aguywhoplaysthief on 16/7/2006 at 02:23
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
We invaded Iraq twice for less than what Israel is doing.
I don't understand what that means. Can you explain?
SD on 16/7/2006 at 02:42
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
I don't understand what that means. Can you explain?
It means that Israel is behaving in a way that would get any other country in the Middle East bombed back into the Stone Age.
SubJeff on 16/7/2006 at 02:48
Rubbish. Are you seriously saying that what Israel is doing is WORSE than the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?
I'd like to hear the alternatives StD. Hizbolla are firing on civilians with the explict aim of killing civilians. How can Syrian and Lebanese harbouring of these people be accepted in any way?
SD on 16/7/2006 at 03:26
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Rubbish. Are you seriously saying that what Israel is doing is WORSE than the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?
Iraq never recognised the sovereignty of Kuwait. Is it invasion if you're just trying to get back what you see as rightfully yours? Lebanon, however, is indisputibly a sovereign nation. Arguably, hostile strikes on another country are less morally justifiable than peaceful annexation of a disputed territory that you have a very good claim to. But I don't want to get bogged down in debating the merits of every throwaway comment I make on these forums, I'd be here all day!
Quote:
I'd like to hear the alternatives StD. Hizbolla are firing on civilians with the explict aim of killing civilians. How can Syrian and Lebanese harbouring of these people be accepted in any way?
Well, the alternative was that Israel didn't turn the volume up straight from 1 to 11 without first proceeding through 2 -10. But I guess it's a bit late for that. Clearly Israel has decided that the cleverest way to free a couple of hostages is to invade another sovereign nation - I mean, how can you argue with
that logic!
You can accuse Lebanon of "harbouring" Hezbollah but Hezbollah has genuine grievances with Israel, namely that Israel still, six years after withdrawing from southern Lebanon, occupies the Shebaa Farms region. Now it's disputed whether this area is part of Lebanon or Syria (although its occupants consider themselves Lebanese) but it sure ain't part of Israel.
If Israel was to withdraw from Shebaa Farms, then Hezbollah cannot justify its existence (or rather, the existence of its militias). Israel perpetuates this situation by retaining this tiny area of land which is of no benefit to it. Of course, this would require an Israeli government that didn't have a bloodyminded determination to hang on to bits of other countries, which would be a first.
Lebanon is a fuckup of a place, but it has been heading slowly in the right direction. The actions of the Israelis are going to turn the clock back to the bad old days. If Israel wants a radicalised terrorist state on its border instead of a flawed but developing plural state they're going exactly the right way about it.
Fringe on 16/7/2006 at 03:37
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Iraq never recognised the sovereignty of Kuwait. Is it invasion if you're just trying to get back what you see as rightfully yours?
This is exactly why people can never tell when you're joking.
SD on 16/7/2006 at 03:50
Quote Posted by Fringe
This is exactly why people can never tell when you're joking.
I can hardly be blamed for people not knowing their Middle Eastern history, can I?
Zygoptera on 16/7/2006 at 04:15
To head off any pointless arguement, StD is correct. Kuwait was belatedly created by the British specifically and intentionally as a means of cutting Iraq off from the Persian Gulf, and for no other reason at all. Prior to that it was part of 'Iraq'.
Aircraftkiller on 16/7/2006 at 06:58
So, for example, because Mexico lost land to the US - our STD pal wouldn't have any issues with a Mexican invasion to regain lost territory? Jokes about Mexican penis size aside, I'm of the opinion that an invasion needs to have a little bit more credibility to it than being pissed off that you lost what you had before... At least throw some resource interests into the rationale.
From what I've been reading thus far, which is completely unfounded (since I don't want to research anything at 3 AM while I'm modeling a 767-300ER), Lebanon has been harboring Hezbollah combatants for quite some time now. I wouldn't expect Isreal to "not" attack Lebanon if they're part of the problem. Of course this could just be someone's worthless opinion... If someone knows a little more, please feel free to correct me.
SubJeff on 16/7/2006 at 07:28
Oh, I agree that Israel has gone straight to 11 StD. But this comment about Iraq's view of Kuwait is among the dumbest you've made. Most of the Middle East is split into arbitary countries by the powers that ruled there in the recent past. What's your take on Northern Ireland then? Is it okay for the Republic to invade? China and Tibet? Mongolia? Stop talking crap.
Aircraftkiller on 16/7/2006 at 08:51
About the arbitrary countries, Palestine definitely seems as if it was never a nation at all.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine)
I'm kind of left here thinking "wtf" over how these people are being duped into thinking they were ever a national entity... and how anyone could possibly try to make their acts of terror look like the acts of freedom fighters. While I definitely feel sorrow for the absolute shit that Isreal puts those people through, you'd think at least some of them would figure out by now that blowing themselves up in a school bus full of kids isn't furthering their cause.
