you should be voting on the best candidate, not the party. I never mentioned anything about 2 party or multi-party systems, just that I'm a Libertarian, which imo, is the only conservative(politically, not socially) party left.

In a perfect world that would be the case, but it's not. I always vote the party line. 3rd party is a wasted vote at this point, and always will be unless one of the 2 parties goes through a major revolution (which could happen soon on either side).

I'll vote for the person who mostly holds the same values, and interests as myself. At this point that's the Republican party, but less and less by the day. I'm more in your camp as far as party, but the line is drawn at a few places where the libertarians go off the deep end. We are defined by our ideology, and it's impossible not to be. You either have a certain basic view on the country and foriegn policy or you don't. Of course there are small issues where you could be at odds with the majority of your views, but it could never be enough for me to jump ship.

F1nut

An email I received today.



"A GERMAN EDITORIAL

This is a little long but a must read for everyone concerned about the future of America.

If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an opinion from an unexpected source. It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.

This is a must-read by all Americans. History may well certify its correctness.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly
500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our
(German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even
(Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.


---God Bless America---"