There ya go again, 4Salt, making all kinds of sense and stuff.

BWP,

When the Shah ruled Iran and until the radical Iranians over-ran the US embassy in 1979, and the Ayatolah Komehni (sp) returned, Iran was the most western like in education and lifestyle of the Arab nations. The Ayatolah fixed all that. But there are likely very many Iranians who would like to return to that lifestyle and its greater freedoms.

Sg

There was a country and man keeping Iran in check...what was his name again?

Oh, yeah...I think his name was "BushCorp would sure like to have my oil"...



I agree...but you can't for one second think that the Palestinians don't think exactly the same thing, do you?

After all, the Palestinians didn't steal land from Israel to make their [nonexistent] country, did they?

Fish on...

Todd

Actually Todd if you look back little farther in history they did just that. They might not have "stole" the land but they did take it by force. The persian empire came through and slaughtered all that would not convert in thier conquest. The Jews were there first and have just as much "right" to the land and likely more if you use your logic. I guess the Jews should have just forced conversion or death on all of them as the persians did and we would not have this mess now.
Iran would like nothing more than to boost there standing in the middle east by taking out Isreal as well. Then the suadis, Jordan, egypt and everyone el se who does not follow islamic law. No it is not the people, it is the govern but they still control teh policy and the military just like here in the good old U.S. of A.

Let's say that the Mexican drug lords got tired of the US DEA grabbing their drugs at the border so they lob a few hundred crappy missles and mortars across the border into Texas and the Mexican government won't deal with the problem. What would be the solution? Do we do nothing because Texas was stolen by force from Mexico years ago?

nicely stated hank

I re-read my post that you quoted Hank... and I couldn't find the part where I said Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself... or where I mentioned Hamas and Hezbollah at all?

The statement was made that Iran would "wipe out" Israel if they could. I was merely pointing out the extreme improbability of that actually happening.

Dan S said it best earlier. This has been going on since time immemorial and probably always will as long as there are Israelis and Palestinians.

Hey, you wouldn't happen to be one of those "the end of days is nigh upon us" types... would ya Hank?

Party (A) and party (B) both have a set in stone unbreakable opinion regarding the religion they practice and or live by, differnt from the other. Party (A) AND Party (B) have fought for hundreds of years over said religious strife brining into the arena of argument all kinds of sub disagreements, land, oil, etc. It just so happens that both of these parties have many others like them in the middle east. None have been able to stop the reoccurring violence against each other. Why we get involved I have trouble understanding. For example trying to bring democratic ways to Iraq. We might eat that ideology up like ribs on a platter. Leave em be is how I feel about the issue. I should disclose that I know very little about the facts of the above mentioned religious strife but I do know from common sense when I see 2 guys beating the hell out of each other outside of the bar over a pool shot not to go over and mitigate the situation.

Easy, we give Texas back to Mexico and consider ourselves lucky. Or, in the alternative, we annex Mexico and voila, no more Mexican border problems!

Hank,

Until the US invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq I used to think that the reason the US bothered to support Israel was to have a convenient bad cop in the ME neighborhood. Nice to have Israel knock out an Arab nuke facility so we don't have to do it and leave our fingerprints on the scene. That concept doesn't hold water any more, if it ever did. The frustration of it all has me returning to the notion that we should level the playing field by giving the Palestinians all the same weapons and training we gave and still give the Israelis. Then the Palestinians won't have to throw rocks and lob 3rd rate Syrian or Iranian rockets. Maybe they'll wipe each other out, which still seems like it would be doing the rest of the world a favor. I mean, who needs 'em?

I think I'm going to blame Moses. I read that he led the Jews around the ME for forty years and finally settled in the only place that doesn't have oil. Those are God's chosen people? That doesn't add up, does it?

+1

Funny thing is, Hank, they kind of are. I watched a segment on BBC news the other night where they showed the tunnels and underground (literally) workshops where they assembled the rockets. You can clearly see why they don't hit schyt. They're nothing but overgrown bottle rockets.


True dat.

"We've already clearly established, and I believe everyone here agrees, Hamas is guilty of war crimes. But they're not alone.

Why is everyone fixated on the missle count? 1000's of missles result in <20 deaths over a period of years. Israel's response results in >500 dead in a matter of days. That's a war crime. And if you don't believe Israel's intention is the destruction of, and prevention of any Palestinian state, you're being intellectually ingenuous."


I know I am jumping in a little late here...

But since is trying to win a war a war crime?

Vic,

Later in the discussion I'd also pointed out that disproportionate response is by defininition a war crime. As is punishing the entire populous for the actions of a relative few.

What would be an appropriate response? Before you answer... Why is your judgment of what is a more appropriate response better than the people who are being attacked?

in Gh 's opinion an appropriate response would be.."oh look they killed 20 of us, lets kill 20 of them" and so on and so on and so on, so it will never end.
Better the Israelis kill hundreds more in retaliation, so that eventually Hamas,(or the Palestinians) wise up and wonder if it is really in their best interests to continue on a course which means the assured destruction of their entire populace. Said it before and will say it again, woe be to those that tweak the Israeli's nose... YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THE ZOHAN!!!!

You guys keep inferring that logic plays a part...

You know Harley... you had me curious when you said that Israel was committing war crimes by hitting back with everything they have, so... I looked up rules of war and Geneva Convention to see if there were any rules that might define what an appropriate response would be in this situation. You know what??? I couldn't find any. Hmmm...

Here is what I did find. I find it ironic that some of the first rules of war were created my Muslims. Read this over and tell me if you think the Palestinians are living up to these rules...

Attempts to define and regulate the conduct of individuals, nations, and other agents in war and to mitigate the worst effects of war have a long history. In the early 7th century, the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, whilst instructing his Muslim army, laid down the following rules conerning warfare:

Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.[1]

These rules were put into practice during the early Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries. After the expansion of the Caliphate, Islamic legal treatises on international law from the 9th century onwards covered the application of Islamic military jurisprudence to international law,[2] including the law of treaties; the treatment of diplomats, hostages, refugees and prisoners of war in Islam; the right of asylum; conduct on the battlefield; protection of women, children and non-combatant civilians; contracts across the lines of battle; the use of poisonous weapons; and devastation of enemy territory. These laws were put into practice by Muslim armies during the Crusades, most notably by Saladin and Sultan al-Kamil. For example, after al-Kamil defeated the Franks, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food:[3]



Interesting don't you think?

Hey, I didn't write the laws. If you don't like them, write your elected officials and have them petition the UN to change the laws more to your liking. But as the laws are written now, both Hamas and Israel are equally guilty of war crimes.

Vic,
If countries still followed teachings from the 7th and 8th century, we'd still be meeting in the middle of empty pastures in broad daylight to commence with the carnage. Probably make for better TV and cut down on the "collateral damage." Gotta love that term.

Hank,
I was honestly shocked at the size of those homemade rockets. They only stood about 4 1/2 foot high and looked to have a warhead about the size of a 81mm mortar. Not what I imagined. I was thinking more along the lines of the ones you mentioned that are possibly supplied by Iran. BTW, have you any data that shows the number Iran or Lebanon has supplied?

So what is the basis of your war crimes theory??? Where are the laws that define what Israel is doing is a war crime?

I checked the Geneva convention and it did make mention of ending a war as quickly as possible. Which from my perspective is what they are attempting to do, and would do if the world community didn't constantly step in.