Israel Blockades Lebanon

Oh really?

In 1948 the following nations attacked Israel:

Egypt
Syria
Jordan
Lebanon
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Yemen



This occurred almost immediately on the formation of the Israeli state.
 
LOL They don't need to when you guys and the evangelists have all the emotion they need (& cash of course).

Don't you just love a good romance
 
"by that logic..." What logic? There's no logic at all to what just came out of your mouth. There's a whole range of options between where we are and where we could go well short of nuclear weapons. You're out of your mind for even suggesting it.





Yeah, that's pretty much the plan. Kick in the door, search the house and if you find an AK and/or explosives, take the adult males of the house into the street and shoot them in the face in front of everyone else in the village. Then move to the next house and repeat. Maybe do 5-10 homes and then leave. Come back in a few days, and tell the people you're going to do it again unless they point out the bad guys. If they point out the bad guys, you shoot said bad guys, then provide them with infrastructure improvements based on what the village leaders most want. If they don't, you kick in the doors, shoot the bad guys, and then tell the village leaders what you were prepared to do if they had only pointed out who the bad guys were. It's the old fashioned carrot and the stick. It's actually a lot more complicated than that when you factor in Intelligence on the area to give you an idea of where the real bad guys are, etc. You can't just be randomly shaking down towns; you have to target known bad guy areas which means a lot of recon and intel work prior to. But for you the layman who has no idea how this plays out, this will suffice.



See above. And yes, you could probably triple those stats before started to see the tangible results. Sucks to hide Islamic Militants in your neighborhood; but then the idea is to ensure that it does suck so they don't do it.
 
The UN does not have to approve of a treaty for it to be "legal". The NFZ's were agreed upon by Iraq and the US as a term of the ceasefire. That's called making a treaty between two states and is generally recognized as legal. The term is usually, bilateral agreement...
 
Almost. What you do is kill them in mass quantities (Hezbollah or which ever Islamic militant group you'd like to insert) leading them to believe that their sacrifice is meaningless and only serves to thwart their goal. If you kill 1 of a 100, he's a martyr to the cause; if you kill 98 of 100, the cause itself is in jeapordy. You can't frighten and cow them with fear of death; you must frighten them with fear of failure and humiliation. This idea is tied fundamentally to Arab culture, which again, is why I keep saying we've got to learn about them in order to understand how they think. Poverty, hunger, the usual things we think motivates people is less of a factor than "Wasta", humiliation, and face. It's better to starve your children and save face in the community than accept humiliation, at least in their world.
 
What's your point? Are suggesting that because those countries didn't have the balls to declare war on us for what we did that we too should ignore acts of war and attacks on our soveriegnty? I don't follow what you're trying to say. (probably because you're not making sense...)
 
No, we're talking about the same thing. I said that attempting to assassinate the President was an act of war and should be treated accordingly. Any such action by the US against another nation should also be considered an act of war. However, the response from Kwajman was essentially that Nicaragua and Cuba didn't attack the US in response to our trying to kill their leaders so why should we think we can attack Iraq for it? My question is why should we consider the failure of another country's gov't to treat such an attack as an act of war be a model for how we should react to attacks on us? Their failure to act on an attack on their soveriegnty is not my problem.
 
So if you're justifying Hezbollah's actions from the standpoint that they are at war with Israel, why are you against Israel treating the situation as a state of war? When will you realize that if Israel had failed to respond, Hezbollah would've come out twice as strong as well?
 
Don't be so sure. Those "innocent" people would much rather have Hezbollah as the dominant power in Lebanon. Why do you think Hezbollah has such influence in the area in the first place?
 
Are you truely this naive? I suppose the little gray aliens that control Rush Limbaugh also let you in on this "secret"? The US has had a plan to fight a war in Korea since 1953. Obviously, it gets updated periodically. We also had a plan to fight the Soviet invasion of Europe thru the Fulda Gap. That plan was on the shelf for 50 years. There's guys in just about every Western country who's job it is to concieve of different potential enemy courses of action and plan to counter those courses of action. Every military teaches coofftopicnders how to do it, and every nation does it on a grand scale. If you had access, there's probably a plan on the shelf somewhere for the UK to fight off a German assault of France and the low countries that's about 15 years old floating around the Ministry of Defense somewhere. The point is the existence of a plan proves that a gov't is doing it's job; not that there's a conspiracy. It's also not a coincidence that the nation who developed the plan would follow it when the circumstances that drove it's creation materialize. That's kinda the point of Contingency Planning.
 
Wrong. I said for a gov't to place the interests or lives of foriegners above the interests or lives of the people they are obligated to protect (ie the citizens) is treason.



Yep, that's my job. It's also my legal obligation under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What's your point?



Yep, and I swear an oath to that effect every time I re-enlist. Again, what's your point? None of this means I'm in favor of using NBC weapons. If anything, I oppose using hi-tech weapons to try and fight 4GW because it's ineffective. It didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work in Iraq. It also won't work for Israel in Lebanon. What I'm in favor of is large numbers of troops killing the enemy in direct action confrontations. They have 5, we send 5,000. You never cease to amaze me with your willingness to spout off about a topic your are so completely ignorant of.
 
As an American who's sworn an oath to defend this country and it's people it's kinda my lawful obligation to do that. What really bothers me is that you don't value American lives and would be willing to sell them out.





Yes, it was part of the ceasefire; you can read all about it in Swartzkopf's biography.
 
Did you read the article?

It specifically notes that the "justification" for the No Fly Zones was they were necessary to prevent "humanitarian crisis"(what a load of b/s, like there were no humanitarian crisis anywhere else in the world).

It also lists China, Russia, France as calling these illegal.
 
Yes...and in 60 years how many times has Israel been attacked by people from these countries?

How many of these countries would love to blow Israel off the face of the planet but cannot due to Israel(more importantly the U.S) power?

If current events are a sign of success by Israel policy planners, I wonder how dumb the people they beat out for the job were.
 
I would love to hear these "in between" options that involved us using the "full force" of the U.S military and yet did not involve the use of weapons of mass destruction?





Oh, that makes sense. Lets kill anyone with a gun, because that makes you a terrorist....



"The bad guys" would be seen as heros, you have constantly told us "ignorant" folk that Muslims don't work the way we do. That they do not fear their deaths, they place their honor above everything else, their family above everything and yet they will turn their family in and dishonor themselves due to fear?



Yes, because we all know that everyone is honest when they point out "the bad guys". If someone says it, it must be true...

Look how well we have improved their infrastructure so far, I wouldn't pay our government a dime to improve my infrastructure based on how they are doing in Iraq.



How will you determine who these "bad guys" are exactly?

Shoot anyone who is pointed out, and pretend people are always honest?

Kill anyone with an AK because if you have a gun you must be a terrorist? [/QUOTE]





That would make sense, except as you have arrogantly pointed out, honor comes first in the Muslim mind. So exactly why would anyone dishonor themselves by giving in to fear?
 
You cannot kill them in mass quantities, all they have to do is drop their gun and go home and you won't be able to find them.... I am sure if it was feasible to kill 98 out of every 100 terrorist that we would be doing so...


Fear of failure does not result in giving up, but an increased effort. If someone almost loses, and becomes scared of failing, they do not just quit, they try even harder....

If I am afraid I will fail a test, I don't just decide not to take the test.

I study harder.



So how does this "saving face" apply to your "strategy" to scare people into tattling on the "bad guys"? Wouldn't that result in dishonor, a loss of face, something to be avoided at all costs?
 
Just like the Iraqi's living in the U.S who "knew" we would be received as heros....

Turns out they were just telling us what we wanted to hear, and what they thought would result in them getting what they wanted...
 
Back
Top